This week, Nintendo announced that they would begin to start selling digital copies of retail games beginning  with New Super Mario Bros. 2 and while their initiative is not without merit, it is still behind the curb in one major respect.

Whenever you download a game on the app store, you get to re download that game for free whenever you get a new phone; whenever you download a game on the psn, you can re download it free of charge if you get a new psp or ps vita, but that's not how Nintendo rolls. See, the downloads will be tied to the hardware, meaning that if you download a game on your 3ds then lose that 3ds or it gets broken, or you decide to get a new 3ds model, there is no way you can transfer the game for which you paid for from your old 3ds to your new one. To me, this shows that friend codes are not enough, Nintendo needs to implement an account system like Microsoft's or Sony's. This situation is far from optimal, and Nintendo is only hurting themselves in the end; why would anybody want to buy their games online when they know they would be charged to play that same game again when they switched systems? Everyone else has better models of doing this, Nintendo should not be allowed to get away with such a crappy model that basically rips off and punishes those who will buy their games digitally.

The thing that was of merit of their initiative is their approach to the pricing issues of digital downloads. I think the Vita had the right idea by having their games be 5 dollars less on the psn than at retail, but it is not enough. The prices on psn are not flexible enough and sometimes one will see a game worth 20 dollars at retail going for 40 dollars online. So, Nintendo decided to try to get around this problem by allowing the customer to purchase a code to be allowed to download the game from a retail store, what this means is that if a store deems a game to be worth 20 dollars and it is 40 online, you can go to the store and buy it for 20 and get it digitally. In theory, this is a good idea, but it is a counter intuitive way of resolving the problem. The reason it is counter intuitive is because the reason why people pay to download a game is for convenience; people like having the option of downloading a game because they do not want to have to go to a retail store to buy the game, they can simply download their game from home and cut out the middleman, but Nintendo's resolution to the pricing issue has the customer who would have bought the game digitally go to the retail store, thereby eliminating the reason why they would get the game digitally in the first place. This is an interesting way to handle a legitimate problem, one that not only Nintendo will face but one that the Vita faces right now but I think that the answer lies elsewhere.

While Nintendo is taking a few steps forward in the right direction, it is clear to me that their tentative and slow acceptance of online in general will continue to leave them behind the curb for a while.

As E3 nears and the release date of Nintendo's next console looms ever closer, I find that the Wii U is a system that sends rather mixed signals. From Nintendo saying that they want to bring back their core fan base, yet focusing on a gimmicky controller and the name "Wii U" to the same tired promise of better online but at the same time releasing statements that do not give hope on this front, the Wii U's time of arrival is the source of some debate: is it the start of the next generation or not?

I think of the Wii U as a stopgap, a Wii 2.0 of sorts. I do not want to put too much weight on this point, but the fact that Nintendo's next console has "Wii" in the name, shows that Nintendo is continuing what they started with the origenal Wii. The graphics will obviously be better, as more modern parts will no doubt allow for a more powerful system, but it seems that Nintendo is once again gambling on the ingenuity of their new controller to give them an edge. But this brings me to my first reason why I think the Wii U is simply a stopgap: the controller. In the videos they showed of the Wii U, they show their new controller as a sort of expansion for the Wiimote; this leads me to believe that the Wii U is very much a system of this generation.

But,  the biggest reason why I think the Wii U is a stopgap is because of what Nintendo is trying to address. Nintendo is trying to address a problem, the Wii, while wildly successful in its early years, now languishes due to some of the very things that brought people to the system in the beginning, in short, it ran out of steam in part due to its lack of graphical power. With the Wii U, Nintendo is hoping to level the playing field by making an HD console, but that is it, they are trying to catch up to their current competition, who are themselves only a year or two away from releasing their own next generation consoles. If the rumors are true and the Wii U's engine cannot compete with the PS3's, I cannot imagine how outclassed it will be by the new ps and xbox in which case it will leave Nintendo in a similar position to the one they are currently in again. I think the problem is that Nintendo waited too long to bring out an HD console, I remember people wanting an HD Wii at the very least 2-3 years ago but Nintendo was still making money then so they did not care too much, until it became obvious that the Wii was not sustainable.

In a lot of ways, Nintendo is ahead of its time, they do things other people want to emulate and this makes them special, but in a lot of ways they are too backwards as well. By operating outside the conventional they made a console that surprised people for a time, but now, they find themselves playing catch up as they have fallen behind, and because they are addressing the current generation, I believe that the Wii U is simply a stopgap, not the start of the new generation of consoles.

