Sure, games like "Rock Band" may be expanding the market and bringing in lots of "non-traditional" gamers. But every once in a while us "real" gamers need to know the publishers still love us. So bless the hearts of Harmonix, MTV, and Valve for bringing "Still Alive," the hilarious and brilliant song from the end of the hilarious and brilliant "Portal," to "Rock Band" tomorrow, where it will be free to download for PS3 and 360. And no, it's not an april fool's prank.

Honestly, I'm very happy about this. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

I've been spending a lot of time perfecting my drum skills (well, trying to make it through the hard solo tour) on "Rock Band" recently, but I think I want to call vocals for this one.

(Thanks, Kotaku)

As most Cut Scene readers probably know already, Starz Media recently signed a pretty unique deal with EA to produce an animated TV/direct-to-dvd film tied into this fall's new sci-fi/horror game "Dead Space." We've seen lots of movies based on videogames before, of course, but usually they come out after the game's a hit. This is the first I know of that is being done "on spec" in order to be released along with the game. Starz is basically banking that EA really does have a hit franchise on its hands.

Since this deal is right where The Cut Scene lives (not physically, but philosophically -- you know what I mean), I figured you would all want to know more about it. So I got on the phone with Scott Greenberg, president of Starz-owned Film Roman, which is producing the "Dead Space" movie, to talk more about it:

The Cut Scene: How did this deal come about? Who approached who? Why did you find it interesting?

Scott Greenberg:  It got started a little over two years ago when I reached out to EA. We were looking for new sources of ideas. I believe and we at Film Roman felt that videogames -- the way comic books have become a source of stories in the past years -- games have the same influence. They're another great source to tap into.

But it had to be the right way to do it. I worked closely with two guys in EA's business affairs group. We got to know the different games. We had to find right product to start off. They want to get the motor going on original IP. They are the best at games we feel we're the best at animation. So we figured it would be a good match.

"Dead Space" is something they told us about from the get go. We started developing a film with them over a year ago as a prequel. I would go with them to every studio and meet people, see what games they have. Some don’t make sense as movies. There are a couple of others we have in development more as series for kids.

We really wanted to figure out how to develop together. They do their story and we do ours. Somebody have great experience playing game and also a great experience watching it for  more background. There will be enough links so gamers can enjoy it, but at the same time the film stands alone if you don't play the games. 

We had time to get to know each other and built trust. "Dead Space" is a game that's at the right place with the timing and we just worked closely to start develop script with their characters. It's a great one to launch off of. Then we'll do more hopefully

TCS: How did you come up with the story for the film? How much were they involved with it?

SG: They have a very detailed bible. It's basically "'Alien' meets 'Doom' in space." To get there, though, there's a whole mythology they built behind it. In the game there are planets with  markings that unleash holy hell. We said, "Is there a parallel story?" There was some mutual brainstorming. We said it would be really interesting to tell a prequel story. Where the movie ends, the game picks right up.

We found a bunch of writers who they met and interviewed. Together we picked Jimmy Palmiotti, who writes comic books. As we started doing our story, the development of the game was always evolving. That’s cool for us. As they're producing sound effects we're using stuff they have. We have their world and their designs. That's a huge jump start to take their assets. We had a meeting two weeks ago with their producer and our director going over some scripts storyboards.

On the marketing side, these guys are the best marketers out there. They're working closely with our sales people. This will be an event. Like a motion picture release. They're building a brand and we're coordinating that as we approach TV partners in the U.S. and worldwide. It will be a tie-in to the release of game. The whole thing will come out like a big "Dead Space" event. That’s exciting to me because it provides exposure for both sides. We'll help drive game sales and they'll help drive TV and  homevideo.

TCS: How will the windows work? What will the timing be from the TV debut to homevideo, or vice-versa?

SG: That's still being worked out. The goal right now is to release it on homevideo day-and-date with the game around Halloween. We'd premiere the movie on TV in mid-late September or early October. So it would be a short window. But it depends on the needs and wants of our partners. That's being worked out right now.

TCS: What would the rating be, since the game looks like it will be an M?

