...that I could be playing right now! Everyone is going to do their E3 blogs, so I figure I'd break it up and mention some games that are already released that I haven't got to yet, that I'm still pretty excited about playing. I might even finish a few of these before some of those E3 games make it to shelves... Perhaps there are some here that you have overlooked and will sate your appetite until those games arrive.

Bioshock - Xbox 360
I like first person shooters, and this seems like a good one. It sounds like a thinking man's shooter. I think this one has passed me by because sometimes when I wanted to play a first person shooter, I wanted something a bit more 'immediate' and that I should be in a certain sort of mood to enjoy Bioshock's story.

Mass Effect + Oblivion - Xbox 360 and/or PS3
I'm grouping these two together because they are RPG's. I like RPG's. I very rarely play RPG's. I keep putting them off because they take a lot of time to complete. I always figure I'll burn through a few shorter action games first, but that mindset keeps putting them off.

Burnout Paradise Xbox 360/PS3
I loved Burnout Revenge. I think the main reason I haven't played this is because of Forza 2. They are very different games, but I think I am done with Forza for the time being (60 out of the 90 events is enough for me), so the next time I feel the need to race, I think I will be playing this.

Metal Gear Solid 4 - PS3
I haven't played any other games in the series (or perhaps briefly on a friends console). From what I've heard, It may be daunting to try and figure out what is going with little back-knowledge, but I'm sure it won't affect my enjoyment of the game.

Unreal Tournament 3 - Xbox 360/PS3
It seems this series may have lost some relevancy, but I'm still keen to give a shot, even if I don't play online. But which version? The PS3 with user content? Or the 360 version so I can play split-screen? I think the latter is a more attractive option for me.

Uncharted - PS3
Another great looking game that I haven't had a chance to pop in the drive. I think this might be one of the ones that gets attention soon.

Ratchet & Clank - PS3
Another of the more simple games that will be a pleasure to play.

Super Paper Mario - Wii
It was always my intention to play this before Galaxy, but now that I've played Galaxy, I get the feeling this will be a mild step down. Still, it's been a while since I played Galaxy, and the gameplay is fairly different, so I'm sure I will still enjoy this title.

Metroid Prime 3 - Wii
Got halfway through Metroid Prime 1 before getting sidetracked. I don't know if I really want to go back, finish it, and play number 2 before going on to the newest instalment. I think I might just start here.

Zelda : Twilight Princess - Wii
Another game that I spent a few hours with at launch, then went to the shorter games on my list, expecting it to be long. I really should restart the game, as it was fun.

Marvel : Ultimate Alliance - Xbox 360/PS3
This might not have been a AAA title, but it's solid, and the gameplay is right up my alley. I had a good time playing the PS2 version at a friends house, so getting a beefier version should be an even better experience.

Zack & Wiki - Wii
I know this is on the 'good games that no one bought' list. And thus far, I'm a culprit. I hope to rectify that soon.

I punched that list out in about 10 minutes, and I could list at least another couple of dozen already released games for this generation that I would at least like to try because I think I will like them. I'm always amazed when people say there are no games to play (although I think this may often be 'there are no games I can afford or I think are worth the money, even if I will enjoy them to some extent). In all likelihood, some of the games that come out over the rest of the year will supercede some of these on the list.

Of course, having so many great games left to play means that nearly all of my gaming time is a great experience. I don't know that there is a better time to be a gamer.

I have finally completed my first review.

Resident Evil 4 : Wii Edition Review

Feel free to give it a thumbs up if you like. Constructive criticism not only welcome, but demanded Only way to get better is to know what doesn't seem right.

Maybe you have heard of Daft Bodies. This is the first video I saw of it:

Daft Bodies - Harder Better Faster Stronger

I have since looked up some of the female versions, but I think these guys nail it. For those that don't want to load the clip, a quick description. It is two guys who get down to their jocks and dance along to the song Harder Bester Faster Stronger by Daft Punk, with all the words used in the song written on their bodies, such that the words are presented to the camera when they are used in the song.

I recently went to a friends house, and loaded the clip to show him, and the following conversation took place.

Him : Why are we watching two guys?
Me : Cos it's awesome
Him : Why are we watching two guys strip?
Me : Cos the dance moves are awesome. There are chick versions, but these guys just nail it, it's the best version I've seen.
Him : If they take off any more clothes, I am out of here.

