But one question that has never faced gamers before will be an issue when looking at upgrading from one console to the next this go-around: What is going to happen to all the content I have on my current system?

This is the digital era. I have 85 gb of content stored to my Xbox 360′s hard drive and, while much of that is game installs, the rest is made up of the “arcade” games available on Xbox Live Arcade and PSN, downloadable add-on content for games, and digital downloads of full retail games. Some of the downloaded games also have their own DLC, which strikes me as a real through-the-looking-glass sort of moment.

Full copies of games you'd otherwise purchase at retail are available both on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. What happens with the next generation of systems, though?

These are games I’ve bought and, in the case of the digital versions of games also sold at retail, are indistinguishable from hard copies. Yet I’m worried. I’m worried that these games could be completely worthless or, at the least, feature-handicapped in the future should Microsoft (or Sony for PSN) decide to flip a switch and shut off some servers. In the case of the Xbox 360, though the detachable hard drive means it’s possible to take your content on the go, you can only make use of DLC and full versions of games if they’re authenticated by Xbox Live; if I want to take my hard drive to a friend’s and make use of my Rock Band library, their 360 must be plugged in.

The authentication and access to games isn’t just a worry in cases like that, but for more practical reasons as well. The 360 has proven itself to be a bit fragile; my current 360 is my fifth, and I’m hardly an edge case. If you suffer a Red Ring of Death or any other kind of 360-killing malady, you have to migrate your account from the old console to the new one’s serial number. While it’s an annoyance during the 360′s life span, what happens in another five years? If your old NES or Genesis or even PlayStation 2 died, you just buy a new one; the games were kept within a physical medium and plug right in without a problem. But what happens in five or 10 years when my 360 inevitably dies again and I have to track down a replacement? Will Xbox Live still allow me to do what it does now in 2011?

While content on the current console is a question, what about taking content on to the next generation? Though few games had DLC on the original Xbox, you could previously download it on the 360; now, though, since the original Xbox’s Xbox Live servers have gone offline, it’s left you high and dry. While I doubt people will want to buy new content, even for Xbox 360 games in the far-flung future, what about retrieving what you’ve already purchased? Plus, as established, content delivery digitally is a much bigger deal this generation; that will be important to keep in mind, but it’s still Microsoft or Sony’s ball to take and go home with.

I’ll admit it’s all speculation and worry at this point, but admit it: a best-case scenario where everything still works, like in PC gaming, is probably a pipe dream. This is the point where I shake my fists at PC gamers sitting up in the cloud on Steam at this moment. But this is an issue that will be wider than gaming within the next 10 years; seeing the gaming industry’s reaction is going to be fascinating and, potentially, vital to digital rights beyond our favorite little corner of the entertainment world.

Bungie and Halo: the story of a studio defined by its most popular product. Because of the series’ success, few could have guessed that another company would ever be in a position to make Halo games. But Bungie has formally stepped away from its massive franchise after a decade and billions of dollars in sales, finally realizing a 2007 announcement that it would become an independent company free of Microsoft’s yoke.

Halo: Reach is the studio’s magnum opus, and it unexpectedly recaptures the feeling of cleverness and ingenuity of Halo: Combat Evolved, when Master Chief was a fresh face in the crowd of first-person shooters.

Noble Six and Jun ponder for a moment in the darkness

The Halo series is seen as having a unique fan base – one that’s easy to joke about. The general perception of a Halo player is of a pimple-faced “he,” a male who’s no older than 13 and speaks with a racist and homophobic world view.

That’s how I’ve regarded Halo up until now: ironically defined by stereotyping a unnamed mass of tween and teenaged bigots. In finishing Reach I’ve had to face the realization that, for the past six years, – since Halo 2 and the original Xbox Live platform allowed gamers to go head-to-head online in anonymity – I’ve been judging the series by its largely made-up audience, a demographic that exists but certainly doesn’t define every player of Halo. The events of Halo 2 and 3 also contributed to my indifference toward the series, a pair of games that did little more than dilute Master Chief into fighting uglier aliens for duty’s sake, making friends with the Elites and saving Cortana from an ancient and psychic Flood-king. It’s all been absolute science fiction schlock.

Not until Reach have I ever respected a Halo title. Bungie has crafted an experience that fills in the gaping holes of all the non-ODST Halo titles up until now by writing a mature and subtle story depicting the fall of the planet Reach.

More games need to look like this — sweepingly epic, and colorful

The reason Reach is a mature Halo adventure is its use of undercurrents. I’m referring to the use of plot threads and scene-setting techniques that show rather than tell. Sweeping vistas fill the screen throughout the different regions of Reach; each one is unexpectedly gorgeous, distinct and painterly. The use of such complex skyboxes ingrains a sense of tension for Noble Team. When you witness the burning skyline of Reach’s capital city you will rightfully feel as though you’re fighting on an alien world against a well-organized invading force that’s winning the war, battle by battle in the manner of a film documentary. Halo: Reach is cinéma vérité with plasma cannons.

And while Bungie hasn’t penned a complex plot for Reach, what’s there is charming in its simplicity and affecting in its somber tone. After hidden Covenant invasion forces are discovered on Reach by Noble Team, an all-encompassing attempt to defend, then evacuate, humanity’s second home ensues. In the end the UNSC forces fail, which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone who’s played the other Halo games. Yet what makes Reach great is its expertly paced progression toward such a bleak outcome, and how Noble Team directly influences the outcome of the entire Halo universe.

By the end of the game I was convinced that Noble Team would succeed and save the day, despite knowing the opposite was true. Bungie presents its missions in a way that engenders slivers of optimism – that if I pulled off this last-ditch objective, Noble Team could rescue enough humans before Reach is blasted into a wasteland. Whether I was dog fighting with Banshees in space or piloting an attack helicopter high above the streets in the best sequence of the entire game, Halo: Reach almost always made me feel like I was having fun. In these moments the game transcends a typical Halo affair and offers glimpses into what Bungie is capable of creating in its future endeavors.

