(Xbox, PS3; $59.99; Rated T for Alcohol and Tobacco Reference/Blood/Mild Language/Suggestive Themes/Violence; www.batmanarkhamasylum.com)

To say that videogaming has not been nice to the “Batman” franchise would be an understatement.  Second only to “Superman,” the ol’ “Dark Knight” has not been treated very favorably on video game consoles, despite his many appearances.  In fact, a high-quality “Batman” game has been the exception, rather than the norm.

So it was with great trepidation and hope that “Batman: Arkham Asylum” would turn things around.  Not being released in conjunction with a movie was the first thing in “Arkham’s” favor, but being developed by a relatively unknown and untested developer, Rocksteady Studios, pretty much kept everyone on pins and needles.  No one moreso than publisher, Eidos, who was looking to hit one out of the park after its recent string of so-so and terrible releases.

As screen shots and developer walk-throughs of the game started to emerge, it began to look as though “Arkham” was going to turn out as a great-looking title.  As long as the developer could keep the same quality of visuals in-game as they had in the cinematics, “Arkham” could be something fans could get behind.  Once it was announced that voice talent from the critically acclaimed “Batman: The Animated Series” was acquired to provide the voices- most notably Mark “Don’t call me Luke” Hamill would be returning as the voice of the Joker- the future looked even brighter for the Dark Knight.

As an aside- I don’t care how many Heath Ledgers you tape together and garnish with Jack Nicholsons, Mark Hamill is the greatest Joker, ever.  End of story.

“Arkham Asylum” has been released and it is, hands-down, the greatest “Batman” game ever made- but given its predecessors, that isn’t saying much.  So I’ll also say that it’s the greatest licensed superhero game ever.  Heck, I’ll even say it’s the greatest licensed game, period.  No other game has come this close to exemplifying all of the hallmarks that make the character, his enemies, and his environment so true to the source material.

“Arkham” opens with Batman bringing the Joker into the famed psychiatric hospital.  From the beginning walk down the Arkham Intensive Treatment Intake area, the feeling of the game and its well-known characters are set.  Arkham is far from the pastel-colored, serenity-filled rooms of modern psych wards- this is a dank, dreary place and danger can be felt around every corner.  Hope left Arkham Island a long time ago; and the buildings of the asylum, while fully functioning, are as decayed as its inmates’ minds.

As one would expect, Joker springs a trap once entering the Asylum with the help of his psychotic love-interest, Harley Quinn.  Harley enables Joker to have total control of the island, bringing a host of escaped convicts to act as the muscle.  It is, of course, Batman’s job to re-gain control of the island from Joker, save the staff of Arkham, and uncover the reason why Joker wanted to be caught in the first place.

“Arkham Asylum” is really three types of games in one: It is first a game that has its own influences from the “Metroidvania” genre, but in 3-D- players will visit and re-visit areas on the island in order to uncover secrets that originally couldn’t be accessed with the equipment Bats has to begin with.  As the story progresses, and after visiting some very key places in “Batman”-lore, Batman will acquire new upgrades to his equipment allowing for the opportunity to more meticulously explore the nooks and crannies of Arkham.

Doing so will help solve the puzzles of the “Riddler’s Challenges” that are strewn about the island and its buildings.  These side diversions involve picking up hidden “Riddler Trophies” and solving environmental riddles that unlock bonus art and achievements.  Some of the riddles can be simple- a riddle mentioning a Cat means to look for something that belonged to Catwoman, however others can leave your head scratching until the wheels of your brain finally kick into place with an “A-ha!” moment.   The only thing more rewarding than figuring out a challenging riddle, was to hear how irritated The Riddler was with my ability to have solved his puzzle.

Arkham Island makes for a great setting because it allows Batman’s Rogue’s Gallery to all take roles in the game- all of the expected foes are here- from the aforementioned Joker and Riddler, to Scarecrow and Bane, and a host of others.  Those who don’t make physical appearances in the game are still represented by objects, riddles, or references noting their existence- including obscure villains like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum (yes, they are really are Batman villains) and Hush.  The attention to detail put into the game really makes “Arkham Asylum” a love-letter to fans.  And Bat-fans like me eat it up.

Finally, the stealth-action portion of the game that has Batman acting like the “World’s Greatest Detective,” gathering clues, setting up a crime scene, and analyzing DNA to track enemies; and stealthily moving through the shadows in order to take out goons along the way.  In true “Dark Knight” form, Batman uses the night to his advantage- from grappling onto gargoyles and springing on unsuspecting criminals, to scaring the guano out of enemies by picking off their compadres from the shadows one-by-one.  When engaged in combat, Bats moves effortlessly from thug to thug, dispensing vigilante justice with timed button-combos.  As more enemies are defeated, players will gain experience points which will unlock combat and equipment bonuses- why toss one Batarang, when you can toss three?