So what is homophobia? I don't quite get it, but it is built right into the definition of the word ; an irrational fear or loathing of homosexuals or homosexuality. But instances like these seem relatively common, where it seems that nothing is being expected of them in any homosexual manner, but is still somehow challenging to them.

There is a movie called Shortbus. I'm not quite sure how it didn't get banned here in South Australia given it's content. It contains actual sex, both heterosexual and homosexual, with details you would expect to find only in actual adult film (a quick explanation; in Australia, the highest general rating is R, hardcore adult films are rated X, and only sold out of two states). It has been a while since I have seen it, but I thought it was an interesting and honest look into sexuality. Nevertheless, I can bet the majority would be scrambling for the remote the moment two naked gentlemen get close to each other (or just get naked, for that matter). I didn't see a need to do so. The way they act in these scenes is incremental to learning about them.

There are other things that simply seem taboo for a heterosexual male. I doubt very much I could ask any of my male friends for a massage, and would probably think I had some ulterior sexual motive. I've had a massage from a qualified male masseur, and I didn't leave thinking about how I would like to bend over the next guy I saw. He touches guys all day, and he had a 'traditional' family. I reckon a couple of my friends might even be challenged if I asked them to cut my hair (I'm lazy and use clippers, but need someone else to do the last bit of tidying). Try giving most guys a hug and they will fall over backwards trying to get away from your embrace.

Most heterosexual men probably fail to recognise whether another man is hot or sexy. I'd say I have trouble in that department, but that is simply because I don't find men attractive. But I would acknowledge that Brad Pitt and Matthew McConaughy (too lazy to look up spelling) are good looking guys. A person I used to work with did some dancing (as work) on the side at night clubs. Boy, did he have some moves. You know what, I'll come right and say it; his moves were damn sexy. Not in the sexual arouse sense, but in that sleek, fast, complete control of his body sense. But I have no doubt if I had turned to a guy beside me and said that, they would instantly label me as gay.

What I am trying to get at here is that there seems to be some cultural confusion (for want of a better term) between what actually makes you homosexual (sexually attracted to other men) and things that have no bearing on it. I'm aware that I have only covered one angle here, because it is all I can relate to. Are there any such taboos between heterosexual women? Would any of the above challenge your heterosexuality (if you are heterosexual)? Why do you think some of these arbitrary barriers are in place?

Foreword : A recent PressSpotting article talked about the coverage of professional gaming, which prompted this entry. If you have not read it already, I recommend you do so before reading this. Please note that this is long; I intended to break it up into multiple parts, but felt some questions might be raised in one part that would be addressed in another, so I have submitted it as one entry.

Gaming as sport
One area of contention appears to be simply referring to professional gaming as sport at all. I took a look at wikipedia for some definitions. An excerpt from the Sport entry:
Sport is an activity that is governed by a set of rules or customs and often engaged in competitively. Sports commonly refer to activities where the physical capabilities of the competitor are the sole or primary determiner of the outcome (winning or losing), but the term is also used to include activities such as mind sports (a common name for some card games and board games with little to no element of chance) and motor sports where mental acuity or equipment quality are major factors.

According to these criteria, I would consider competitive video gaming to be a little bit of physical capabilities (mainly reaction times and co-ordination) plus a lot of qualities you would need for mind games. Some comments in other related sports articles also seem to be analogous with video games. From Professional Sports:
Most sports played professionally also have amateur players far outnumbering the professionals. Professional athleticism is seen by some as a contradiction of the central ethos of sport, competition performed for its own sake and pure enjoyment, rather than as a means of earning a living.

That sounds pretty analogous to me. I've heard of people who have the skills and opportunity to play professional football, but they choose not to because they didn't want to lose the love of the game; they wanted to play because they loved the game, not because they wanted the big bucks, or were obligated to train and play at certain times. I'm sure there are video gamers who have the skill to be professional gamers, but may not enjoy sticking with one game for an extended period of time to learn all of it's nuances, even if it meant the potential to earn income. They may rather just move on to another game instead.

The entry for poker, which is certainly non-physical, also specifically mentions it as a sport:
Poker's popularity experienced an unprecedented spike at the beginning of the 21st century, largely because of the introduction of online poker and the invention of the hole-card camera, which turned the game into a spectator sport.

