It was 2 am. and Valve had put out the hotly anticipated "Survival Pack" out for Left 4 Dead. I had been looking forward to it for months now, and I downloaded it immediately after it was uploaded onto Xbox LIVE. I think I've played through enough of the new content to give an opinion on it.

Survival Mode

The DLC first includes the titular "Survival" Mode. basically you fight an endless supply of zombies and hold out as long as you can. If you think it's just the final stage set to another map, you are sorely mistaken. Survival kicks it up a notch by spawning multiple special infected at the same time. You'll end up fighting 2 Tanks at once (assuming if you live long enough), as well as multiple smokers, boomers, etc. The action gets really intense and exciting. But I think spawning duplicate special infected is a tad excessive. Trying to take out 2 smokers at the same time tends to get really frustrating and can be a huge buzzkill.

First is the new map, the Lighthouse. it's relatively compact and well built for survival mode. And it's certainly welcome since the game doesn't have a lot in terms of content. The rest of the maps are just "crescendo" moments from the other campaigns that have been tweaked to accommodate for the new game type.

The biggest issue I had was lag. As of right now, Survival mode is poorly optimized for online play. once the horde came in, my ping would suddenly go to shit. And as of right now, don't even bother playing on the Lighthouse. The server traffic is so high that every time I started a game at the Lighthouse, I would time out and get booted off. But once the initial excitement dies down, and high server traffic goes away, most of the lag should go away. But it's still something to throw out there though.

Versus Mode

The other thing that the Survival Pack includes is Death Toll and Dead Air for Versus mode. Overall these are great new additions to versus mode and will make things fresh again. Though I did find a few glaring exploits (especially in Dead Air) that I don't want to go into for fear of people using them. Besides I'm sure they'll figure it out anyway.

So as of right now, Survival mode is far from perfect. Extreme lag and excessive smoker spawning really suck a lot of fun out of it. But I trust Valve to stabilize it soon enough. And finally getting Death Toll and Dead Air on Versus is great, even tough there are some things Valve can fix there too. I still say think you should download it immediately since it's completely free and at a little over 100MB it won't put a huge dent in your HDD. I think I'm just gonna hold out on playing any more Survival until they iron out all the bugs.

The current generation of game platforms has been really good to us so far. I honestly think this is one of the best generations we've had yet. You got your full retail games (and their 20-someodd sequels) You got smaller Indie games from Xbox LIVE Arcade, WiiWare and the Playstation Network. Back catalogs like the Wii Virtual Console, Xbox Originals, and Playstation Classics (in case you don't have the earlier consoles). Casual games for the newcomers, hardcore games for the veterans. And games that are in the limelight are more diverse than ever. But for all the really cool things that have come out of this cycle so far, there have been equally cool ideas that simply haven't caught on. I'm going to talk about what I think is the biggest missed opportunity for each platform.

Xbox 360(and PC now that I think about it)

Cross-platform play. The idea that you playing the Xbox 360 version of a game while your friend is playing the PC version WITH YOU has always been somewhat of a pipe-dream. Microsoft implemented Games for Windows LIVE cross-platform play with Shadowrun in its debut. The game wasn't that good, and there were steep hurdles to overcome if you wanted to play with your console playing friends. But the fact that it has been done was exciting in and of itself.

When Microsoft said they were going to use Games for Windows LIVE with the PC port of Gears of War, I was frothing over the potential of it being cross-platform. At the time I didn't have a 360 (yet) and my brother did with Gears of War. So naturally I was excited, only to find out it wasn't utilizing the feature. Since then Games for Windows LIVE has been revised, and all the original hurdles have been lifted, but only a few games support cross-platform play, and none of them being very good; I think the best game that DOES use it is Lost Planet: Colonies.

Now if they were to use it for . . . say . . . Left 4 Dead, or Call of Duty: World at War, they would've struck gold. But it has simply gone back to pipe-dream status. Too bad.