Of course, Batman never kills any of the thugs- only beats them into unconsciousness.  Because, as you know, killing is a line that The Bat doesn’t cross…

I have often said that the “Splinter Cell” stealth-action series was the best “Batman” game, despite the number of “Batman” titles on the market.  The feeling of slinking in the shadows as “Splinter Cell’s” covert operative, Sam Fisher, waiting for the perfect opportunity to strike at an enemy, and using darkness as your personal hiding spot, conveyed the exact feeling that control over “Batman” should feel.  It’s so good that finally there is a “Batman” game that does Batman so right.  A must-have.

(Xbox; approx. $15; T for mild language/violence; www.xbox.com)

To end their “Summer of Games” promotion of bite-sized downloadable games, Microsoft released “Shadow Complex” for $15, a game that could have easily sold for $40 if pressed on a DVD and sold in retail stores.

But “Shadow Complex” has a value that far outweighs a $15 price tag: it not only shows that a high-quality game experience can be had for less than the $60 retail cost that the industry has gotten used to, but it also reminds us that 2-D action/exploration is not an mechanic that was lost back in the 16-bit days of the early 90s.

“Complex” is based off of famed sci-fi author, Orson Scott Card’s “Empire” novels regarding a civil war that takes place between liberals and conservatives in the not-too-distant future.  Intended as the bridge between the first “Empire” novel and the follow-up “Hidden Empire,” “Shadow Complex” tells the story of everyman, Jason Flemming, who’s girlfriend, Claire, gets captured by paramilitary thugs while on a simple day of hiking and cave exploration- talk about a bad date.

While searching the caverns for Claire, Jason quickly learns that the spelunking he intended to do that day was more than he bargained for, as the caverns are a front for a gigantic high-tech military complex that is gearing up for an attack on San Francisco after already successfully assassinating the Vice President of the United States.  Jason is pulled into the role of the reluctant hero, needing to foil the plans of the Shadow Complex while rescuing Claire.

Yep.  That’s a contrived plot with a whole lot of cliche video game story elements to it, all right.  Let’s hope the books are better.

Where “Complex” may be a little light on story, it more than makes up for it in play mechanics, control, graphics, and overall fun.  Developers, ChAIR Entertainment openly acknowledge “Complex’s” influences coming from classic 2-D action/exploration series like “Castlevania” and “Metroid.”  Those two historic franchises exemplified the style of game so well that it’s garnered it’s own genre, “Metroidvania,” to which “Shadow Complex” pays homage to a tee.

“Metroidvania” game mechanics focus primarily on map exploration and acquiring equipment to explore more of the map.  In this style, some areas are seen but not accessed until later in the game when the right weapon or equipment is acquired- making traversing full areas of the map a necessity in order to advance, or acquire bonus items.  Though back-tracking is often frowned upon in game design, back-tracking in “Metroidvania”-styled games is meant to further the element of exploration in the game- and rewards the player for doing so.

It’s here where “Shadow Complex” succeeds so well.  Each area of exploration is perfectly designed to leave the player satisfied, while still wanting to continue playing because the next reward or area is just around the corner.  Pacing in “Shadow Complex” is perfect, save points are always about 15 minutes of play-time apart, new weapons or abilities every 30 minutes- it’s a perfect game to pick up and play for a short duration, or to waste several hours in.

The only minor issue that I take with “Shadow Complex” is the character design of the protagonist himself.  Jason looks exactly like Nathan Drake, the protagonist of the “Uncharted” series, right down the half-tuck of his t-shirt into his jeans.  To make matters worse, Nolan North, who provides the voice acting for Jason, also is the voice of Nathan Drake- making the two characters virtual carbon copies of each other.

This begs the questions- did they design Jason before securing Nolan North’s voice? Did they intend Jason to be a Drake-ripoff? And can it be a ripoff if the exact same guy plays the exact same character? Has Nolan North become the Samuel L. Jackson of videogames? Mysteries abound.

The downloadable aspect of the game makes for a short game, around 6 hours or so the first time through.  But time-honored 2-D traditions of “speed-runs,” to see how quickly the game can be completed, are uploaded to an online leaderboard to see if players have got the skills to beat their friend’s best time.

Those needing a retro-revival of a long-dormant genre are wise to invest the small amount of money it takes to download “Shadow Complex.” For that matter, I’d rather  download “Complex” four times rather than play some of the junk that is passed off as a $60 title.  We can only hope that the sequel to the game comes quickly, and is as well received as “Super Metroid” was to “Metroid” back in the day.

Look how smart I am. Look!

With August here, we find ourselves in a barren wasteland of video game titles.

Which isn’t so bad because the weather is so surprisingly nice, you should be outside anyhow.

