I'll just say the bold thing first: The Dark Knight is easily the best superhero movie ever made, and the all around best movie I've seen since 2006's The Departed.

The Dark Knight builds upon the rather bleak, realistic depiction of Gotham City started by the first film, Batman Begins. All the old faces return, including Christian Bale as the caped crusader, Gary Oldman as the commissioner, Morgan Freeman, and Gary Oldman. The one, very odd, change in cast is Maggie Gyllenhaal replacing Katie Holmes as Batman/Harvey Dent's love interest, Rachel.

But, it's the newcomers, Aaron Eckheart, and even more so, Heath Ledger that steal the show. Eckheart's depiction of the tragic Harvey Dent is great, and when it comes to the rather monotonous behavior of the other good guys, Eckheart shines as portraying a very nuanced character. Ledger, on the other hand, gives a legendary performance as The Joker. He easily steals every scene he's in, and makes sure that Jack Nicholson's got nothin' on him. Seriously, this is a portrayal of a villain up there with Anthony Hopkin's Hannibal Lector, and Denzel Washington's Alonzo Harris.

The plot centers on the arrival of The Joker, a harbinger of chaos in Gotham. The Joker quickly turns Gotham into a warzone, and it's up to Harvey Dent to save the day. Wait. What about Batman? Batman is not as present as Dent or The Joker in this film, one could say he's not quite the main character, but Batman has some tough choices to make throughout the course of the film that really give depth, and a set of imperfections to your standard comic book hero.

Christopher Nolan's directing really brings this setup to life. It has a strikingly real feeling for a comic book film, and not one bit of it seems entirely too unbelievable.

To put it simply, The Dark Knight pwns to the bones, seeing it on IMAX last night almost melted my face off. This movie is boss, and it's ratcheted up to the next level thanks to Christopher Nolan's directing, and Heath Ledger's incredible last performance.

10/10

Batman. Was. Awesome.

Heath Ledger. Was. A. Boss.

That. Is. All. For. Now.

Full. Review. Tomorrow.

Making. It. My. First. Movie. Review. On. This. Blog.

I. Quite. Enjoy. Putting. Periods. After. Every. Word.

So if you look back at my passed few blogs, I think the majority of them are centered on music, and music games. That was the slow transition into what I want my blog to become. I love music (almost all kinds except for pop, and such crap), and now with Guitar Hero, Rock Revolution, Wii Music, and Rock Band, music games are a bigger genre than ever. My reasoning for doing this is because it's common that you'll see a blog about someone expressing their love of MGS4, or their hatred of E3 '08, so I want my blog to be a place where you fellow Gamespotters can stop off to read something unique. Of course, I'll write blog reviews from time to time, I'll definitely make a best of blog series at the end of the year, and blog about general gaming and otherwise when I feel it's important (you may find a bloggy relating to a certain movie coming out tomorrow over the weekend)

Anyways, I've thought out a few blog series, and we'll see how it goes.

So in a few days I'm going to write a blog about what I would pitch if I were to make Guitar Hero 5.

The short version: It sucked

The long version:

So this year's E3 was basically the recycling of old announcements with new gameplay footage. Hooray...

Seriously, it didn't seem like there was any need to hold the event this year. Microsoft essentially told us that games they had announced for their console were indeed coming out. So thank you for that Microsoft. They also paid SqaureEnix a s***load of money to get Final Fantasy XIII, which was actually a pretty cool announcement, but that was really the only megaton at this year's E3. They also said that they would be releasing an Avatar system (HOW ORIGINAL).

Sony told us that God of War III was coming out (WOAH DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING), and there would be a Resistance title on the PSP (seriously, who gives a damn).

Remember how Nintendo promised us some titles that would suit hardcore gamers at this year's E3? They lied. Animal Crossing, Wii Music, and Wii Sports Resort were all anounced (yay...oh wait, I couldn't give less of a f***), and on the DS side of things Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars, and Guitar Hero: On Tour Decades were announced (I'm a fan of GTA and GH so I'll admit those were interesting announcements).

All in all, this year's E3 was a big pile of suck.

3/10

People often argue which entry is the best in an epic series.

Is Revenge of The Sith, or Empire Strikes Back the best Star Wars movie?

Which LOTR is the best?

It's highly likely that you've heard these before. But personally, I haven't seen any comparisons and debates as to which MGS game is the best, so I've decided to make this bloggy to examine each one. As of right now, I have no idea which one I like the best, the gameplay in each game is amazing, so I'm gonna be talking more about the story of each game. So hopefully by the end of the blog, after all the comparisons, I'll be able to make a decision.