The faces of Noble Team: Dependable, but forgettable

For such a well-scripted experience, it’s unfortunate that the characters of Noble Team aren’t noteworthy. They’re presented as bland pastiches of other film and game heroes. There’s the silent sniper, the brooding brute, the reticent rookie and the consummate commander. Kat, the first prevalent female Spartan to my knowledge, is a mighty-tough member of Noble Team, and perhaps the best archetype introduced to the Halo universe since Cortana. She doesn’t say much but she loves taking control, which speaks volumes to her character. And that’s Reach, simply put: It doesn’t have to be vocal to say a lot about itself. A fantastic game in its own right and the best Halo game I’ve ever played, it never tries too hard to be anything more than an appropriate goodbye to millions of fans worldwide.

Despite its change in attitude, Reach is still Halo. Elites will still fly.

If comments from Microsoft are to be believed, new Halo titles will be on store shelves faster than ever. I’d be surprised if any Halo players unversed in the industry’s politics will notice a difference between a Bungie Halo and a Halo from 343 Industries, the development team exclusively formed to develop the future of the brand.

However, this game is not a melancholy passing-of-the-torch affair. Halo: Reach manages to, as the culmination of dedication to a single idea for so many years, surpass all the previous incarnations of Halo. I had the best Halo experience imaginable with Reach despite attempts to remain skeptical throughout the campaign.

How bittersweet is it for Bungie, a developer that has come a long way since Marathon and Myth, to create its greatest game ever at the end an important era for video games?

Recommended for:

• Halo fans, obviously
• Gamers who have shied away from previous Halo games; Reach has more in common with BioShock than Call of Duty
• More mature players who recognize the importance of atmosphere over trite plot and gameplay gimmicks

Not Recommended for:

• Those (very few but loud) 13-year-old bigots — go away, please

Halo: Reach was developed by Bungie and published by Microsoft. The game retails for $59.99, and is exclusive to the Xbox 360. The reviewer purchased the game himself, and played through the campaign in its entirety in co-op on normal difficulty, and also completed numerous missions on legendary difficulty. He played a lot of Firefight and didn’t do too bad in Matchmaking Multiplayer. His Spartan is colored turquoise and brown, which he thinks is an awesome (and overlooked) color combination.

Read our policy on reviews here.

Be it books, films or music, people will predictably take their favorite forms of media with them to solitary sands. That’s obvious, because no one is going to voluntarily listen to Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch on cassette for 10 years while waiting for a Carnival cruise ship to pass by. Have we already forgotten what technological isolation did to Tom Hanks?

This is what happens when you can't play Doodle Jump on your iPhone

So picture, if you would, a particular sort of desert island scenario, one without sand and crystal clear water but pine trees and an algae-plagued lake. There’s also dust. Lots of dust.

I worked a summer job at Camp Pioneer for two months, a Boy Scouts of America summer camp located in central Oregon, where the air was pure and the Internet was slow to non-existent. I brought my Xbox 360 hard drive and a few of my favorite games; With no access to Xbox Live and its myriad of wonderful releases this season (Limbo, Monkey Island 2: Special Edition and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: The Game to name a few), I knew I’d be spending the little free time I had with the older hits.

Yet in late June I remembered Crackdown 2 was nearing its release.

Hey, only 499 left to go!

To some gamers, the first Crackdown was not much more than a DVD with a link to the Halo 3 beta. However, I gave Crackdown a chance to prove itself. Its faults were readily apparent – from slowdown and glitches to awkward shooting mechanics and a corny plot – yet in spite of the problems it made an amicable impression on me. There weren’t many other games out there that could turn city rooftops into a super-powered pedestrian highway.

Crackdown 2 had been in stores for two weeks by my next trip into town. After a stressful first month of camp, I needed to channel my frustrations into something both constructive and destructive. I thought I needed a new game – any game. A person can only read so many books at once in a poorly patched, canvas-roofed sleeping shack. So it was with eager anticipation that I spent $59.99 on Crackdown 2 during an arid Wednesday afternoon in July.

It was a total waste of money.

Crackdown 2 is the premiere release from Ruffian Games, a developer that houses some migrated talent from Realtime Worlds, the original creators of Crackdown. Even so, Ruffian’s interpretation of the series could only have been impressive if the first Crackdown didn’t already exist.

Crackdown 2 is a complete rehash of an over three year old game. And with the return of the series’ repetitive elements of collecting and killing everything that beeps or bellows, a deep sameness pervades the entire experience of the sequel, which ruins the finished product. Imagine if a painter painted the same portrait twice, but he brushed a very tiny hat onto the second one and then labeled each portrait separately, as if there was a legitimate distinction between the two. Crackdown 2 is Crackdown 1 wearing a very tiny hat.

Bet you can't guess which Crackdown this image is from! Here's a hint: In this Crackdown you collect orbs.

But I, lost in the technologically desolate forests beneath Mt. Jefferson, simply couldn’t get enough of the game. Between breaks and after work, you’d find me in the hidden gaming nook inside the medic’s lodge trying to power up some kind of energy beam that did something I can hardly remember. The plot was another throwaway attempt at a cohesive narrative.

Crackdown 2 was a momentary addiction, and I only figured out why that was after I had packed up and left. What it came down to was a very basic case of supply and demand. I demanded something new to enhance my downtime, and Crackdown 2 was the best supplier I could think of. And no, StarCraft II never even crossed my mind.

It’s not that Crackdown 2 is a terrible game, it just lacks in ingenuity. What could have been a lavish sequel turned out to be an unimaginative trip down memory lane. Thrust once again into Pacific City – but wait, it’s 10 years later and there are mutants! – to level up the same five skills and listen to the same, grating douche of an announcer throw out compliments and biting condemnation…it’s painfully vapid.

The best part of Crackdown 2: The Wing Suit. Also, take note of the tiny hat.

Perspective affects personal taste quite heavily, and it’s easy to forget that. There’s no question that had I been in my typical, interconnected-to-nerdy-things environment I would have passed on Crackdown 2. But for two months I was missing out on new videogames, and my desire to buy something – anything – got in the way of my usual buyer-beware nature. My decision to purchase Crackdown 2 is regrettable because it’s a barely improved version of an experience that was enjoyable in 2007, but not so enjoyable that it deserved to be shamelessly replicated a second time.

Let’s just say that Crackdown 2 won’t be the one videogame I pack in my desert island survival kit.