Nevertheless, titles that I hoped to review for this column either are unavailable to me (”Wii Sports Resort”), have broken code in desperate need of a patch (”Fat Princess), or release at the end of the month (”Batman: Arkham Asylum,” “Madden 10″).  As such, there’s not a whole lot to talk about until the next few months where there will be too much to talk about.

Which gives me room to espouse thoughts and philosophy on an unsuspecting audience for where I think this industry is headed and where it needs to go.  Undeniably, video games are a major pillar of entertainment- generating more sales than box office sales and music.  But the industry is still in its infancy compared to mediums like film, books, and music- there’s a whole lot farther we have to go until we get a “Citizen Kane,” an “Odyssey,” or an “Abbey Road.”

And so, I present the top three ways to improve the video game industry for business and consumers:

1.  True Variable Pricing

Virtually all games for consoles retail at $59.99; last generation console games retailed mostly at $49.99.  Consumers still pay nearly the same amount for a game that they payed ever since the entire industry switched from the cartridge-based game to a disc-based game, despite the cost-cutting measure of being able to press a game onto a disc.  Yet the retail cost of games slowly creep upward with “special edition” titles starting at $69.99 and skyrocketing to $129.99 for a single game.

Activision suddenly realized that gamers would be daft enough to spend over $120 regularly on games with built-in peripherals and so have a version of their “Tony Hawk,” “Call of Duty,” “Guitar Hero,” and “DJ Hero” games this season, each with over a $120 price-point.  Activision recently announced the “Renegade Edition” version of their freshman title “DJ Hero” that is estimated to retail for a sticker-shocking $200- $50 less than the price of a Wii console.

With development costs soaring into the multi-millions, publishers justify these higher prices in order to recoup the cost of their investment into development.  But pocket-books can only afford so many $60 games- consumers need more affordable games, not less affordable.

Variable pricing on games would allow developers to compete financially with bigger-named titles, while growing an audience in the hope of establishing a franchise that would warrant a higher-priced game.  Instead of taxing a development studio to pad games with boring additional levels or broken multiplayer, publishers should encourage shorter, tighter gameplay, cut the fat, and sell a $40 experience as a $40 experience, not a $40 experience with $20 of junk in order to look like a $60 experience.  Not every game can compete with a “Call of Duty” or a “Halo” at the same price-point, so why bother?

A classic example of variable pricing was the end-run Sega performed when putting its “NFL 2K” series up against the “Madden NFL” juggernaut and released its $50 experience for $20.  Not only did this cause the sales of the $20 “2K” to skyrocket and establish an audience that would normally not have purchased two football titles for $50 each, but it performed so well that it caused EA Sports to pay for the right to use the NFL license exclusively in order to shut-out Sega from competition.

The problem is that there is pressure on developers by publishers to create a “fuller” experience by adding extras into a game that no one wants or needs.  Why was there a multiplayer mode in “Condemned 2?” No one played it, no one cared about it, and it was terribly implemented- but it was there.  The multiplayer mode helped justify the $60 price tag of “Condemned 2″ when it launched, but development resources that went into making a half-hearted multiplayer in “Condemned” takes away from the resources that can go into polishing a great single-player experience.

The direct-download space has allowed for greater variable pricing in downloadable content- seeing great games like “Geometry Wars” for $5 was an unbelievable deal for gamers when the Xbox 360 launched, and it established a franchise that warranted “Geometry Wars 2,” at its current $15 price, to still be a great deal.  Publishers needs to embrace this philosphy when it comes to retail releases in order to get more games into the hands of consumers with the hope of being able to turn a solid profit.

2.  More Story, Less Game

My lovely wife, no matter how much I hope, isn’t crazy about video games.  She does, however, enjoy sitting beside me and helping me figure out more cerebral, slow-paced games with good stories- “Silent Hill 2″ being her favorite.  What I’ve learned from gaming with my wife, is that some people love to play games, and some are content to experience a good game as its being played.

Twitchy, shooter-happy games that involve loudly destroying every enemy on the screen isn’t the type of entertainment that makes someone want to snuggle up beside you; but a quality interactive narrative that two people can take in together makes a pretty good substitution for another movie night, or hours of reality television.

As gamers get older and audiences grow, room needs to be made for a “less gamey” game- one that has elements of interactivity to it, but used primarily to draw players deeper into the narrative.  With the advances in graphics and technology, the dream of a “Choose Your Own Adventure” style of interactive story is available, but more developers need to be willing to experiment with this genre.

Quantic Dreams, developer of the upcoming “Heavy Rain” has been approaching this type of game since releasing the critically successful “Indigo Prophesy” in 2005.  “Prophesy,” which presents as a story told from multiple characters, followed an unconventional style of gameplay that most critics found refreshing.  “Heavy Rain” looks to improve upon the technology and seemlessly integrates cutscenes and in-game action, making the presentation an uninterrupted story with interactive elements.  Players will, again, play from the perspective of several characters in a murder-mystery and make the choices of how characters respond to elements while directing the narrative through how the game is played.