Metal Gear Solid one I give some slack because it's the one that started it all. It did a pretty good job tying off some plot elements from Metal Gear 2, like the ultimate redemption of Gray Fox, and the remnants of Big Boss being the centerpiece of the story. It's also important to note that MGS1, of course, started the Liquid vs. Snake conflict, that ended up being the most important conflict throughout the entire series. The one thing I have against MGS1 is the fact that it didn't introduce The Patriotsm, even though they became a pivotal part of the story later on. It is worth knowing, however, that MGS1 has the most connections with MGS4

Metal Gear Solid 2 took the most risks by far. Of course, the most obvious one is the addition of a new main character. Now, based on the story of Sons of Liberty, Snake simply could not have been the main character. The reason why Raiden is there is to have a character who learns what's going on in the Metal Gear universe along with the player. Raiden himself, wasn't a good character at all, but his inclusion was definitely a necessary evil. Metal Gear Solid 2 also brilliantly set up Guns of The Patriots. I give MGS2 extra credit because of the risks it took, and even though everything didn't turn out as planned, it still ended up being absolutely brilliant.

Metal Gear Solid 3 always seems like the black sheep in my eye. The story itself is great, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't have much to do with the Metal Gear Solid story. If they had named MGS3 "Metal Gear 3" I would've been fine with it. The Metal Gear series seems to be more about Big Boss, and MGS3 was, of course, a Big Boss centered game. The Metal Gear SOLID series however, should be focused on Solid Snake, and his story. MGS3 was a great game, but it doesn't really fit in with the series.

MGS4 has by far the most epic story of the bunch, but it also covers a bit too much ground. Guns of The Patriots closes just about every single plot thread left open in any Metal Gear Solid, or even Metal Gear game for that matter. All of the issues brought up from the old games, and the clever references to MGS3 (the only game in the series that doesn't fit quite as well in the overarching story) were all great. It's by far the most satisfying of the Metal Gear games, and all the nostalgia really adds to Guns of The Patriot's story. Also, the redemption of Raiden as a character really shows Kojima's dedication to the Metal Gear universe, and how people react to it.

So I guess I'll rank them now that I've though about it.

Metal Gear Solid 2

Metal Gear Solid 4

Metal Gear Solid

Metal Gear Solid 3

Just so you know I got nothing against MGS3, it's an awesome game, it just doesn't fit well in the Metal Gear SOLID series, if you get what I'm saying.

Here it is (it's a little late but whatever), my review for BF Bad Company:

Battlefield Bad Company represents a fairly big step forward in the BF franchise, in that, for the first time ever, there's a fully-functional singleplayer campaign. Make no mistake, the multiplayer is back with a vengeance, but a good singleplayer only serves to add to the value of the package. With good gameplay, a good story, and good replay value, Battlefield Bad Company should be an awesome game, but it ends up falling just short of greatness due to a few issues.

The story is actually very good. You play as Preston Marlow

LOL WHAT AN AWFUL NAME

It sounds like he should have some of this going on

and DEFINITLEY some of this too

who falls in with a ragtag team of rascals in Bad Company. The game's feel is very cynical all around, and there's some great humor, but some of the jokes don't come off too well…at all. Anyway you and your squad will go around the Russian back country blowing things up until you stumble upon a couple of trucks carrying tons of gold. I bet you can figure out what happens next.

Battlefield Bad Company's gameplay is best summed up by its front cover. That grenade with the smiley-face pin says a lot. Basically, in Bad Company, you'll be blowing tremendous amounts of s*** up, and you'll probably be giggling with glee as you do so (that's what I did anyway, hopefully other people do the same, or else I'd feel weird). To support that, environments are highly destructible, for example, you can choose you use a building's front door, or you can just blast your way through.

The singleplayer campaign is fairly well designed. You'll go from objective to objective, and you'll be performing tasks that range from escorting things to (surprise, surprise) blowing things up. The story is told well through cutscenes, but the levels themselves seem to drag on forever. There's also no real penalty for dying, you'll simply spawn not too far from where you were actually killed. On the whole, though, the singleplayer is definitely worth playing.

The multiplayer is what gives this package its real value, though. Bad Company has but one mode, but it's pretty sweet. It's called Gold Rush. One team defends their precious gold while the other tries to blow it up (wtf?). Gold Rush supports the usual cla.ss based multiplayer, and all the ****s are very well balanced. There are only 8 maps, and no Conquest mode packaged inside, which is a bit of a bummer, but at the end of the day the multiplayer is quite enjoyable.

Bad Company's production values are quite good. The maps are very destructible, and the Frostbite engine is (thank capital G) one of the only engines out there which doesn't completely overuse bump-maps and normal-maps, but instead actually (*gasp*) has good textures (omg)! The sound design is also very good, the music is very calm and casual, but oddly fits, and the voice acting, as well as general sound effects are very well done.

Bad Company will probably last you a while. With a singleplayer campaign that'll last you about 8-10 hours, and a great multiplayer mode (complete with the oh-so-common exp system introduced by COD4) will keep you coming back quite often. With promise of new content in the future, the $60 you have to shell out on Bad Company will be worth it.

Bad Company isn't a remarkable game, but it's simply a great FPS. For some reason, we haven't been seeing very many shooters recently, so anyone itching for an FPS will likely be pleased with Battlefield Bad Company.

8/10