• 1 month: $9.99, up from $7.99; approximately a 25% increase
• 3 months: $24.99, up from $19.99; approximately a 25% increase
• 12 months: $59.99, up from $49.99; approximately a 20% increase

This seems to be sparking some backlash among the masses of outspoken Xbox Live members because hey, it’s always been $50 per year ever since Xbox Live launched in late 2002, right?

Right. But fifty bucks isn’t what fifty bucks used to be. When you calculate the change in relative worth of the US dollar over time, you see something like this:

It turns out that, by just about any measure, $50 in 2002 is roughly equivalent in worth to $60 in 2010. And yes, you could potentially make the argument that Microsoft should be saving a lot of money through diminishing operating costs for maintaining a server infrastructure for machines that are now running five-year-old hardware. But there’s also the valid counterargument that interface updates and access to new free services have helped to maintain a relatively consistent value for Xbox Live.

Is the price increase unexpected? Absolutely not. Microsoft’s gearing up to integrate services like ESPN into its Xbox Live Gold service this fall, and that must have been an expensive deal between the two companies. But when you just take a look at the numbers, there’s nothing controversial about this at all.

I’ve tried to keep some distance from the debate over whether games can be — or currently are — art. It’s my belief that art is in the eye of the beholder, so who cares if a few critics (including some critics of another medium entirely) disagree? I’ve had experiences with games that have been as thought-provoking and moving as some of the best movies, books, paintings, songs, and so on.

But if you’re not content to sit by the sidelines and just let Roger Ebert trash-talk games, you’ll find some strong ammunition for your viewpoint in Limbo, Playdead’s debut Xbox Live Arcade title and the first game out the door in this year’s Summer of Arcade series. With its bold, almost suffocating art style, excellent use of sound and subtle yet significant method of storytelling, Limbo is a thoroughly inspired concept that couldn’t be realized in any other medium.

From the moment I began playing Limbo, all my notions that I’d cobbled together from a few screenshots and brief descriptions about what the game might be were dismissed outright. There isn’t any text telling a story here; this is visually driven narration, and it’s striking just how powerful it is.

Utilizing a monochromatic color palette and a fuzzy, limited depth of field, Limbo’s world manages to come alive in some unexpected ways. Animations are fluid and expressive, particularly in the case of the silhouetted boy, your protagonist, which is surprising when you consider that his expression is limited to the fluid swinging of his limbs as he runs and the constant stare of his two glowing, blank eyes.

The environment is brought to life through a strong combination of small but significant ambient animations, such as kicking up dust in your wake or small clumps of dirt falling as you scale a cliff, and the minimalist sound work. The result is a world that gives the illusion of just barely concealing untold horrors at the corners of your eyes. It’s a harrowing, unsettling feeling, and it’s executed flawlessly.

While Limbo does have a premise, it’s intentionally succinct: your sister has gone missing and you have entered Limbo to save her. I wouldn’t have expected a straightforward platformer without a single written or spoken word of exposition to have a plot, but I was impressed to see that there absolutely is one. Things will happen to the player, and things will happen around the player, and the way that Limbo uses these events to both add variety and depth to the play experience and to shape the narrative in some bold and poignant ways in the player’s mind is admirable.

I think it’s only fair to say that Limbo is a beautiful, artistic experience. But Limbo is a game, too, and while its design and execution are consistently good, the puzzle-based platforming gameplay doesn’t remain as fresh or inspired from start to finish as the world the game is bringing to life. This becomes particularly noticeable at around the halfway point, where the concepts that made the first portion of the game fresh and exciting are reintroduced without perhaps as much variation or innovation as they might have demanded. As a result, by the time the credits roll, you’ll probably find that your eagerness to see the conclusion is much stronger than your desire to complete yet another physics-based box puzzle.

If you’re like me, a game with ambitious ideas and strong presentation means a lot more than a fully-developed, highly polished core game. In that case, you’re going to really enjoy Limbo. But puzzle-platformer enthusiasts who were hoping for a game with the escalating difficulty and depth of Braid might find themselves disappointed with the relatively short adventure and flat challenge of Limbo. But if you’re on the fence, you might as well take the leap; you never know what you’ll find on the other side.

Limbo was developed by Playdead and is available on Xbox Live Arcade for 1200 Microsoft Points ($15). Game was played to completion over approximately four hours, and another two hours were spent going back to find the secret locations, resulting in a final completion rating of 99%.

Recommended for

• Aesthetes with an eye for artistic games
• Anyone who appreciates rich, moody, beautiful environments
• Video game enthusiasts who value games that tap into a player’s thoughts and emotions

Not Recommended for

• Budget-conscious consumers concerned with getting the most playtime for their money; Limbo will probably only take the average player about four hours to finish
• Anyone who thinks the sort of people in the “Recommended” section sound like a bunch of pretentious jerks

Read our policy on reviews here.

Once the millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of labor hours have resulted in a finished, big-name console video game, how do publishers and developers earn their money back? From gamers like us buying titles at a store.

However, not all purchases are created equal. This is why Electronic Arts announced on Monday the continuation of its value-added online program, now called the EA Sports Online Pass. It appears to be much like programs in Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age: Origins and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Mass Effect 2′s Cerberus Network, for instance, grants access to free add-on downloads, including weapons, armor, and short missions. This is a project that is reportedly referred to within EA as Project Ten Dollar. Gamers who purchase one of EA Sports’ catalog of games this summer receive a code in the package which, after being inputted into the game, allows you access to bonus features. Since the code is only good for one use (and one PSN or Xbox Live account), if you don’t buy the game new, you have to pay $10 for a pass of your own.

Or, at least, that’s what it looks like on paper. While the Cerberus Network in Mass Effect 2 really does provide extra content on top of what you pay $60 for, the catch to the EA Sports Online Pass is in the fine print: “bonus features” that your code unlocks in EA Sports’ 2010 games include basic online and online dynasty modes previously available for free in all EA Sports games. For NCAA Football 11, for example, your Online Pass helps unlock “Online Multiplayer Modes such as Online Play Now, Head-to-Head, Online Dynasty, and More.” The same goes for EA Sports’ Madden, NHL, NBA Live, and Tiger Woods franchises; other games still have details to be announced.