In addition to pushing the medium of video games as a story-telling device, these games encourage multiplayer connections without having to build a game that requires multiplayer controls: my wife and I can experience this game together, she can choose to direct how some characters will respond to situations, and I to others.  We get to play together- I get the benefit of holding the controller and she gets the benefit of not having to hold the controller, but still play along side of me.  Games like this can encourage non-gamers to actually pick up a controller in the future because they’ve already cut their teeth on an interactive narrative and now want to take the next step in gaming.

And if nothing more, it’s a nice break from all of the gunfire and explosions, without having to resort to sports or games built for kindergarteners.
3.  Episodic Gaming

“Episodic Gaming,” the idea of disbursing a game in short segments and over a period of time, was the catchphrase of developers a few years ago.  Developing and distributing a game over the course of several months caught most recognition in the industry when mega-developer, Valve, announced that it was developing episodes for “Half Life 2.” Unfortunately, Valve, notorious for taking its sweet time to release anything, took years in between releasing Episodes 1 and 2, and still hasn’t released Episode 3.  Titles like “Siren,” “Alone in the Dark,” and “Alan Wake” present themselves as episodic by chopping up their levels into “episodes,” but still release as a full game.

Episodic gaming is a great idea, but if the development cycle takes years, we might as well get a full game out of the deal.  The best reason to have episodic gaming for the consumer is to be able to get a satisfying-sized portion of game, while staying hungry for the next installment- take too long for that next course to come out, and gamers will have moved onto an entirely different meal.

Developer Telltale Games, has gotten the model for episode-driven gaming down with the release of the  “Sam & Max” point-and-click adventure series.  Each “season” of game has approximately six episodes lasting a few hours each.  Combined- a season is the same or a little more than a full-released title.  The model works well for gamers because they can pay in installments for their game- no more having to plunk down $60 for a game all at once, they can pay $10 per episode over the course of a season.  This benefits the player as well by being able to try out a portion of the game to see if it is their type of game, without having to spend the entire amount for a game.

For developers and publishers, Episodic Gaming works for the same reason- people who would normally not pay full price for a game are now willing to pay for an episode because of the lower cost of entry.  Likewise, pre-selling season passes for a game to fans, puts money in the bank earning interest before the later episodes are finailzed- helping to defray the costs of development on the current or future seasons.  Telltale had so much success with “Sam & Max” that they have become exclusively an Episodic developer- putting out additional seasons of “Sam & Max,” as well as point-and-click titles based on the “Strongbad,” “Wallace & Gromit,” and the recently released “Monkey Island” series.

Why stop with adventure series though? True episodic gaming could be as compelling as a season of “Lost” and equally as competitive in the marketplace.  Hollywood has seen success with selling viewers of “The Sopranos” the ability to watch episodes first-run on HBO, and then sold other customers the DVD of the season on the back-end, who’s to say that the game industry can’t take the same approach by selling episodes to those willing to pay top dollar for the first-run experience as it airs, and then sell to a whole new audience by compiling the episodes into a full game release? If episodes of a shooter or action game had the pacing and story of an episode of “24,” players would be foaming at the mouth to get the download and play the next episode.

The recent success of Nintendo’s “Wii” ushered in an entirely new audience that would never have considered themselves “gamers,” causing the industry to explore new avenues for game content and a new barometer for what is considered a “good” game and what makes a financially successful game.  Old standards for game design and release windows need to be cast aside with emerging reliance on downloadable distribution and an aging audience that has more responsibilities and less time to spend playing games.  Taking these factors into consideration of how the business of games can change makes the industry even more competitive and lucrative than where its gotten already.

(PS3; $59.99; Rated T for Blood/Drug Reference/Language/Mild Suggestive Themes/Violence; www.infamousthegame.com)

Despite the lack of a “Sly Cooper” game for the PS3- a title that I absolutely can’t wait to see make its way into High-Definition- Developer Sucker Punch, has given us the mechanics of their “Sly Cooper” titles wrapped in its stylish, edgy, and more Teen-oriented action-platformer, “Infamous,” exclusively on the PS3.

“Grand Theft Auto” defined the go-anywhere/do-anything style of sandbox gameplay on which many have iterated.  The Xbox 360’s “Crackdown” took the “GTA” sandbox and gave it verticality by allowing players to bound up buildings and across rooftops in its super-cop shoot-em-up.  “Infamous” continues to iterate by taking the width and breadth of city exploration, but adds moral choices and super-powers to give players the story of regular-Joe-turned-super-Joe and his evolution to become either the savior of the city, or its ultimate undoing.