Playstation 3

The Playstation 3 is by far, the most versatile of the 3 consoles. Being able to install Linux, using 8GB jump drives as memory cards, using your own HDD, Blu-ray, third party mods. That's right, all that awesome stuff that makes PC gaming so cool you could potentially do on PS3, but the biggest missed opportunity on the PS3 is . . .

Third party mods. The only game as far as I know that use third party mods is Unreal Tournament III (and Little Big Planet to a lesser extent). The ability to use the UnrealEd toolkit to build your own levels, mutators, mods, etc. and "cook" them for use on the PS3. Having a feature like that in other games like Fallout 3's G.E.C.K toolkit or SourceDK for the Orange Box would probably render PC gaming obsolete. I like modding, I don't like having to deal with drivers or other little issues because the developers didn't devote enough time on the PC version.

Wii

Ugh, take your pick.

- The lack of quality games
- Bad online experience
- No true 1:1 movement until June (and only for certain games)
- waggle controls that don't "revolutionize" the experience
- Older franchises recycling the same formula (i.e Zelda and Metroid. Yeah I'm calling Nintendo out on this bullshit)
- Repackaging Gamecube games as new Wii games.

As a loyal Nintendo devotee for the past three console cycles I can't help but be disillusioned by the Wii and Nintendo's current business model. And I know I'm not the only one.

NOTE: the last one on that list isn't a missed opportunity so much as it is simply BULLSHIT!!

OK I think I've rambled on long enough. And to all of y'all, what is your opinion on the biggest missed opportunities this generation?

I posted this blog on Gamespot. But I thought I'd post it here too since Gamespot, as far as I'm concerned, is irrelevant.

This generation has been great so far. All the different technical aspects of each console has given us many interesting ways to play. Though there are a lot of great games out for this generation, too often it feels like I'm playing a last-gen game with HD graphics. I've put together a few ideas that I believe could re-invigorate each genre to make them feel truly "next-gen."

First up: action games. This goes under any kind of shooter (1st, 3r, top down etc), beat-em-up and anything else where you kill something.

1st idea: Take better advantage of physics. Most action games consider physics as "ragdolls" and nothing else. Crysis really is my main example of this.On the surface Crysis is little more than a Far Cry-esque tactical shooter, but its creative use of physics allow you to tackle your objective in far more inventive ways than your typical action game. I'm suggesting to make that the norm for action games now. Or at least use as a standard now.

2nd idea: Don't spoon-feed the players. This was my ONLY gripe with Bioshock and I've been seeing more of a trend in this in recent years, in an attempt to appeal to the "casual" crowd. But there IS a difference between streamlining and spoon-feeding. Streamlining is when a games mechanics are made easier for beginners to grasp. But a streamlined game can still be just as appealing as any other one. But when [Bioshock] literally tells you where to go with an arrow that's pixel perfect and tells you to flip a switch by covering it in shiny gold paint, that level of spoon-feeding assistance just insults the player's intelligence.If you want to give clues on where you should go, leave subtle clues in the environment. If there is a switch next to a bridge that a player has to lower, there's no need to point an arrow to it. An action game that requires a player to think on his/her feet every now and again tends to be far more interesting than one that doesn't.

Next up: RPGs

One word: Setting. about 99.9% of all RPGs use either a fantasy or a sci-fi theme, especially the former. Every now and again you'll see one that branches out a little bit, twisting the typical fantasy or sci-fi universe. My thought is why not branch out further than that. Make an RPG set in the present. A crime drama RPG (GTARPG anyone?). Tom Clancey's RPG game. A WWII RPG. There are so many different themes to use and fantasy and sci-fi are continued being run to the ground. Tell me you wouldn't be interested in any of these.