Keep in mind that this is, for Xbox 360 owners, on top of the yearly Xbox Live Gold account fees that you would need to be able to play online in the first place.

This is a continuation of a policy from last year where codes packed in with new copies of games provided access to advanced online multiplayer modes; for NCAA Football and Madden, for example, these were the online dynasty modes. If you didn’t buy your copy new, you had to stump up $10 for a code.

Electronic Arts is, essentially, adding a major incentive to buying a game brand new for $60. Don’t buy it brand new? You can’t play online. You need to either pay $10 for a pass, or make use of a single 7-day free trial available for your Xbox Live or PSN account for each title.

The repercussions of Project Ten Dollar will be felt by more than just sports gamers

Why does this matter? If you’re reading Silicon Sasquatch, I’d imagine you may care far less about sports games than your humble author does. You might have never purchased or played an EA Sports title before in your life. But you do care about rising costs in games and, I would imagine, how to prevent them. Madden has traditionally been one of the top-selling games in the United States, and the FIFA Soccer franchise is one of the best-selling games throughout the rest of the world, especially in Europe.

The major reason EA is looking at this as an alternative way to make money? For the quarter ending December 31, 2009, EA lost $110 million on total net sales of $1.24 billion. They sold more than a billion dollars worth of games, but still lost over one hundred million dollars. That’s in just one quarter last year.

Though EA would never come straight out and say it, a leading reason why they’re doing this is GameStop. While EA lost $110 million in one quarter last year, GameStop made just over $9 billion in sales for their whole year. While this doesn’t take into account things like paying employees, taxes, or other liabilities, that’s still a lot of video game sales. Dig into the numbers a bit more, and you’ll find that, despite used video game sales being only 26% of the total for GameStop, they represented almost half of GameStop’s profits — $1.12 billion.

That’s a lot of money made by selling used games. Those “used” games sitting right next to newly-released titles, but priced roughly $5 less, represent a huge area of profit for GameStop, but just as large a drain on publishers like Electronic Arts. While new games made up the largest amount of GameStop’s revenue, the money they kept on those sales was only 20% — roughly half — what they keep on used-game sales.

I am at kind of a loss as to how to react to this move by EA. As a gamer, it’s a little upsetting: EA is essentially holding a key feature of their games for ransom, and while it may not effect my buying habits (as I tend to buy EA Sports titles brand new), it will definitely affect others I know. I sense that a lot of people may not know enough about the fine print to realize they’re getting a raw deal if they do go into GameStop and buy the cheaper used version for $5 less. For gamers who buy new copies of EA Sports titles, whether from Best Buy, Amazon, Wal-Mart, or GameStop, all that changes is having to input another code; however, it’s a potential deal-breaker for more casual gamers looking for a good deal.

However, as a business student, I understand EA’s dilemma. They’re hemorrhaging money, despite good sales and high-profile titles, and they need to find a new way to make sure they don’t continually lose money. This is a way to receive at least a small kick-back from used-game sales, and encourage $60 new-title sales. It’s also a shot across the bow of GameStop, who have to know the jig is up when it comes to their high-profit-margin used game market.

If EA sees this program as successful this year — and I would define “success” as anything but a sharp reduction in sales — then expect to see other publishers, namely Ubisoft and Activision, start to try and implement similar plans into their own games. And that could spread a problem that may haunt more than just sports gamers.

Aaron

After five minutes of a capture-the-flag match in the Halo: Reach beta, I thought to myself: “I know what this is. This is Halo 2 — and 3. Ugh.” Yes, I really did “ugh” in my mind.

Halo multiplayer is meant for split-screen or system link parties held among banter-prone friends who throw out a mixture of taunts and encouragement. The online version of Halo doesn’t appeal to me — it wasn’t made for my tastes. But as I was downloading the latest Halo beta I told myself I must like Reach’s online component. For once I wanted to understand the zealous admiration Halo fans have for the series’ online portion. I also wanted to know why some people won’t let Halo 2 die.

My plan was to approach Reach without any negative preconceptions. I thought it would be easy thanks to excellent video documentaries like “Once More Unto the Breach,” which demonstrate Bungie’s passion for the numerous changes, tweaks and upgrades to the core single-player experience. I was quick to assume that those changes would carry over to the multiplayer. Unfortunately they don’t, and nothing much has changed as a result. For an overwhelming majority of gamers both part-time and hardcore that’s fantastic news. For me it’s disappointing.

However, the Reach beta does have two things going for it. The class powers add a layer of fun to the experience that the bubble shield and other Halo 3 equipment never fully achieved. Secondly, Bungie’s social filter options are genius. A player can choose different match tags to find “chatty” or “polite” players, and the browser will find games with your similar preferences. I could even search for others at my same skill level. Options like this are brilliant, and they need to become the status quo for other blockbuster console titles.

So maybe I’ll ease up on my hype for awhile. I’ll still browse the news sites and click on the links with “Reach” in the headline, but I’ll be apprehensive. I’ll bide my time until the game is out, and the consensus is clear for the more important parts: the single-player and co-op campaigns.

Nick

I’m a weekender when it comes to Halo. Although I was participating in 16-player fragfests on a weekly basis nearly a decade ago, my love for Halo waned once college — and Halo 2′s online-focused multiplayer — arrived. Like Smash Bros. and Goldeneye before it, I always associated Halo with getting a group of friends crammed together on a couch, blowing each other to pieces and having a grand old time.

But then Xbox Live was born, and Microsoft saw an opportunity for its flagship franchise to lay the foundation for the first significant console-based gaming network. Maybe it had just as much to do with all my friends heading off in different directions at that point in life, but the massive LANs at friends’ houses had long since come to an end and the only way to play Halo together was over a 10Mbps connection with the aid of a wonky, uncomfortable headset. Finally: All the thrills of the Halo experience coupled with the creature comforts of working in a call center.

So yeah, I approached Halo: Reach expecting to be disappointed. And it wasn’t until I had been needled, stuck with a sticky grenade, circle-strafed and bashed with a flag — which only took about two minutes, given my skill level — that the old, familiar Halo rage began to percolate within me. I avoid online shooters on Xbox Live because I don’t want to be forced to share any space, real or virtual, with someone who identifies as XxJUGGALOLZxX.