Though moral choice is all the rage in gaming these days, “Infamous” experiences the same problem that other games have encountered when allowing the character to choose whether he will be good or evil: the narrative doesn’t support a character that acts truly evil and inevitably rewards doing good.  The game’s primary mission structure is the same regardless of what shade of character players choose; regardless of how dastardly you would like your character to be, he’ll ultimately have to do “good” things that help the city from destroying itself because the narrative calls for it.

There isn’t a separate story line for each branch of morality, but I can’t totally fault Sucker Punch from not developing the game that way- doing so would have required creating at least two games, not one- an undertaking that isn’t likely to be financially feasible.

Nevertheless, the differentiation between “good” and “evil” powers in “Infamous” is satisfying and adds to the characterization of Cole, the protagonist, even if the different powers don’t have a direct effect on the narrative.  Doing good allows players to play with more precision and subtlety which cause less collateral damage, enabling players to take down enemies without causing harm to civilians- thereby earning their respect and assistance from the police.  “Evil” powers throw caution to the wind and create more wanton destruction than necessary- if some poor schlep gets in the way of arching red lightning from your hands… well.. he should have watched where he was going, shouldn’t he?

The sandbox nature of the game is a blast to explore, while the mission that advance the story are fun and varied.  Sucker Punch never fails to deliver a striking and stylized game, and “Infamous” is no different- whether climbing up sky scrapers, gliding along power lines, or causing chain reactions that end up destroying a city block- the game and its cutscenes bring alive the comic-book nature of the story, making this a striking and edgy game appropriate for the high school crowd.

(Xbox 360, Ps3; $59.99; Rated M for Blood/Strong Language/Violence; www.redfaction.com)

For a game that stayed relatively low on the hype-radar, the newest edition of the “Red Faction” franchise hits with as much force as its main character’s trusty sledgehammer.

“Red Faction: Guerilla” is the first time the series appears in a third-person perspective as opposed to the first-person perspective of its two predecessors.  This turns out to be a welcome change: 1. Because there are more than enough first-person shooters out there, and 2. It makes for some very fun Geo-Mod shennanigans.

What the heck is a “Geo-Mod” shennanigan?

The “Red Faction” series’ calling card has been the ability to destroy parts buildings and assorted structures in order to make firefights more interesting.  See a need to get through a building, but the doorway is blocked by enemies? Blow a hole in the wall and flank them.  The previous games ability to destroy was limited- a basic skeleon structure would remain even if players blew the heck out of the stucture.  With “Guerilla,” the new Geo-Mod 2.0 allows players to completely dismantle every structure in the game- brick by brick.

The benefit of having free control of the camera in a third-person perspective allows players to actually get to see the glorious explosions they make in the game, while running away to get clear of the blast zone.  The Geo-Mod technology allows for some very fun mechanics in the, now, open-world game.  For instance, players can set remote-detonation charges all over a building, attract enemies into the building, and lead them up to the second level; then the player can leap out of the 2nd-story window and detonate the charges, trapping all of the enemies inside and blowing them to kingdom-come.

Sadistic? Maybe.  Entertaining? Definitely.

“Guerilla” is chock-full of game.  After arriving on Mars, the oppressive Martian government ends up killing your brother which pulls you into the middle of a band of freedom fighters.  In order to avenge your sibling’s demise, the Red Faction uses you and your demoltion skills to wreak total havok.  Progressing through a variety of mission types will recruit more guerilla fighters to the Faction’s side- but it’s all really a thin narrative as an excuse to blow more stuff up.

When not playing the single-player campaign, “Guerilla” has an offline multiplayer mode that challenges players to see who can cause more destruction in a short period of time, as well as a healthy and enjoyable online multiplayer that gives players power-ups like the “Rhino Pack,” which allows players to runs straight through a building in order cause its collapse on unsuspecting opponents.

Perhaps it’s appropriate that “Guerilla” was released in the summer- it is definitely on-par with blockbuster movie releases: no one really cares what the plot is, stuff blows up real pretty-like, and everyone goes home feeling like they got their money’s worth…

Unless you saw “Transformers 2;” but then again- you knew what you were getting into.

(Xbox 360, PS3, Wii; $49.99-59/99; Rated E10+ (Wii) for Comic Mischief/Fantasy Violence, Rated T (Xbox, PS3) for Comic Mischief/Fantasty Violence/Mild Language; www.ghostbustersgame.com)

To this day, the original “Ghostbusters” remains one of my top ten favorite movies of all time.

Heck, I even think that “Ghostbusters II” wasn’t half bad.

So it is without hyperbole when I say that “Ghostbusters: The Video Game” was my most anticipated title this year.  After getting tossed aside as one of the titles that Activision decided to not publish when it bought out Vivendi Games, I thought it might never see the light of day.  Surprisingly, Atari- a company up against the ropes financially- bought the publishing rights to it and released it in conjunction with the movie’s 25th anniversary.  The move was a win for Atari, and a win for Ghostheads all over.