Poker is a game of odds, where professional players (presumably) can figure out the odds of certain hands coming up. They also have to consider the play sty1e of other players at their table. I don't see how professional video gaming can be seen much differently. The main difference is that video gamers (in most games at least) are constantly making decisions as opposed to the singular large decisions made in poker, but I think that should be to the gamers credit. Take a first person shooter for example. You could be constantly weighing up which weapons and ammo you have, where your opponents are, where you think your opponents are if you can't see them, which weapons they have, which weapons you want to acquire, and the safest way of doing so, etc. You also have to use your skills of perception to determine how your opponent(s) are playing, and see if there is a particular pattern that you can use to your advantage.

So the evidence is that professional gaming, where players primary goal is to win and earn money at the highest level (regardless of whether they are having fun at the same time or not) could be considered sport. That said, I'm quite content to just call it professional gaming. Note that I think it is quite possible for someone to be exceptional at games without liking them. Before anyone asks why would you bother if that was the case, look at people working in jobs. They do it for the money. I know some people say they like their job, but if they no longer got paid, do they like it enough to make it into a hobby? In most cases, probably not. If someone can be good enough at games to earn money from them, regardless of whether they enjoy it or not, how is that terribly different from a job?

What needs to happen to move forward?
I confess to only have a vague idea about how professional gaming is currently run, but I imagine it is mostly scattered tournaments without any overarching structure. I think the implementation of such structure is what will progress professional gaming over the next decade.

The tournament template I got my inspiration from was from another game; Magic : The Gathering, a collectible card game (hereafter referred to as MTG). I used to play casually, but I did follow coverage of their tournaments, which was known as "The Pro Tour" (note that I haven't followed this for over a year, so this information may be outdated, but still provides a good template). Players would play in regional tournaments, and top players would be invited to Pro Tour events, which I think was about 8 per year. Ranking highly in the Pro events earned you Pro points, and those with sufficient Pro points received automatic invites to future Pro events. Last I recall, Wizards of the Coast (MTG's owner) gave away $2million in prize money each year on the Pro Tour, and began offering free flights to the highest ranked players (Pro Tour events occurred all over the world). They also ran some other tournaments outside of the Pro Tour that complemented it.

The Pro Tour for MTG has one huge advantage over video games; it is a single game owned by one company, and the Pro Tour is governed and funded by that company. Even if we only include high profile ones, hundreds of video games are released by dozens of companies each year.

I don't pretend to know the entire purpose of the ESA, but I think they might be in the prime position to implement the tournament structure. First up, they make a 12 month dollar commitment as prizes. I don't know how much this should be, feasibility studies on all the factors would be required. I'll talk about games selection in a minute, but we will go over structure first.

Players interested in playing a Pro event need to play at regionals. These could be team events or individual (more on that later). Players would need to pay a fee to enter these events. Presumably these fees would cover the prize money and the cost of hosting the event. Also presumably, players would be willing to pay the fee for the chance to not only win some of the prize money at the regional event, but to be invited to a Pro event, where the promise of bigger dollars lie.

Pro events would need to be high profile and well presented, and be an event run like any of the major game days we see. Plenty of big screens for spectators to watch, professional commentators as the game unfolds, and well planned camera cuts between commentators, players and the onscreen action. Perhaps interviews with players after they finish a game to gain some insight as to what they were thinking when they played, how tense it was, and whether they learned anything. To add some variety, other activities could be available to the public. Developers could buy floor space to show off upcoming games, much like current game days. Perhaps the public could play biased matches against some of the Pro players who have been knocked out in early rounds, for example a Pro player vs a team of 2 or 3 in a FPS or RTS game.

To go over a problem I briefly presented earlier, which games are going to be played? That's a tough one. For such an event to survive, the games need to be the ones that people want to play, and that spectators are interested in watching. I expect that some sort of public voting would be required. I think publishers of the games might need to be asked to pony up some cash to sponsor the game, but that could be a challenge. It could also be a great opportunity for developers to preview a new game as an opening exhibition match. Let all the players participating in the event try out the multiplayer in a new game before its release. It gives the game some pretty big exposure, and potentially a game that those Pro players might recommend join the roster of regular games played.

I think figuring out the choice of games, or more importantly how they are chosen, will be the make or break for any such series of events. Remember that these events will have to be planned well in advance, and the games, maps (if applicable) and rules will need to be locked down ahead of schedule. It might be interesting to have each Pro event focus on only one game, and have an annual major event that takes place over a few days, where the gamers play multiple games over different genres, and have points tallied up to determine their success as an overall gamer.

