I was playing Mario Kart Wii the other day and I was considering all the characters that Nintendo has added to their franchises over the years. While contemplating the characters I was hard pressed to find a more useless character than Waluigi. I mean what value does he add to these games? I would say that some of the Bounty Hunters in line with Boba Fett during Empire Strikes Back are more or at least equally useless but writers have gone on to give them their own adventures, which is more than I can say for Waluigi.

For those of you who don’t know, Waluigi is supposed to be one of the Mario Bros evil ‘cousins”, and a direct rival of Luigi; thus his name. Now his name doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. From my understanding the “wa-” syllable in japanese means bad so he is essentially bad Luigi, but it’s not like his brother’s name is Wamario he’s just Wario, which at least sounds like it could be a name albeit an awful one at that. Also check out his character design, from the moment I laid eyes on him I had a feeling of familiarality. It wasn’t until I got to play with him in Mario Kart Double Dash that I put it together. He is the spitting image of Dick Dastardly. Their hooked features, lanky body types, purple clothing and sinister mustaches are all undeniably similar. Which on one hand is kind of fun because it makes me feel like I’m racing in one of the Hanna-Barbera Wacky Races cartoons that I grew up watching, but talk about a lack of ingenuity.

Unfortunately for Waluigi he has never really been given a chance to win gamers over. When I heard Nintendo was making Super Mario Bros. Wii, which allows 4 players to be on screen at the same time. I assumed that Wario and Waluigi were finally going to be given a chance to have an adventure along side of there more benevolent counterparts. But instead the 3rd and 4th characters are given to two Toad characters, Nintendo claimed that although the Wario and Waluigi were a consideration due to their appearances, they opted against using them because they didn’t think a team up between them all would be believable.

I’m not surprised that Nintendo would continue to shaft Waluigi since they have shafted Luigi so many times before, not featuring the less famous plumber until Gamecube’s Luigi’s Mansion. Poor Waluigi was even left out as a playable character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

In your opinion what other characters classify as useless?

Being in its last season Lost is coming to a close and promises to tie up most loose ends that have been the staple of the show. Here are some of the theories that I have about some of the leftover questions that Lost has presented us with.

Lack of Babies
One thing that we learn relatively early in this show is that women who get pregnant on the island die during pregnancy. It seems that if you are pregnant before hand, which is the case with Claire and Rosseau, you are capable of having a baby. However there remains this strange obsession/mysticism about these children that has yet to be explained. One theory that I have involves the four-toed statue that has been destroyed in the current timeline. This statue has been revealed to be of Taweret. In Egyptian history Taweret was known as a deity of protection in pregnancy and childbirth, thus I believe the statue’s destruction marked the beginning of the times where babies could not be produced on the island. (Also, I think that the weird doll/creature in the Claire’s baby crib was a mini-representative of Taweret).

Backgammon
The importance of Backgammon is easy to overlook. However I think it is no coincidence that Backgammon has been brought up at least 4 times over these 6 seasons. Including once in the pilot episode where Locke describes it as “Two players. Two sides. One is light, one is dark”. I had no idea how to even play backgammon but here are some interesting facts.
1. Backgammon is one of the oldest board games between two players known to man.
2. Backgammon is a stakes game, as in it must be played for something.
3. The way you win in Backgammon is to get all your pieces home, and then bear them off until you have no more pieces on the board.
4. There is a rule known as the Jacoby Rule, which comes into play if no one has doubled the stake.
My theory here is that the island is the board on which Backgammon is played, and Jacob and the smoke monster are the players in which they are trying to claim their pieces and then remove them from the island. The pieces are the people who have been “called” to the island.

Why Jacob only appears to Hurley
Some people believe that the fact that Jacob speaks to Hurley when it has been previously stated that only the leader may speak with Jacob, means that Hurley is now the leader. Sound logic, but I believe it is too obvious to be the case. Instead I believe that Jacob appears to Hurley because he’s dead, and Hurley has always been able to speak to dead people which is why he was often seen speaking to Charlie after his death.

Ending
I believe that the reason for showing us the alternate timeline where the bomb successfully stopped the plane from ever crashing on the island is because the writers want us to become accustomed to this reality. Had they ended the show with everyone landing safely in LA with all of the relationships that we witnessed being built lost, we would be left with an empty feeling inside. Questions would have been asked: wouldn’t Kate have been happier if she ended up with Jack? Will Sawyer remain a con-man? People have grown and changed from their experiences on the island and it would be a shame to throw all of that out of the window. Perhaps, in the end a character like Jack will have to choose for everyone which reality they want, or perhaps they still need to make the alternate reality happen but they’re starting to show it to us now because of its potential. I think the former is more likely though I’m not really sure if I’m happy with either. I’m sure that the answers are coming but will they be ones that all of the fans will be happy with, only time will tell.

One question I have been wondering lately is whether or not this show will be fun to watch once everything is understood? I am sure that they will leave some things open for discussion so that way the can cause discussions forever, but finding the right balance of that can be tricky. What are your theories about where the writers are going with Lost?

I finally played the demo for the highly anticipated Interactive Drama game Heavy Rain. What separates Heavy Rain from other video games is that you’re not stuck doing the same thing that everyone has to do in order to advance the story. Therefore every gamer’s playthrough may tell a different story. Having the player deal with the consequences of their decisions results in a greater sense of pathos and responsibility between the characters and the player. To put this in perspective, imagine playing Final Fantasy VII and Aeris’s death wasn’t fully scripted, instead her death was the result of the conversations and actions that you decided on when you didn’t think they were important. How much more would you feel the anguish that went along with her death when you realize that it was a direct result of your choices?