Much ballyhoo and credit has gone to “Ghostbusters” writers, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis for penning the script to this “Ghostbusters.”  How much of the actual scribing Akroyd and Ramis actually will likely be debated in the same vein as the “writing” of “Good Will Hunting” by Ben Affleck and Matt Damon.  Nevertheless, it’s clear that Akroyd and Ramis had at least some collaberation on the project and they have both stated that they intended “Ghostbusters: The Video Game” to be cannonical- for all intents and purposes, this is “Ghostbusters III.”

Nothing solidifies this more than having the entire cast of the original “Ghostbusters” back to voice their characters in the game- save for Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weaver, who’s characters do not appear in the game.

That’s right folks, they even got Bill Murray to come back and reprise his role as Dr. Pete Venkman- that’s huge.

Of all the characters though Akroyd really brings Ray Stantz back to life- he sounds just as he did back in ‘84; honorable mentions should be given for Ramis’ Egon Spengler and Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddemore, but as big of a “get” it was for Murray to reprise his Venkman, he phones it in a little too much.

Developers, Terminal Reality, obviously have as much of a love affair for the material as the fans do- “Ghosbusters” is littered with nods to the previous movies, opportunities to explore the firehouse, and chasing after Slimer in the Sedgewick Hotel.  Everything that a Ghosthead would want from a “Ghostbusters” game is here- wrestling a ghost with a proton stream and ultimately capturing it in a trap feels right, the characters look exactly as they should on the High Definition systems- and even on the limited hardware of the Wii, the stylized/cartoonish look of the Ghostbusters begs for an updated cartoon series.

It is with this care and downright enjoyable story that will ultimately propel the player, fan or not, through what is, otherwise, a mediocre gameplay.  Were there not all of the trappings and fan-service, and if there wasn’t such a rich property about which to create a game, the gameplay mechanics and level design would only be ho-hum and ultimately boring after a few hours of play- bustin’ makes me feel good, but a little more variety would make me feel great.

Still, it’s the nostalgia factor and the Hollywood talent that wins me over.  “Ghostbusters” puts me as a new Ghostbuster among the original four, the feeling and humor of being a Ghostbuster is right-on, and this is probably a better experience than any third movie could have been.

It’s cliche, I know, but for my money- “who ya gonna call?”

Originally appearing on the Nintendo Entertainment System in 1987, “Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out!!” was one of those games that eveyone who played an NES either owned, or knew someone who did. The original arcade version of “Punch-Out!!” gave us larger-than-life characters who, though not as iconic as Mario or Donkey Kong, are every bit steeped in Nintendo history and fondly remembered by fans.

Both the arcade and console versions of the game amounted to more pattern-recognition, than a deep boxing title- due, in part, to the hardware constraints at the time. Each boxer, from Glass Joe to Bald Bull to King Hippo had their own pattern of punches and “tells” that would clue the player into knowing when to dodge and when to strike. Opportunists could disrupt a pattern in order to get more powerful “Star Punches” and help them unleash stronger punches.

It was a simple game, with simple gameplay mechanics and a whole lot of personality.

Fast forward more than twenty years and “Punch-Out!!” for the Wii continues to be the same simple game with a whole lot of personality- only updated for the use of motion-controls which families have become accustomed to over the past few years.

It’s fair to say that enough time has occurred between the release of “Super Punch-Out!!” for the Super NES in 1994 and the Wii version of “Punch-Out!!” to not feel that the current title feels like just a rehash. Though the Wii version shares the bulk of the original fighters from the past games and that the fighters still fight and “tell” the same way, the Wii version’s artstyle and embrace of the old games’ charm makes this version of “Punch-Out!!” feel truly like an homage or a “reboot” to the series, and not just some cashed-in remake.

Basically: the mechanics worked then, still work now; and where visuals and sound needed to be updated to suit current technology, “Punch-Out!!” delivers.

Of course for the new version, motion-controls can be used to control protagonist, Little Mac on his rise through the circuits. Punching left and right using the Wii remote and nunchuck feels natural enough; and for those new to the game- the Wii motions will suffice. A bonus needs to be given to the development team for including the use of the Wii Balance Board to dodge left and right by leaning if players choose to do so. The combination of all three certainly encourages players to get up and move with the game.

But even more kudos need to be given for the inclusion of “Punch-Out!!” being able to be played using the original controls from 1987. For those looking to purchase the game for nostolgic purposes, the original control scheme will fire up the long-dormant muscle memories players have on how to defeat those old characters.

To the new kids having their first exposure to “Punch-Out!!” with the Wii-mote and nunchuck: that’s fine and dandy, but the original controls are where it’s at- it’s faster, its more responsive, and it’s the way “Punch-Out!!” is meant to be played.

Additional modes like multiplayer and the “Title Defense Mode” give “Punch-Out!!” some legs, especially because there’s very little incentive to play through a game like this once all of the opponent’s patterns are learned. These added modes were another wise move by the develoment team, who obviously had a love for the original game and wanted others to share in that love.

