They could give him his own full-fledged spin-off retail game as well. Modern Warfare is a big brand, so Activision/Infinity Ward wouldn't have to be limited to DLC or XBLA.

I completely agree about Gamma. Fable 2, Resident Evil 5 and Killzone 2 are all games I recently played that required me to toggle Gamma settings and significantly increase the brightness of my TV, compared to the rest of my library where no changes were required at all. If a game is going to be darker, Gamma settings are a must.

Great points made here, Eric. You're right about there being "right" and "wrong" ways to approach DLC. I also always think of Burnout Paradise when I think about a game that gets DLC right.

I hope that Tron Bonne is coming to PSN. It's a rare game and I'm a big fan of the MML PS1 games.

MM64 was known as Mega Man Legends on PlayStation. There were two more MML titles on PS1, The Misadventures Of Tron Bonne (a spinoff of sorts) and Mega Man Legends 2 (a direct sequel to MML).

But yes, a new Mega Man Legends game would be awesome!

I second ecf001's recommendation of B13 (it might be listed as District B13). Great action movie featuring good parkour.

---

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned inFAMOUS as another gaming example of parkour, as some of Cole's urban exploration tactics have been compared to parkour.

Couldn't they create a remake for Wii that has all of the same gameplay and whatnot, but has upgraded graphics and is void of the legal problems?

Faceless Clock, you need to scroll up a few comments to see my clarification post and I ask that you please update your rebuttal. The entire paragraph on used games was written in error and I have offered an apology.

But I will answer some of your questions:

1. I perhaps should've been more careful in my tone and word choice, but I don't want the entire industry bailed out or anything. Hardly the case. I was just thinking that maybe things would be easier on smaller developers in the midst of large development budgets if they had a tax cut. That's all. Again, no over-arching government bailout plans or anything intended.

2. My paragraph about smaller fees in the face of new mediums was concerned only about smaller developers trying to develop for PS3 or multiplatform development--it wasn't meant to be a commentary on the state of new technology or necessarily federal grants for new technology.

4. I did not mean that the industry was declining per se. I actually was talking about how slow new third party developers arrive on the scene these days as opposed to the 1980s to the PS1 era.

Faceless Clock, I will freely admit that I'm certainly not as skilled in political or business thinkings as half of the people here. This was all written from a mere gamer's perspective, a gamer who was just trying to figure out a way to help the industry with rising development costs. That's all. So much of this article has been blown out of proportion and ripped out of context...so much of what has been written about this article does not even begin to reflect my actual intent.

Hey Kombo

Someone at GamePolitics.com took the opportunity to comment on my Obama article--or, perhaps I should say, one paragraph of a three-page editorial.

It is true that enclosed in my editorial is a single paragraph dedicated to "reining in the used games market." It is also true that this paragraph was shortsighted and not anywhere near as well as thought out as it could've been, especially with implications for the market and government control. I will freely admit of my own volition that I did not fully grasp the implications of what I had written until some of the comments had come in. I admit this because I have realized that the full implications of the paragraph in question are the polar opposite of my beliefs. I do not support government control of our industry, nor is government control involved in any of my political beliefs. I'm an independent and a moderate who supported Obama through the primaries and the general election. I just happened to come up with a poor idea, is all.

How did the paragraph come about in the first place, then? Just an admittedly poorly thought-out ideological notion that if developers got a small bit of cash back from the used games market, it would provide them with less of an impetus to include DRM. That's it. No government control undertones or anything of the sort meant to be implied. To reiterate: it was a bad idea conjured up by a limited understanding of the scope of the implications of the idea, which never should've been written in the first place. If you were offended by this paragraph in any way, I apologize. Rest assured that if I could go back in time and rewrite the piece, I would eliminate that point entirely, for it doesn't accurately reflect my intent in any way, period.

But for the person in question at GamePolitics to proclaim my piece "marred," in my opinion, is just as shortsighted as my paragraph on the used games market. This was a three page piece written with a simple message: that our industry is heading towards a crash, that we need some help and that maybe we could get some aid from the U.S. government in light of our current predicament. After all, I wouldn't have written this statement--"I'm not talking about a radical ally-making process here, but rather about establishing an open line of communication so that Obama and Congress will be more receptive to hearing about (and reacting upon positively) industry issues in the future"--if I had meant for that single paragraph on used games to reflect a notion of government control in one instance, let alone on behalf of the entire piece.

The paragraph in question is a trouble spot, true, but marred? I vehemently disagree. I don't think that a piece that asks for tax cuts for smaller developers like Double Fine Studios, tax cuts/more money for middleware developers, tax-deductible SDKs and putting an end to a rivalry that has done nothing but cost the taxpayers of this country money--not to mention how it gives this industry grief--can be marred by a single paragraph. I think that those ideas are to the very least conceptually strong and that they shouldn't be dismissed because of one poorly thought out paragraph that I admit error on.

So, I ask all of you: take a Sharpie marker in your mind and blot out that paragraph and the one other mentioning of that point, then re-read the piece, for those are the ideas that I stand by. Those are the ideas that are supposed to comprise and be the crux of my editorial, not that single paragraph. After all, if I had intended for that paragraph to be the crux of my editorial, I would've written an editorial about that, not as a single paragraph in passing.

I want to be clear that I don't want to stir anything up as a result of this, merely clear up a misunderstanding. I don't think ill of the author of the post, nor am I angry. I just want to clear the air and make sure that when people read this article, they know full well what my actual intent is and there are significantly meatier ideas to consider that are meant to be there, rather than debate over the one that I shouldn't have put in at all.

Sincerely,
Nick Michetti