Who is the audience? What do they want to see?
One of the questions raised in the original article was, who is the audience for professional gaming? If it is going to be turned into a spectator event, what is the demographic? I think I'm one of them. In the comments, several people commented that they would rather play games than watch others play them. I think people will watch professional gaming for the same reason some people watch professional physical sports; to witness a display of skill that we can not match. It's also an opportunity to learn tactics from some of the best.

I agree with the person in the article; I would much prefer to watch teams play than individuals. This would show how critical communication is in teamwork, how certain players are designated roles in certain games and how it impacts the teams performance, and generally brings a social aspect to the gaming at hand. This is likely to be more unique to spectators, as they may not have been able to participate in such highly organised teamwork while playing the same game. The most popular physical sports are all team games.

As I said earlier, I think coverage of such events needs to be the right mix of ingame footage, cameras on players, interviews or snippets between rounds/games, and professional commentary. I'd like to hear about what players are thinking about when they are playing or what strategy they will adopt for the next match, I'd like to hear commentators giving us a rundown of what team tactics are being used during play, and I'd like to see recaps of awesome moments in the game.

Closing Notes
Another thing that I think will be part of this evolution is that more game developers will begin to add tournament options into their games. An example of such a feature is Battlecast, which was included in Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars for the PC. Features like the movie making in Halo 3 will be more common place, so players and teams can review their tactics. In addition to standard features such as leaderboard tracking across maps and modes, I'd like to see features that would enhance spectating in the tournament environment. In FPS, an overhead map that displayed the location of all players could give spectators a better idea of the flow of the game. Similarly a fully revealed map on RTS games for a commentator or tournament organiser to explore would be great.

Whether you consider it a sport or not, I think professional gaming is set to grow and gain acceptance. A structured tournament environment would allow both professional players and spectators an easier way to track the world of professional gaming. Perhaps that is one of the factors holding it back; any news we hear about game tournaments is lost on most of us because we can't relate to a bigger overall picture.

What are your thoughts? Do you think an overarching structure to tournaments are the way to grow professional gaming? Is there another way? If we are looking at interlinked series of events, what are the best options for determining which games are going to be played? If you were going to spectate live, what would you like to see? If you were going to spectate from home, what would you like to see?

Play Protector at Kongregate

Protector is Tower Defense strategy RPG flash game, which has a bare bones story. The land is under attack, and it is up to you to set up defenses to make sure enemies don't make it through. That's pretty much it, but it is all you need to give you a world map and serves as a reason for the meat of the game; the strategy. A few easy maps are available to play from the outset. As you complete maps, more of the world becomes available to explore and play. Therefore you don't need to play them in a specific order, though you will likely want to finish all the easy maps before moving onto medium ones, and finish those before moving onto the hard ones.

The brains on the other side of the map must be more tasty than those of your mages.

Once you start a map, you survey the isometric grid, figure out where to place your men on any available tiles, and start hiring troops with your starting gold. There are 5 basic unit types; the 4 mages are virtually identical, except for their elemental alignment and specials (more on those later), while Dexers are the fighters, who have less range and can't hit flying enemies, but have more raw power. Once you are ready, you can launch the first wave, and have the enemy run along a set course through the map (sometimes through multiple entry and exit points), getting blasted by your mages or hacked by your Dexers. Your troops gain experience points based on how much damage they deal (not on kills), and you gain gold for each enemy killed. Should an enemy make it through your defenses, you lose a life. The amount of lives you have differs on each map, and if you lose them all, you have to start the map again.

Once the first wave is over, you can hire more troops, or if they have earned enough experience, level up the ones already on the field. Troops that have earned the requisite experience are surrounded by a red aura and easily discernable. Leveling up troops also costs gold, so you will have to decide whether it's more important to level up, or to place fresh troops. Further adding variety is that each time you level up one your troops, you can do so generally, or focus on their specialty. Each time you upgrade their specialty, they get a smaller damage increase than normal, but increase the power of their special attack. For example, specialty blue mages slow down enemies, which allows nearby troops to attack them for longer; the more specialised a blue mage is, the slower he is able to make the enemy. Good placement and management of specialty troops can make a great difference in the later maps.