But at the same time, I felt a tingle of nostalgia coming on. I remembered all the fun I used to have with Halo. And then it dawned on me: the game hadn’t changed — I had.

Fortunately, like Aaron mentioned, Bungie has taken some intelligent steps toward shaping your online play experience to suit your interests. Want to play Oddball with casual, polite, quiet folks who might be just as willing to sit down with a cup of coffee and discuss Proust? Knock yourself out, man.

But ultimately, the only thing you need to know is that Halo: Reach is Halo. It’s Halo 1, 2, 3 and ODST, minus a few significant tweaks in the matchmaking formula and some interesting new game modes thrown into the mix. If you love Halo multiplayer, and your friends love Halo multiplayer, I have no doubt you’re gonna have a blast with Reach. But as a game critic, I’m disappointed that the beta doesn’t indicate a greater willingness on Bungie’s part to develop the Halo formula and to push it forward.

Ducking bullets and returning fire in Modern Warfare 2 has become big business online — but with tons of online players, bugs inevitably crop up.

For all the positives that your yearly Xbox Live gold subscription buys, it comes with one major downfall: the generic Xbox Live asshole. This is not a new phenomenon — Penny Arcade codified the “G.I.F.T.” system more than five years ago — but on two recent major Xbox 360 titles, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Forza Motorsport 3, it appears that the Live team is finally taking a strong stance on cheaters.

But is what’s happening in these titles really cheating, and is the tough-guy stance really the appropriate response?

The Wild West

Xbox Live has always been seen by gamers as a walled garden of sorts. From the early days when the service launched on the original Xbox, there were worries from users that any sort of modifications or hacks to a system would get you kicked off the service — for good. Fears of a permanent ban may have diminished (at least they had prior to Microsoft cleaning house earlier in the fall), but for all intents and purposes, Xbox Live has been a digital Wild West. It’s a land of opportunity with plenty of wonderful features to make use of and mine (not the least of which being playing games online, of course), but you have to deal with cheaters, players taking advantage of glitches in games, people meta-gaming the system and all variety of foul language. In short, it’s got its drawbacks.

Forza Motorsport 3 can be a cruel game, and Turn 10 would argue that cheaters manipulating the game makes it even more difficult.

It’s fascinating, then, to see that Microsoft finally appears to be leaning on some of its biggest development teams to actually do something about the mess gamers make online. Both Modern Warfare 2 and Forza 3 have had glitches almost ruin the online experience recently, and — surprisingly — the developers have responded by pushing back against the cheaters.

Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer is huge business — it’s number one on Xbox Live activity according to Major Nelson (note that even the two previous CoD titles — World at War and CoD4 — are still in the top 10!). It makes sense that, with that many people actively engaged in their game’s multiplayer component, Infinity Ward and Activision would want to rein in any cheaters.

It appears that Infinity Ward is being proactive against Xbox Live cheating — the recent “javelin” glitch already has a fix, and other issues (like an infinite ammo glitch that spreads like a virus, and issues relating to accidentally being sent to private matches via the public matchmaking) are being addressed soon.

While Forza 3 has only had one major glitch issue to deal with, it was a big one. Players could manipulate the game to create cars that could be re-sold in the game for hundreds of millions — if not billions — of in-game credits. Those credits, while only good within Forza 3, allow players to buy cars, parts, and — crucially to the ecosystem of the in-game economy Turn 10 created in Forza 3 — items off of the in-game storefront. Not only did a glitched bank account mean access to an unlimited supply of designs and vinyl groups — it also meant the storefront’s auctions were easy to dominate.

A Leg to Stand On?

Along with both developers fixing the bugs and glitches and preventing users from accessing them again, users who exploited those glitches have also been banned from Xbox Live — either temporarily or, in some cases, permanently. Can Microsoft do this? Of course it can. As pointed out by Turn 10 Community Manager Che Chou, it’s in the Xbox Live Terms of Use:

“In using the Service, you may not exploit a bug, or make an unauthorized modification, to any software or data to gain unfair advantage in a game, contest, or promotion.”

So not only are modders, who have traditionally had to be wary of Xbox Live bans, on the run, but now glitchers are too.

While developers might have a legal leg to stand on in this case, do they have a moral one? Many gamers feel that the old EA Sports motto should apply here: If it’s in the game, it’s in the game. If there’s an exploit sitting in the finished game, well, the coders should have fixed it in the QA process and it’s their fault. That’s the stance some gamers took in regard to MW2; however, the problem is that it changes the game. In the case of MW2, it changes from a game where you shoot guns to a game where (in the case of the javelin glitch) you have to avoid the suicide bomber with a giant anti-aircraft missile.

In the case of the Forza credit glitch, gamers on forums have pointed out that the exact same glitch was in Forza 2; indeed, glitched Forza 2 cars were being passed out before Forza 3 came out. It’s a very laissez-faire way to approach glitching in games, and one that’s apparently made even more acceptable by the motto of “ship it and patch it later” in development that goes hand-in-hand with the current console generation.

Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?

Of course there have been accidental bans as well. A comment on that Turn 10 blog post linked above was posted by a user who seemingly was wrongfully banned for glitching in Forza 3:

I just logged onto forza and see that my profile has been found to have violated the XBOX Live terms of agreement via a credit exploit.?!?

THIS IS RIDICULOUS! I have never glitched, I don’t even know how, I have about 900,000 credits and I am into season 4, I just race career mode. I haven’t purchased anything on the AH and the only cars I have purchased period are a 2003 350Z, and the GTR from the DLC. All of the cars in my garage are just the ones you get from leveling up.

This is my second game save because I purchased the MW2 elite and had to start over since I don’t have a transfer kit. I am running a triple screen setup, and have enough headaches trying to get that to run properly with my DLC and now this..

I am a 30 year old gamer with no desire to glitch, hack, cheat etc. This is getting out of hand as far as denying my online access when I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I have spent my money on 3plus xboxes, monitors, triple lcd stand, forza 3 LE playseat, and 3 copies of Forza and this happens. I am pretty pissed off right now.

Who do I need to contact about this?

Granted, just because it’s on the Internet doesn’t mean it’s true, but if this guy’s being honest he has a right to be upset.