Now: Sports

One thing and one thing only: Euphoria. Have all sports games implement Euphoria technology. Madden has been around for a good 20 years now, and since 2002, Madden games have played exactly the same way. Only the ball has any sort of physics engine behind it, so why not use a physics engine for the whole game. Anyone who has seen Backbreaker will tell you that it blows Madden out of the water in terms of realism. I'm saying if EA, 2K, Activision, Ubisoft all use a physics engine in their sports games it would really game them play SOO much better, since a big factor would be real-time physical contact, and not so much Player 1's tackle rating vs. Player 2's tacklebreak rating. Every sports game would benefit form having a physics engine.

And last: Strategy

Tom Clancy's Endwar had something going for them with Theatre of War. For those who don't now Theatre of War is the game Persistent online multiplayer mode. Well, why not expand on it. Make an MMORTS. Make a game world massive, and have small scale battle throughout the map. An army would essentially be a guild, and the player instead of being commanders of an entire army, make them a sergeant for a battalion.

These are only a few idea for a few genres. comment on what you would think would be a genre revitalizer.

I've been on Xbox LIVE for the past 2-and-a-half years. I for one love the service. I have no issue paying for it, since $50 a year isn't that much at all (about $4.17 a month). The overall community isn't the greatest. We all know of the fucknuckle pissants that play Halo 3, Call of Duty, and Left 4 Dead.

here's a great example.

LIVE is great, but it's far from perfect. I'm sure there are hundreds of things that can be fixed. But I'm gonna focus on a few big issues that I think would make the service ten times better (HINT: they all involve matchmaking).

1. Separate the zones. My zone is recreation. Which means that I like to simply have fun playing online. I'm not a competitive player mainly cause I suck at vs. games. I would like to play with people with similar goals. I think if Microsoft separates servers by zone. it would (a) give zones more purpose. I'm sorry, but if your zone is "Pro" and your Gamerscore is under 2000, you're not Pro. And (b) it would improve matchmaking. If you're a competitive (Pro) player and want to play against other competitive players, jump into a random game and LIVE will take to a Pro server. If you don't take your gaming that seriously (a.k.a. recreation) and you want to just play with other players. you'll be in a Recreation server.

2. Have a way to sort out preferred and avoided players. I've played with some really cool people on LIVE (as rare as that may be). Afterward I'll give them a good review. But if I go to my list of player I've play with. There's no way to sort them out. And the players list only hold the last 50 (I think) people you've played with. I think if they kept you're preferred and avoided players. It would be easier to pick them out and invite them to a game without having to send a friend request/accept request/etc.

There are a few other fixes I can think of, but these are mainly on a game-to-game basis (more server-side options, etc). I think these changes would improve matchmaking by a lot. It wouldn't stop all of the matchmaking problems, there'll still be many of little Chocolate Milk fans out there. But anyway. Feel free to comment on how you think Microsoft can improve Xbox LIVE.

Well I've finally made a Destructoid account. For my first couple of blogs I just though I'd get my opinions out of the way. We all know this argument and I usually don't like to talk about this one. But I figured I should get it out of the way in case if anyone's curious.

Basically, video games are no more art as movies or music is art. What I don't like about this question is the fact that the word "art" doesn't mean anything. When someone says "it was a work of art". What does that mean? did he just like it? Does he think it's pretty? Does he actually have a trained artistic eye? What does he see as art? I think if he said "It has great artistic merits." or better, "It has an artistically creative style." I know these are still fairly ambiguous, but if it's worded this way. We can assume that there was some inspiration or technique involved. Saying video games, in general, are art is like saying all music, including pop music, is art. Would you consider Hanna Montana art?

There are plenty of video games that are artistically creative and have legitimate artistic merit. But I wouldn't consider Rainbow Six art (I still love it though), just like I wouldn't say most Summer blockbusters or, as mentioned above, pop music are art, but are still good. And it can go the other way around. There are plenty of those pretentious, self-indulgent "art-house" games/movies/etc. that are considered art, but just because it's art doesn't mean it's good.

Well I think I've gone into this enough, I'll post something more interesting next time. Till then, have fun.