Each wave of enemies also has an elemental strength and weakness. As should be obvious, they take less damage from attacks that match their strength, and more damage from attacks that match their weakness. A bar at the bottom of the map lays out the sequence of the waves, and they are coloured in their elemental strength, which you can use as a guide to think ahead. You can click on a particular wave to get a few more details about that enemy, if you also want to plan a few waves ahead to exploit its weakness. Enemies can also have abilities, such as flying, absorbing (which gives them a few hit points when hit by their elemental strength instead of just reducing the damage) and regenerating, as well as having immunities to certain specialties.

The first time you beat a map, you earn a skill point. Skill points can be spent on a basic tech tree that upgrades certain types of troops, unlocks advanced units, and a few other abilities. While I used the advanced units to test them out, they are much more expensive to buy and upgrade than regular units, and didn't feel like value for money. You will need to earn some skills points before you can tackle the harder levels (I failed a number of times on my first medium map before I realised this feature existed!). You can always reassign your skill points between maps, so you don't need to worry about long-term ramifications of choosing your skills.

All of these different gameplay elements add up to allow you to think of various strategies to go about beating a map. Do you pour all your skill points into upgrading one type of troop and spam the map with them? Do you place troops at the back of the map and work forwards, before units at the front soak up all the experience, or build a really strong frontline? Do you put more troops on the map, or upgrade the ones you have? What is the best placement to upgrade specialty troops, and make the most advantage of their skills? How will the decisions I make now affect me in several waves time? These are all questions you will ponder on each map. The maps and the paths the enemies take are varied enough that each offer their own puzzle.

The game is great fun while you are learning the units, how their specials work, and what mix you need to deal with the enemies at hand. In the early game, I felt the learning curve was spot on while learning all these skills. Towards the end of the medium maps, I did find that the challenge was beginning to drop, partly because most maps featured no or only a few waves of a particular element, making it easy to focus on one troop type, and there seemed to be too large room for error. So I looked forward to getting into the hard maps, hoping that the wave patterns would mix it up and have no obvious weakness that could be exploited for the entire map. Unfortunately most of the hard wave sequences were copied verbatim from other maps, meaning most of the same strategies you used before would work here again. You certainly had to be a little more careful how you placed your troops and spent your money in the first several waves, but I often reached a point where I felt there was little chance of me losing the map. As I was playing the final hard map, I hoped there was an ultrahard map to unlock, but alas this is where the game ends.

The game does also score you depending on how well you are doing. The notes on scoring are a little ambiguous, but it does give you a reason to play maps again to go for a higher score. It appears the best bonuses are based on how much money and many lives you have left at the end of each wave, which is incentive to have just enough firepower on the board to take out the current wave, and therein lies the challenge. You won't want to worry about this until after you have completed the game, as the skill point system will factor heavily into improving your score. There is an option to submit your high score and view scores*. It should also be noted that the game saves automatically presumably in cookies*, and allows you to continue the next time you load up the game. This is an essential feature, as you will get at least 10 hours of gameplay.

This is a very enjoyable and accessible game for those who enjoy forward thinking, thinking about all the variables, and want to solve the puzzle presented on each map. It's main shortcomings are the lack of challenge and need to explore new strategies towards the latter parts of the game, but it is still worth seeing all the way through. With some polish, a better difficulty curve, and a few more maps, I think this game has potential as a game for any of the major downloadable services currently available. It costs nothing to try, and is perfect for a bit of strategy during your work lunch break.

* I used Internet Explorer, and did not play on Kongregate's own page for Protector, and the score submission process did not work for me; I imagine it will work on Kongregate's own site.

I was rather excited when Developer for a Day was announced. I'd had an idea for a game (or more specifically, a set of game mechanics) for a while, and I thought this was a great opportunity to present it. I got several pages in, and then it was hard going. Game systems can play out well in your head, but sometimes getting the idea across on paper is a lot harder. What was more difficult is that the game systems had to exist in an actual game, with characters, a story, and a reason to use said game mechanics. I got a bit stuck, had another idea, worked on a bit, but didn't finish it. I could have, but just didn't apply myself. So I thought I would share those ideas, and a few others.

Action RPG mechanic
Yes, that's a pretty generic title, but the game never had a name. My mechanic was a different take on magic systems, and types of spells. While traditional attack spells and melee attacks would exist in the game, I wanted the focus to be on summoning monsters to attack alongside you. The catch was that the monsters would cost a little mana to cast, but also drain mana for as long as they remain by your side. Do you summon 4 lesser monsters, or 1 large monster? Do you summon monsters that drain your mana at the same pace as it regenerates, or summon more powerful monsters and hope the battle finishes before you run out of mana?