Interestingly enough, as part of the solution to the problem, Turn 10 ran an amnesty program in December regarding credit glitching:

Starting this evening (Dec. 12) and all through the weekend, we will be putting up Ford Focus RS for 10s and 100s of millions of credits as an amnesty program for glitchers. If you have gotten credits by cheating, we know all about it and have all the numbers. If you don’t want to get banned next week, I encourage you to go and get rid of your credits by purchasing one of these Ford Focus RS put up in the Auction House by Gamertag “TurnTenStudios”. Do not accept imitations or buy a Focus RS for millions of credits from any Gamertag other than “TurnTenStudios”. Purchase the Focus RS that is appropriate to the amount of credits you glitched and your name will be taken off the list for banning next week – but be sure to stay honest because we’re actually running another scan on Monday to see the outcome. Either way, it’s a chance for folks to come clean and start over.

“Come clean and start over.” That’s certainly an interesting choice of words to use for the situation. Turn 10 takes it seriously because it has tried to create an honest-to-god in-game economy for cars, designs, and auctions in Forza 3. They have released “unicorn cars” — race cars sprinkled into the auction house from time to time — but one of the cries they made against glitchers is that they cornered the market and drove up prices for those cars, creating an unequal economic situation. But how much should the developer intervene in a game’s economy? That’s a question that almost taps into one’s socio-economic stance as much as the debate over public healthcare in the United States does.

It can be hard to stay frosty when somebody's running straight at you with an anti-aircraft missile and a deathwish.

The question comes back to what defines a “glitch,” what defines “cheating,” and what defines just plain-old “cheap” tactics in a videogame. A glitch can enable anything between unbalanced play and flat-out cheating, depending on the circumstance. Cheap is something that you have to rein in on a social level; remember four-player deathmatch Goldeneye on the Nintendo 64 back in the day? (Of course you do.) Was my group of friends the only one to ban the Oddjob character model from the game because he was so much shorter than everyone else and, therefore, harder to shoot? Doubtful. Was it cheating? Not really; Oddjob was in the game and designed that way. Did it present an unfair advantage? God yes, which is why he was banned by house rules.

My thought is that the Forza 3 credit deal is a glitch that falls under “cheating,” whereas some of the MW2 ones are glitches that fall into being “cheap” — though the infinite ammo virus skirts into cheating, and the lobby one is plain-old wackiness. However, bringing Xbox Live bans into the equation makes you re-think some of these issues and try to think how developers and the Live team are going to defend their slippery slope.

If you start banning Xbox Live users for something that’s in a gray area — like the javelin glitch — then what in other games becomes a ban-able offense? I’m all for anything that can help clean up Xbox Live — I currently play games only with friends for this very reason — but some glitching and buggy cheapness is something that I think falls on the developers, and they can’t ban away their troubles.

Will there be cries to fix things that straddle the line between glitch and cheap in the name of game balance? Of course — that’s the developers’ jobs. With online play, a rising number of increasingly complicated games and so many people playing games like MW2 online with an almost religious devotion, it’s going to stress even the toughest multiplayer game engine. The most rigorous online testing teams can’t playtest a game enough to uncover every possible bug before release. But glitches and bug still need to be found and eradicated — especially ones as egregious as the javelin glitch in MW2, or the money glitch in Forza — or else everybody loses out.

While our Top 10 Games of 2009 deserve attention for their overall excellence, we can’t neglect this year’s other fantastic games — titles that just missed the final cut. Be it their charm or presentation, our Honorable Mentions were simply hard to forget. We now present a five-part series of articles, one from each member of the Silicon Sasquatch staff. Today, Aaron brings us our penultimate installment in this series with his list of honorable mentions.

The Maw

January — Xbox Live Arcade, Windows

Twisted Pixel Games knows how to have fun with its projects. Instead of filling a crowded gaming market with more of the same, Twisted Pixel created The Maw — a wonderfully original title that made me laugh without needing a single complete sentence of dialog. The Pixar-like scenario of an alien (Frank) teaming up and becoming friends with an insatiably hungry purple blob (Maw) made for a refreshingly heartfelt downloadable game. Little things like watching Maw express emotions — panic when it was burned, pain when it ate a bad creature and fear when it hid behind Frank — were fantastic visual treats, and demonstrated the development team’s knack for working in a cartoon style. While the game’s controls and light platforming segments were average, watching Maw grow to the size of a planet by the end made up for the less-impressive aspects. Charm makes all the difference in an industry that has resorted to provoking reactions through gore and realistic graphics.

Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II

February — Windows

If it’s a real time strategy game, I’ve more than likely played it. At one time I enjoyed only RTS titles; incessant in my collection of resources and conscription of soldiers, I would double click and hotkey my adolescent nights away. So I might be a habitual RTS player, but I’m ready to break tradition and openly thank Relic Entertainment for its innovative and decidedly non-traditional Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II. Instead of micromanaging a base, the game granted intimate control over a squad of four unique (and upgradeable) characters. Dawn of War II is still a strategy-intensive game played in real time, but it feels more like a merger of Relic’s light squad mechanics from Company of Heroes with the intensity of a cover shooter like Gears of War. The RTS die-hards and Dawn of War I fans were somewhat upset by the big changes to a tried-and-true genre, but I’ll take innovation over stagnation any day.

The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition

July — Xbox Live Arcade, Windows

It’s a good thing I first experienced the Secret of Monkey Island in its Special Edition form. While I’m confident the original would still have captivated me with its self-referential humor and sharp wit, it was simply brilliant to discover such a timeless story intact underneath the drastic makeover. I might not have grown up playing any of the classic LucasArts adventure titles, but I’m happy the genre is experiencing a period of revivalthanks in part to Telltale Games’ work on the Sam and Max and Tales of Monkey Island episodes. The Special Edition’s updated art was gorgeous, and fit with the series’ style in the opinion of a Monkey Island newcomer like me. The numerous jokes, gags and one-liners are relevant 19 years later, and the characters are memorable enough that I hope Monkey Island 2: LeChuck’s Revenge gets the same fresh coat of paint that Secret did.