It was great in ‘87, and still classic in ‘09.

‘Killzone,’ which was supposed to be the PlayStation’s answer to the Xbox’s ‘Halo,’ put up a pretty good firefight when it was initially released, but it ultimately ran out of ammo and got taken down by critics and fans for being mediocre and easily-forgettable.

In an attempt to make things more memorable, Sony released “footage” of ‘Killzone 2′ when it made the announcement of the PS3.  Along with touting the incredible hardware of the system at E3 2005, Sony showed clips from upcoming games, including ‘Killzone 2′ that looked more amazing than anything anyone had seen in a video game.  The intensity of the firefights, the detail in the faces- it all seemed too good to be true.

And it was, because none of the footage on that reel came from an actual game.

Instead, Sony hired computer animators to make mock-ups of what Sony wanted the games to look like.  None of the footage shown was real, although Sony passed it off as being so.  Later, Sony would admit that the reel was “target rendered” and, although not actual game footage, showed what the PS3 was graphically capable of in terms of a video game.

That set expectations for ‘Killzone 2′ astronomically high, put enormous pressure on developer Guerrilla Games, and most assumed that the final product of ‘Killzone 2′ would fall far short of that “target render.”

Granted, ‘Killzone 2′ was delayed over and over again, and development has taken over four years, but ‘Killzone 2′ is finally released.  Can it compare to that notorious preview, or give the Xbox’s shooters “Halo” and “Gears of War” a run for its money?

Undoubtedly, and then some.

‘Killzone 2′ is one of the best shooters out there.  It’s better than ‘Halo 3′ in terms of its single-player campaign, and is just as enjoyable as ‘Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare’ in terms of its multiplayer.

The single-player storyline sees you as roughneck in the most testosterone-laden, foul-mouthed military squad this side of Marcus Fenix and the rest of Delta Squad from “Gears of War.” Taking the fight to the sci-fi fascist world of Helghan, players will fight the Helghast on their own turf.  This includes mostly charred or ashen landscapes which not only helps explain why the Helghast have to wear their heavy, ominous respirators, but also why they are in such a bad mood.

Though the gameplay isn’t quite up to the “target render” of 2005, Guerilla did a pretty fantastic job of coming pretty darn close.  This is by far one of the best looking games to date, and the incredible cutscenes and sweeping orchestral score only support what is a superbly cinematic experience throughout.

If anything, the PS3’s Dualshock controller is the most awkward thing about playing ‘Killzone 2.’ For a guy that’s become so accustomed to the Xbox’s elegant controller for first-person shooters, the Dualshock just seems to feel off.  Even tweaking the controls to better suit my Xbox experience, the PS3’s controller just doesn’t do it for me.  For PS3 natives, I’m sure this won’t be a problem, but for someone that prefers the 360 controller, I wish I could use that instead of the Dualshock.

Multiplayer, in its implementation, is better than ‘Halo 3′ and ‘Call of Duty 4′ and makes for a very fun experience.  Though the both have a far-superior party and matchmaking system, ‘Halo’ and ‘COD4′ are limited in playing one type of game per match.  ‘Killzone 2′ makes for a very enjoyable multiplayer experience as all gametypes are covered in a single play-session.  The game objectives in mulitplayer will shift throughout the match, moving from straight-up Deathmatch, to King of the Hill, and Escort-type missions.  Each mission-type has a goal number or time limit that whenever each is reached, the match switches to the next mission-type.  I enjoyed this type of play more, as half of my play-time was not spent sitting in a lobby waiting for a game to start.

Instead I spent my time… you know… playing a game.

The only downside to ‘Killzone’s’ experience-based system for unlocking classes and weapons is that there was too much time in between achieving another skill or weapon, unlike “COD4,” the pioneer of this system, which seems to constantly reward you every 30-40 minutes of play.

As a result, I went back and started playing “COD4″ again, and boy that’s a fun game!

Nevertheless, the PS3 has its top-tier shooter, and anyone with the system is right in picking it up.

I was surprised, as many were, when EA announced that it was releasing a sequel to its game based on Francis Ford Coppolla’s film of Mario Puzo’s “The Godfather.”  The source material for “The Godfather: The Game” was an interesting hook to try to draw fans of the open-world crime genre game from “Grand Theft Auto,” but the game itself was only moderately successful.  I expected (hoped?) that the franchise ideas of “The Godfather” as a video game would sleep with the fishes.

So when “The Godfather II” was released, I wasn’t expecting much- however, I was pleasantly surprised and thankful to be wrong.

