As many MIT-studying kids will know, cloud computing is THE FUTURE, or at least an interesting concept that's being deployed in a few places in terms of the internets. I'm not making much sense here, so let me break it down for you: cloud computing refers to the concept of entirely server-side applications being run, data being stored, etc. everything taking place remotely, while a simple stream and/or interface is shown to the user over the internet. They can access the servers from anywhere with an internet connection and use those applications and access their data. Many of Google's apps like google docs, Amazon's shopping system, etc. are examples of this kind of stuff.

Now this new conceptual game device called OnLive tries to bring the cloud computing concept into the gaming realm. That is, you'd get a small device like the one in the picture. It'll just connect to your television, and you'll hook in up to four controllers/headsets through bluetooth. Then the device sends and recieves information from a remote server farm. So essentially, the game is running on the remote server, and it's just sending back a basic video feed of what's going on.

This pretty much eliminates the need for an expensive client-side game console. The games would also all be server side, so you'd basically just be buying access to particular games. The unit that you'd have to buy would be relatively inexpensive and not very cumbersome, and easy to move around.

The problem lies with your dependancy on the remote servers. If you can't get a connection or they're down for whatever reason, you can't even turn the "console" on. Many game consoles these days aren't connected to the internet at all, and requiring it wouldn't be for everyone. Also, there would be a considerable amount of lag involved from your control input to seeing the action on the server, which is also considerably dependant on a decent and consistant connection to the server, which isn't always possible. Even at the best of times control would seem pretty clunky, but maybe that's just because I'm pretty intense with my games.

So I don't know how well this would fly with people, what do you think?

I'm sad to report that my Wii has been sitting and gathering dust for the last couple months, especially with the arrival of the Ps3, and some review titles for the 360. Recently I decided to pull out Animal Crossing again to give it another whirl, put some cash into a new house, that sort of thing.

Upon entering the town, I found it overrun with weeds. Garbage and dropped objects littered the landscape, and people's homes. Everyone I talked to was incredibly upset, reminding me that I hadn't visited/played in over two months. Tom Nook was upset that I wasn't repaying him for his recent renovation work he'd done.

I realized with this that I hate a game that penalizes the player for not playing the game often enough. I know it may work on some people, but on me it doesn't encourage me to play more, it encourages me to play less. I don't want to have to run around town cleaning up shop and blow off 1.5-2 hours just to restore the status quo before I start playing again. It hardly makes sense that everything goes to hell when I leave anyway... plenty of creatures live in that town besides me, and I'm the only one responsible for its well being?

It's disappointing that a decently-made game like this one pulls a tactic like this. The only time it doesn't matter is when it's played consistantly, and I guess for real fans of the game that isn't really a problem. But for someone like me that may have to put the game down for a couple months at a time for school, work, or other games in between, it's too much of a penalty to punish me for every single hour of gametime I didn't spend playing this.

Not sure how/when this was announced but a good friend of mine Sam Jeffery alerted me to the existance of this splashpage that rockstar put up. Looks like rumours are actually true this time and that a third Max Payne game is on the way.

The first Max Payne came out in 2001 for the PC, starring a NYC cop hardened by the deaths of his family and hunting and gunning down those responsible for it. As generic and gritty as a noir film could deliver, it was also one of the first games to provide the player with slow motion bullet-time gameplay, allowing for slow jumps through the air while launching bullets and explosives every which way. It also told its intermediate story (which was shockingly extensive for a shooter) through graphic novel-style comics narrated by decently talented voice actors.

Max Payne 2 followed and delivered more of the same but better. The story twisted and turned into a noir type love story this time, with all the characters of the last returning somehow.

Now the third one... I'm not sure what to think of. The splashpage contains an old, grizzled Max Payne. With a beard. And wrinkles??

I just finished playing Metal Gear Solid 4 (which, coincidentally, I might do a video review of for the class, that or LittleBigPlanet) which reminds me a lot of what Max Payne might be; a torn up veteran called back into action for this reason or another, and has to undergo ridiculous circumstances in the fight but the force of his old grizzled will is what keeps him pushing his frail broken body all the way through to the end. I wouldn't mind another game like that (MGS4 certainly kept me hooked emotionally until the finish) but is this sort of story/theme getting tired? ...Well maybe that's the wrong question, it's tired all right but are YOU tired of it, or rather, are people tired of it, despite how much it happens.

Either way, Max Payne 3 is going to hit the 360 and the Ps3 and probably the PC too this winter.

Any fans of the Dexter TV show will get a kick out of this. The crew at Giant Bomb were the first to post this trailer (that hit my eyes, they didn't break this or anything). Sorry that there's a massive gap between my intro and the embedded video, their embedding is ... slightly broken. Their page for the video is here if you'd like to check it out over there, or if this doesn't work for some reason.

I feel sort of lame, not only for pointing to a TED talk, but for pointing to a TED talk that was pointed to me by of of my MIT professors. It's here on their server if the embedding isn't working out (and I'm not sure how well it'll go), but it's a really interesting and thought provoking talk about the state and the future of games. I had some thoughts about the statistics he presented in particular, and I'll end up writing a response later this week.