Battlefield 1943

July — Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network

DICE won’t win any awards for shrinking the Battlefield formula into a petite downloadable package, but that doesn’t mean 1943 was anything less than a solid summer distraction. The concept of ground, sea and air forces clashing over control points to keep decreasing the enemy’s reinforcements is still the best option for multiplayer chaos. Other games’ online deathmatch modes have their limits, so I gladly accepted Battlefield 1943′s break from the monotony to laugh maniacally while I flew numerous Japanese Zeros into hapless Sherman tanks. And sure, the game had a meager selection of four maps (which as of this writing are still the only available maps), but at the end of the day I felt my money was well spent. DICE might be guilty of milking its franchises a bit, but it says something about the team’s capabilities and the strength of the core Battlefield product that I can continue to purchase the same game indefinitely and have an absolute blast, each and every time.

Torchlight

October — Windows

Is it unethical that I decided Torchlight would be one of my honorable mentions long before I even played the full game? Sometimes a demo is all you need, and Torchlight dug itself into my brain the moment I loaded its trial-sized world. Now that I own the full Torchlight experience, I feel much better about giving it a spot on my list. Call Torchlight Diablo Lite, but don’t say it isn’t addictive and well-designed. The art direction alone is worth the price of admission. Diablo may still be the boss in the world of isometric action RPGs, but Torchlight deserves recognition for its lighthearted attempt at being different in a sea of familiarity — and because it proves that, as far as gameplay is concerned, an expanded color palette won’t ruin Diablo III.

What more can be said about the so-called largest entertainment launch in the history of mankind?

It’s tempting to boil down Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 to a vaporous obligation, an experience that divides gamers into the haves and have-nots. But that’s putting blind faith in a product based on its advertising blitzkrieg. Aren’t we supposed to be discerning consumers?

The climate around Modern Warfare 2 is now adequate, a month after release, for a steady-handed dissection of gaming’s latest chart-topping champion — far removed from the pre-release hype. This critique won’t convert the detractors or embolden the fanatics, but it will hopefully read as an alternative education on the latest Call of Duty, a game that flirts with failure as much as it tastes success.

War. War never changes.

We’re now at the sixth main entry in the Call of Duty franchise and the second Modern Warfare title. The games have upped the adrenaline in each release (including CoD substitute developer Treyarch’s Call of Duty 3 and CoD: World at War), and at this point the franchise can almost out-Michael Bay the actual Michael Bay. But is this what we want? Yes, according to the numbers and charts. Modern Warfare 2 is exactly what gamers want, and want more of. And that’s precisely what we’ll be getting. Case in point: Electronic Arts has jumped back into the big budget FPS arena, and they’re out for blood with a “me too!” modernized Medal of Honor title set for release in 2010.

To be fair, I’ve never wanted the Call of Duty series to be anything but a set of flawlessly produced cinematic action games. Infinity Ward was founded under that mindset when key members of 2015, Inc., the studio behind Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, split from Electronic Arts to make games their way. From the beginning, Infinity Ward wanted to outdo Medal of Honor, the most movie-like shooter series in the early 2000s.

The most hardcore ride to a paintball match, ever.

There’s no doubt that Modern Warfare 2′s filmic set pieces will stick with me. From outer space to suburban Virginia, to Pacific Ocean oil platforms and the Middle East, this is quite the Carmen Sandiego (or Matt Lauer) treatment. I applaud Infinity Ward and Modern Warfare 1 and 2 writer Jesse Stern for taking such a risk by juggling multiple locales in a brief, six-hour campaign. However, the spastic story makes for forgettable personal interactions amongst the more memorable explosions. I don’t exactly care that Soap is back. I wasn’t floored by the surprise return of a main character from Call of Duty 4. New characters like Ghost are cookie-cutter archetypes seen too many times before. And I certainly can’t forgive recycling the “Let’s shoot this player character in the face to kill him off” plot mechanic. The twists in Modern Warfare 1 worked because of their initial shock value. No one expected the nuke to actually go off and kill Sgt. Paul Jackson. But thanks to Call of Duty 4, the expectation of death appearing at any moment during Modern Warfare 2 dissolves what was once a clever tool. Stern and the other writers might find this life-and-death uncertainty to be “emotionally charged,” but it instead comes off as simplistic and tired.

While I don’t expect deep, philosophical pondering from Call of Duty, I do expect the series to show me things I’ve never seen in a videogame before. And in that regard Modern Warfare 2 more than succeeded. I’d never felt so uneasy playing a game as I did when firing on civilians in “No Russian.” I’ve never dodged a land mine in slow motion before. I also can’t say I’ve pushed through a crowd of enemies with a riot shield. And I certainly haven’t breached and cleared, in slow motion, a room filled with explosive barrels and terrorists guarding hostages. Modern Warfare 2 is simply bursting with numerous classic moments like these.

Then why am I so frustrated at the single player story? Because this is the industry’s future. This is what we encourage; because we’re addicted. We think that as long as the gameplay is tight it doesn’t matter if the story is weak. Infinity Ward can’t be faulted for being good at what they do, and this review is no place to sit in my tower of perceived superiority, but gamers aren’t advancing the medium forward — they’re hindering it. Astronomical sales beget more games like Modern Warfare 2, which sounds absolutely fine in the short term. But when you consider the uneven plot of Modern Warfare 2, and realize this was just a giant action flick, the potential for more of it makes my enthusiasm slip into apathy.

Infinity Ward's next project: a realistic remake of Ice Climbers.

Still, Modern Warfare 2 was fun. Pure can’t-put-it-down-even-though-it’s-3 a.m. fun. I finished the campaign twice, once on Veteran even, and marveled at the visceral gameplay both times. Infinity Ward is at the top of its game with the latest in the franchise. But is this all we want from our sequels? Just because something was “badass” doesn’t mean it’s worthwhile. Games like Modern Warfare 2 — all flash and polish — are brittle, fleeting even. These games do well until the sequel comes along. Because think about it: Will Modern Warfare 2 be a replayable game 10 years from now, a game that will defy age and achieve a Tetris-like status? The recent Call of Duty 1 re-release on Xbox LIVE and PlayStation Network has brought up this question, as reviewers tend to comment that the game, while an impressive feat of development during its time, hasn’t aged well. The original title is still playable, but its impact today is in showing us how far gaming has come in six years. So I’m sure Modern Warfare 2 will play well years from now. But who’s going to care when we’re pre-ordering Call of Duty: Future Warfare 5?