The first thing that struck me about this game was the control scheme. It seems like Quantic Dream did everything they could to take you out of your comfort zone with these controls. How different are these controls? You have to press down “R2″ to walk forward. The last time I had such anxiety over a game’s movement control was when I first played Resident Evil. In both cases I believe the change in this basic mechanic has not only to do with the fact that both games employ stationary cameras with different angles, creating the scenario where walking off-screen to the right doesn’t always mean that you’ll start on the left when the camera changes, but also the effect it has on the user. Anyway, my point is that by straying from the classic controls of similar games, you increase the weight of the the decisions of the user on the most basic of levels.

I plan on enjoying this adult modern point-and-click adventure (without having any pointing or clicking), and look forward to watching others play this game as well. The desire to be a spectator to your friends’ initial decisions seems almost as exciting as making the decisions yourself. As long as the story and branching are as great as promised I believe that this game, will be quite a conversation piece. As gamers grow up and start developing games themselves they often add elements that they believe were missing in the industry. Do you believe that the industry has a place for more games where this choose your own adventure approach is employed?

The iPad, we’ve all seen the videos (and if you haven’t watched them, go here and come back, I’ll wait), but what place does it have in the technology market. Some people are taking the e-reader angle, comparing it to the Nook and Kindle. To which people complain that the iPad is too large by comparison. I am sure it is bulkier and heavier than these ever popular e-readers, which may be a turn off to those who view it as such. But why should we compare it to only an e-reader when it can do so much more. The iPad itself uses the iPod touch/iPhone OS, which so far has proven to be everything that people want in a portable device. So what we should be comparing it to is a netbook, because they both offer the ability to browse the internet with the loss of some processing power and storage.

Apple’s major selling point here is portability, whilst tapping into a current void which they initiated in the first place. In my opinion iPods and iPhones due to their small size are intimate objects that you put your songs and your apps on, for your own purposes. Apple shows that they understand that iPods and iPhones are personal, and thus have created a product that can be used to share. Saying “Hey, here’s a bigger screen that can be just as intimate and easier to enjoy together”. Never before could I have imagined bringing a sophisticated piece of technology to a romantic location and watching a movie on it. Yes, I know about portable dvd players and what not but they were never as sleek as this machine.

Comparing it to the netbooks out there may leave some purists feeling uneasy about the iPad. Take away their keyboards and they believe that chat, quick browsing, and writing emails will become far too bothersome of a task. I spoke to one colleague who said that he can only type so fast without looking because he can feel all the crevices between the keys. Which I totally believe is a legitimate reason, but I don’t believe I’ve ever had the opportunity to type on something so large with a touch screen which also had the display right on it. Think about it, when you use a keyboard you’re usually either looking at the keys or the screen because they’re in separate places. So when they’re in the same place how different is the experience? Anyway they’ve already announced a keyboard dock accessory for these typing purists but add-ons such as these take away from the magic of an all in one device.

Although I must admit it is easy to get lost in how pretty the iPad is, I still have some concerns about its durability. I worry that without a sufficient carrying case one could put it in their bag until expected it to be just fine, but due to some jostling and banging finding it broken upon arrival. Also, Apple is claiming that this is the best way to view the internet, but last I checked flash is part of the internet. I understand that flash is capable of passing some security levels that Apple does not want present in their iPhone/iPad OS but some people are definitely going to miss their flash.

All in all I am excited about the prospect of an Apple made tablet netbook device. I imagine that even though not all apps will translate as well as maybe people expect; mostly due to the difference in size. Let’s face it, it takes more effort to shake something the size of a large etch-a-sketch compared to something the size of a deck of cards. But the possibility that there can be something that size, and that portable to act like a sketchpad is something that I drool over. Not to mention that I imagine reading comics on that bad boy. I remain skeptical that the first generation of this device will be all that its cracked up to be, but it seems like it is something that was born out of my nerdly dreams.

Ubisoft has two very successful franchises in Assassin’s Creed and Prince of Persia. One game is a parkour action-adventure with a fun battle system and the other is – oh wait, the same. Alright so they’re not exactly the same game but there are a lot of similarities.

The feel of the games as well as the characters you play as are very similar, and understandably so considering they even hired the same Mocap Team for both games. So why I ask do the assassins have different agility limitations in comparison to the prince. Does Ubisoft want to enforce more differences in their popular franchises in order to mask how similar these games are, or does it just not make sense for one game as opposed to the other? This question is not one out of annoyance but rather out of curiosity.

Why shouldn’t my assassin be able to run across a wall, jump, and then in mid-air eliminate his target with his hidden blade? Even the prince’s climb animations are faster, why slow the assassin down? I understand that the Prince of Persia games are stationed in a fantasy world where various monsters exist and abilities are given which defy physics, but does the sci-fi world of Assassin’s Creed really demand that the rules of physics remain intact? If something outside the realms of the already established rules of Assassin’s Creed was introduced, would it make the series “jump the shark”? Think about how you felt when Neo was able to control the robots outside of the Matrix.

I actually agree with the decisions that have been made thus far, in terms of keeping the Assassin’s abilities within limits in order to make the situation seem more realistic. I fear that an unintentional side-effect of Ubisoft having this unrealistic/realistic game dichotomy is that the existence of one will cause the other one to be more extreme. For example a developer has this great Idea for a character’s ability but can’t right away figure out how to make it seem realistic they can just bump it over to the other game or vice versa. Which in turn might make Prince of Persia more and more farfetched, or Assassin’s Creed too confined to reality. Whether or not the games would truly suffer from this is difficult to project, but it is something I am slightly weary of. Only time will tell what direction they take though.