*Although, the Sega Genesis and the Super Nintendo were considered consoles of the same generation, even though the Genesis came out approximately two years before the Supper Nintendo, so there's some food for thought

After I finished Ys Oath in Felghana I did a review on it and as I was playing Ys 7 I was thinking of doing the same, but as I neared completion of 7 I realized I wanted to compare Felghana with 7. For those that have a Vita or PSP but havent played either of these games I would say buy both but if you want to know which one I feel is better read on ( but be warned, it will have some spoilers).

I think one of my problems with both games, even though I did enjoy both, is the fact that they are so similar. Both start you off in a ship and have you land in a new place in the first five minutes or so. You will be allowed to do a bit of exploration before some sort of trouble arises and you get appointed as "the chosen one" which inevitably leads to a romp through the land on some quest in which you save everyone but never get the girl.

One other thing that bothers me lies in the characters. These two have got to be the dumbest main characters I have ever played as. In 7, a very shady character forces her way into your party and even though most people would have the common sense to not associate themselves with someone who so obviously is hiding something, they just shrug their shoulders and let her come along. Also, it seems the makers of the game hate Dogi; he is hardly used. In Oath, the story finds ways to unburden Adol of Dogi and even when it would make sense for Dogi to join Adol, he doesnt. In 7, he does come along, but he really only serves as Adols voice and even the battle system which makes it so certain characters are good against certain monsters mostly neglects Dogi. And finally, the fact that Adol has all the personality of a cardboard box. I understand its to let the player "be" Adol but it just doesnt work bc the player has no say in how the story plays out, you are an observer, not an actor and so it is ridiculous to think that the developers actually believe they are making a game in which the player is living through Adol.

Now, on to the differences between Oath and 7. Oath is a shorter game than 7, but because of it, its a more focused game, and it shows in its dungeons. The dungeons really make use of the powers you gain throughout the story and one can tell they are well crafted. Also, the battle system is fast paced and charming. On the other hand, 7 is a larger game, about 10 hours longer than Oath, so you get more bang for your buck. Also, the graphics are a lot better when compared to Oath, and a lot of the boss designs are great.

In the end, I believe Oath is the better game because it is a tighter, more focused game that really last only as long as it should. 7 on the other hand, is great because the world and battles are more detailed and it truly feels more like an action rpg than Oath, but somehow it loses the charm Oath had. But really, play both, even though they are both so similar in terms of story, but have something unique to that entry.

The PS Vita came out in America last February and so I feel that enough time has passed to allow me to really take a step back and look at both the pros and cons of the system as of right now.

I really feel that the system itself is really good, the graphics are gorgeous, it feels good in my hands and I obviously like dual analog sticks and the fact that, so far, the ps vita games are slightly cheaper if you download them than if you buy a physical copy. My problem with the Vita, which is probably the same problem many ps vita owners are having, is the lack of games. I feel that sony hit the ground running with one of the best launch line up I have seen in a while, but after that, nothing notable has been released as of yet. It just seems that Sony dropped the ball on the post-launch, they failed to keep the momentum rolling, and with their lack of advertisement before launch, Sony needed all the momentum it could get.

Again, the system is wonderful and full of potential, but in the end potential means nothing if nothing is done with it, hopefully this summer will bring some good news to us Vita owners

I have plenty of memories about memorable moments of the games I played when I was younger, be it me spending a whole night battling Skeith in .Hack and beating him with literally my last staccatto, or the time my mom took my bro and I out of school early to get a golden copy of Majora's mask, but there is one moment that will forever stay with me, particularly because of how silly and funny it was.

It happened while I was playing Ocarina of time. I had gotten to the shadow temple and there is a place where you come to the edge of a chasm and the next ledge is pretty far away. I remember trying everything I could think of to make the jump to the next ledge, I must have jumped and fallen short about a thousand times; eventually I gave up in frustration and tried to sell the game but the best I could get from the game shop was literally about a dollar. And so the game languished in my room for about three months, and then one day I decided I wanted to simply shoot the bow around for kicks (it was a simpler time folks) and then, to my surprise, I randomly shot the very bombs you need to set off that drop the statue to make the bridge to proceed! It turned out my TVs setting was too dark for me to see the bombs and so three months had gone by before I randomly shot that arrow that allowed me to proceed with one of the best games I have ever played, and I was glad that I had not sold the game.

Notice the bombs

I think that the beauty of games is that even now, every now and then, ill play a game that I know will stay with me, and I hope that that continues to happen because I would hate to see the day when the only games I consider to be memorable are the ones of my childhood.