Some gamers might fail to see my point in criticizing Modern Warfare 2, and will likely say I’m overreacting or being hypocritical. I’m aware sequels are what drive the industry, and more of a high-quality series is generally a joyous thing. But that’s why I feel a few jabs at Modern Warfare 2 are warranted: We need to expect more from these $60 blockbusters, so why not start with the current king? Asking little of talented people is ruining a portion of the film industry, where cheap remakes and bare-minimum sequels are encouraged by ignorant audiences.

Then again, a lot of Call of Duty players don’t care what either Infinity Ward or Treyarch do with their stories. It fascinates me that many of Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer gamers haven’t finished the campaign. Try checking random players’ Modern Warfare 2 achievements: some haven’t even progressed past “The Pit.”

Plot is only a back-of-the-box feature to these types, something read but never experienced. They just want the multiplayer.

Looks like someone's finally taking out the Whale Wars crew.

Back in the saddle (on a slightly different horse).

If you loved Call of Duty 4′s genius multiplayer, be thankful: Modern Warfare 2 adds enough to the same experience to feel new again. The riot shield, third-person perspective matches, death streak rewards and customized killstreaks are the most impressive additions, and each helps you feel even more in control of your online soldier.

And despite a recent crop of frustratingly abundant bugs, multiplayer remains a major reason to purchase the game. You still gain experience, you still make your own classes and you still unlock new weapons and perks on your way to the increased level cap of 70. Infinity Ward took a risk and failed with its handling of the single player plot; however, they built upon the strengths of Call of Duty 4′s online portion to improve the original concept.

The pull of Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer is strong at first. Playing with friends every day can encourage an extreme investment in the process of ranking up to keep up; unlocking gear, tweaking perks, testing attachments and completing challenges can melt the hours away. It’s so fast-paced that there’s rarely time to realize you’re trudging through frustration and anger for a small bit of satisfaction via the occasional killstreak or “Oh man, did you see that?” moment.

I only start losing interest once I’ve played the same maps, killed the same classes and defeated the same tactics hundreds of times. So I’d be ignorant if I didn’t recognize how much value Modern Warfare 2′s multiplayer mode has when I’ve played it for nearly three days total. It’s expected that the well will run dry after so many return trips.

But Call of Duty multiplayer is frustratingly ironic in its insistence on rewarding the lone wolf player. The gameplay is too fast — too hectic — to provide the sense of camaraderie Infinity Ward wants in its single player campaigns; originally in opposition to Medal of Honor and its invincible soldier defeating battalions of enemies alone. Online players with the most kills in the first two Call of Duty games were those who didn’t work with their teammates — opting instead to hide, camp and snipe. The same mentality applied to Call of Duty 4, and continues to apply to its sequel. While I do believe an organized clan can dominate any battlefield situation online, Call of Duty team games have never felt truly organized.

So to fill the co-op gap in their own Call of Duty titles, Infinity Ward took cues from Treyarch’s Nazi Zombies to create the new Special Ops mode. The result is my absolute favorite part of Modern Warfare 2.

Spring Break 2009: Overdressed at Lake Havasu!

Table for two.

Special Ops is a one to two player co-op mode containing 23 missions split into military alphabet categories, ascending in difficulty from Alpha through Echo. The goal is to collect all 69 stars (I hope someone at Infinity Ward is proud of that), which are rewarded based on the difficulty each mission is completed on — one for Regular, two for Hardened, three for Veteran. Missions pull from locales seen in the single player campaign, meaning there are snowmobile races, stealth missions, blow-up-everything challenges and extremely difficult breach and clear tasks to name a few.

I have a hunch this is the future of Call of Duty, or at least a very important part of its growth. In a way, Special Ops feels like a series of tiny user-created mods for a PC title like Operation Flashpoint or ArmA II. You and your partner actually rely on each other to beat these challenges, and it’s imperative to keep an open line of communication and plan your tactics in advance. All of the current missions are substantial enough to take a week or two to complete at Veteran difficulty.

Cooperative gameplay is extremely popular right now, but Special Ops manages to cement its own place amongst a slew of similar experiences. It isn’t Left 4 Dead, it isn’t horde mode and it certainly isn’t Nazi Zombies. Those examples encourage a sort of long form experience; horde mode and Nazi Zombies have checkpoints within a persistent gameplay session, and the Left 4 Dead games are about working toward an end goal across multiple chapters. As an alternative, Special Ops missions can be finished in anywhere from two to 15 minutes depending on the specific task and your pacing. Each mission is independent from the others within its difficulty class (i.e., don’t expect to see two snowmobile races on Bravo’s list). It’s such a fast mode that I can see doing one or two of these with your pal during a lunch break from work — assuming you work near your home, or have an amazing boss who lets you play your console at work.

Infinity Ward’s unique take on co-op gaming is a welcome surprise considering the studio’s pedigree of making gigantic scenarios to showcase their development skills. Say hello to “micro-op” gameplay.

Soap: fully armed and running late to a Mr. T cosplay convention.

All things considered, Modern Warfare 2 is a behemoth of a game. And while I do believe it will easily be replaced by its eventual sequel, I can’t pretend like it didn’t provide hours of entertainment. Be it my fleeting addiction to the multiplayer or the clever co-op of Special Ops, there’s a lot to like about the latest Call of Duty. Let’s just hope Modern Warfare 3 finds Infinity Ward able to write a story just as impressive as the graphics engine will be.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is available for a suggested retail price of $59.99 on the Xbox 360, PC and PS3. The reviewer reached 100% completion on both the campaign and Special Ops modes, and registered nearly three days worth of time played in multiplayer. He feels slightly embarrassed by that fact. A copy was given to the reviewer as a gift by an independent party.

Recommended for:

• Call of Duty diehards, of course
• Shooter fans
• Multiplayer enthusiasts who like RPG elements
• Activision would want me to say “everyone,” right? Well, practically everyone bought it already.
• Special Ops

Not Recommended for:

• Those who appreciate good writing
• Gamers tired of another batch of bombs, bullets and buddies fighting the good fight
• Anyone who hasn’t cared about Call of Duty up to this point — MW2 isn’t enough to convince you to join the masses

Read our policy on reviews here.