The role-playing element would come into play with your standard level up, which increases the amount your mana regenerates, thus allowing you to summon more monsters or larger monsters that you would learn throughout the game. The spells themselves would also have a level-up system similar to what was in Baldur's Gate 2 : Dark Alliance. When you levelled up, you would earn points that could be used to improve your monster spells, such as making them stronger, drain less mana, and learn new attacks.

Which brings me to the third part of the equation. Monsters can be set to have different behaviours. Monsters can guard you and not leave your side, can be aggressive and hunt down enemies, or other monster-specific abilities. For example, an Imp that had a 'run and gun' tactic, where it would whiz past enemies with a light attack, but would also be hard for enemies to hit or chase, and a Phoenix that had an 'explosion' attack, where it would, well, explode. Those were the core elements that I was excited about, but once I started writing the document, I had a hard time actually putting it into a game, and making a story and mission progress mesh was the hard part. I could do it, but I would need more time than I had.

Dual-Stick Unreal Tournament
Not actual Unreal Tournament made into a top-down dual stick shooter, but that was certainly my inspiration. We've seen plenty of Dual-Stick shooters. Most of them are of the more arcade variety, where enemies appear, and you take a billion of them down, whether in an enclosed space like Geometry Wars, or a scrolling shooter like Assault Heroes. Undertow is the only dual-stick shooter I can think of that adopted one of the standard modes of Unreal Tournament (Domination).

My game applied most of the team modes of Unreal Tournament (team deathmatch, Capture the Flag), in a league setting. But you also had to manage your team. AI players that you hire would have different attributes, such as speed, accuracy and health; the match type might affect your choices. For example, you may choose the fastest player to be a flag runner for CTF matches. You would also be sponsored by different companies. The level of sponsorship dictates how much money you have to spend before each match. At the beginning of each round, you get to buy weapons and equipment for your team. As well as traditional weapons and armour, you can also buy placements, which are placed before a round begins; turrets, health pods, ammo dispensers, and the like. Of course, these can be destroyed by the enemy.

While you control the team captain on the battlefield, you can also control your AI teammates, and assign them behaviours (my theory for controls was having a corresponding face button for each teammate and using a radial menu). For example, the aforementioned fast player could be assigned CTF duty, a couple of other players can be set to follow him to protect him, while the rest stick to defending the flag.

All the rest of the ideas are fairly standard. Plenty of multiplayer modes, drop in/drop out co-op, and boss-type fights to advance to the next grade in the league are a couple of other features. I think this could make for a great XBLA or PSN game.

Resident Evil 4 Multiplayer
Yeah, this is a mode rather than a game, but I knew I wouldn't have it in me to design something that wasn't an exact rip-off. All I want is Resident Evil 4 controls, enemies, and atmosphere, and give it co-op multiplayer. A few additional tweaks could keep the same tension. Players would need to be able to share weapons and ammo, and weapon placement would have to be designed in such a way that throwing them to other players becomes a must. Level design would of course be tantamount to the success of such a endeavour.

Vampires Take Over The World!
I have no idea what genre this game would be. I think it would be interesting storywise to be the head of the vampires, bent on building up an army and taking back the Earth. Real-time strategy? I don't know. Not sure what you would do for vampire units, I guess you would have to introduce your own mythology so that you have more options for units. Turn-based strategy RPG? Maybe. Perhaps it could take place in the near future where vampires have already ravaged many cities, and now the resistance is fighting back. You can take control of a particular pack of vampires that go from city to city to 'clean up'. This would allow for character development, which would be lacking in an RTS. Not sure what other genres would really fit.

Hoverboard Racing/Combat
I've had this in mind ever since the Wii's Balance Board was announced. I want to be on a hoverboard in F-Zero sty1e going around a futuristic race track. I want to collect weapons, use my nuchuck to free-look, and my remote to aim those weapons at other racers. Some sort of grapple system that lets you swing faster around corners would also be awesome. Developers, please make this game happen.

So, do you have any ideas for games? Soph obviously does; congrats on the Developer 4 a Day finals, I guess we will hear about your game soon! And raven has shared an idea or two. I've got a couple of other ideas in mind, but maybe if I actually work on them, I might have one of them finished for next years Developer For a Day!