Paralleling the events seen on the big-screen, the game version of “The Godfather II” doesn’t involve players as directly in the film narrative as the first “Godfather” did.  Instead, the world of “The Godfather” is represented, familiar characters are part of the game experience, and the player’s protagonist, Dominic, is part of the Corleone family.  However this is where the connection to the film ends.  The game version of “Godfather II” is primarily a stand-alone experience and bears no real connection to the first “Godfather” game, or even its source materials.

This is a good thing because “The Godfather II” is ultimately a very good open-world crime game with strategic and squad elements which make for a unique experience and unlike anything seen in the “Grand Theft Auto” series.  Ironically, with only a loose connection to the source material, “The Godfather II” most benefits from being… well… not very “Godfather-y.”

The advertising slogan for this game is “Act like a Mobster, think like a Don.” which is probably the most succinct description of playstyle that I’ve heard since “Eat pellets, avoid Ghosts.”  The game runs on two levels: At the Mobster level, the game behaves very similar to its predecessor and any other game in the genre.  Players will go from mission to mission in order take down enemy families, shake down businesses to get them to pay you protection money, and control business that will add to your funds and army.  On the streets, you’ll use all methods of nastiness to get your point across- from baseball bats to the head, to firebombing businesses, to even more ungentlemanly acts.  Basically, I wouldn’t want to be a pedestrian standing next to any high buildings in this game.

Along the way, players will recruit new specialists into your family such as arsonists and medics, who’s specialties will come in handy as players start moving higher up the family food chains.  This is where the squad and strategy aspects of the Don level of gameplay emerge.  Deciding which business to take over add to your family’s overall strength, but once players control a monopoly in any specific industry- such as gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc.- bonus items are awarded that affect all of the members in your family and can add to your effectiveness.

Rival families are vying for their territory as well, so bonuses are lost once that monopoly is broken up.  Family warfare makes for carefully planned strategy of how to best accomplish destroying rival gangs in order to take away their bonuses while keeping your own.

The look of “Godfather II” isn’t nearly as moody or somber as its predecessor which is a welcome change.  The cities where players build their empires- New York, Miami, and Havana all are distinct and stylized.  The tutorials that run throughout the first part of the game, introducing players to the nuances and mechanics of “Godfather II” all pop and feel completely out of place for a game with the “Godfather” moniker on it, it’s actually more befitting of “Ocean’s 11.”

Though the game is set in the late-50s and early-60s, the hairstyles and clothing options are not consistent with the time period.  Everyone in the game is wearing open-shirts with butterfly collars and even bell-bottoms can be found.  Now I’ve watched enough “Mad Men” to know that wasn’t what people were wearing during the time when the game is set.

Which only reinforces the though that this game doesn’t need the “Godfather” license associated with it.  If anything the branding only holds it back.  EA should save the money it’s paying for the “Godfather” license, rebrand this as “Mobster” and continue to iterate on the gameplay and look, unencumbered.

A lot of talk happens in the industry about “games as art.” The industry as a whole wants games to be recognized as an art form, whereas detractors- like film-critic Roger Ebert- are outspoken that video games cannot be seen as art on par with film or literature.  Where the dissent in the “games as art” debate comes from confuses me; when experiencing a game such as “Flower,” such a dissent is down-right ludicrous.

“Flower” is a game, for certain; but it is not a game in the traditional sense: there is no enemy or opposition, there is no formal score to achieve, there is no “winning.” Players can complete the game, but like completing a book or a film, the sense of accomplishment is really only in completing it- not how it was completed or how well it was completed.

“Flower” is also a sensory experience.  Each “stage” is an environment where players begin as a single flower pedal caught in a breeze.  Controlling the breeze by using the PS3 controller’s motion sensor, players will fly through the environment looking for other flowers to pick up other pedals.  As more flowers appear and more pedals are collected, the landscape begins to fill with more color, sounds, and flowers.

This is where the “gameness” of “Flower” ends.  Players can either choose to obsessively collect every flower in the environment to make the pedal-filled breeze flow colorfully throughout the environment, fly through the environment to the end of the stage, or just stay in the environment and experience the world.

Choosing to “experience” “Flower” by “playing” “Flower” is the greatest treat- its images and sounds are relaxing while the flying through the environment is still engaging.  For the first time, I played a video game before heading to bed, and it soothed me.  “Flower” is a tranquil game.  Unquestionably, it is also an artistic experience.

A game for everyone? Well, like any work of art, it can be experienced by anyone but not appreciated by everyone.  “Flower” isn’t going to find favor with 13-17 year old boys who just want to use their PS3s to shoot aliens or cause virtual destruction; others outside that demographic may just not “get it.”

For those who want to appreciate how the medium of video games, and interactive entertainment in general, are an evolving art form- look no further.

“Flower” is both a game and not a game; an experience, but more than an experience; something that you play, and something you just control.  My existential approach to this review is now over.  I’m only too glad that this review was written, for fear that I would have been punched in the face for making “quotes” with my fingers too much if required to explain “Flower” verbally.