SG: On DVD we might be able to push it (to an R). The TV version has to be able to play in prime time cable.

TCS: Will the film be CGI ?

SG: There will be CG backgrounds. CG vehicles and CG props from the games. So the world is CG, they we are animating the characters and other things we insert in 2-D.

TCS: Is Starz fully financing the film? Is EA involved with that at all?

SG: I don’t want to comment on the deal terms. But it's a beneficial relationship for everybody.

TCS: Will you use the same voice actors as the game?

SG: Yes. And we are involved in the voice casting.

TCS: Might you sell the game and movie together as one package?

SG: Possibly. Everything’s on the table. Everybody is looking for the best way to market this.  Co-packaging is a possibility, but nothing is planned as of yet.

TCS: What's your overall goal for your relationship with EA?

SG: I want to do a lot of things with them. I hope this is the first of many. In my view, it's a long term relationship. I hope we can do more event movies. We're talking about animated series for kids. This could also move into the live action space for other parts of Starz. EA has a mandate to build properties and expand into the traditional entertainment world. We think it's smart to be in that space and we want to be there with them.

But we're not in business with them to sell games. We're not a marketing company for them. We're here to make great entertainment of our own.

[Interview edited for length, grammar, etc.]

Xbox Live Video Marketplace already has feature films, TV shows, and Internet shorts, but everything there has always aired somewhere else first.

But later this year it’ll be getting its first premiere. Safran Digital, the division of producer Peter Safran’s company that does… guess what?... has struck a deal with Microsoft to premiere some short form programming on Xbox Live later this year.

They’re not yet ready to talk about what the content will be or who’s making it, though I would expect some of Safran’s clients like Nia Vardolos, “Epic/Date Movie” guys Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, or P. Diddy might be involved.

Jake Zim, the former Fox Atomic exec who is now COO of Safran Digital (and, I should admit, someone I know outside of journalistic reporting) would only say that the content will be under 10 minutes and in the kind of genres we can expect the young men who primarily populate Xbox Live to most consume, like comedy and horror. And no, none of it will be stuff that’s actually about video games. Perhaps that’s a little too on the nose.

There are lots of places to premiere content online, of course, and Zim said Safran Digital will be making deals with several of them. But he likes premiering some content on Xbox Live because it’s an easy way to get onto the TV and it’s much easier to get your content featured and found.

“Xbox Live is actually programmed carefully,” he noted. “You’re not going to get lost in a deep sea like on the Internet.”

Up to now, all of the content on Xbox Live has been pay-per-download, with the exception of some sponsored promotions. But the Safran Digital stuff may be advertiser-supported, though it’s not yet clear exactly how that will work. Microsoft execs have previously told me they’re looking at more options to allow free video downloads via advertising, so I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more of that even before Safran Digital’s stuff debuts.

Scott Nocas, Xbox Live’s programming marketing manager (fun title) says this is just the first programming deal he expects the company to make. And why not? You’ve got a captive audience of young men – just the types who are spending less time consuming movies and TV – so why not program to them?

In fact, way back when the Xbox 360 was launching in late 2005, I wrote about how the console’s Internet connection would let it become, essentially, a cable box for gamers. It’s coming true. Which means Microsoft – and, maybe one day soon, Sony -- is becoming a more and more powerful arbiter of what content gets put in front of a very sought-after demo.

Following my story about Paramount getting into video games today, I've had a few questions about just what the status is of various studios in the space. The short answer is that, as I wrote, Paramount and Warner Bros. are the only studios that publish video games. But Disney has a corporate sibling that's a video game publisher, as does Sony, which seems to confuse some people. So here's a short summary of where they all stand:

-Disney: Walt Disney Studios isn't in videogames at all, but the Walt Disney Company owns Disney Interactive Studios (and I'm switching to acronyms now to avoid saying "Disney" anymore). DIS is tight with its corporate siblings and publishes a lot of games based on Disney movies and ABC/Disney TV group shows (which includes those on ABC, Disney Channel, etc.) DIS also publishes some  games not based on existing Disney properties, like "Spectrobes," "Turok," and the upcoming "Pure."

-Fox: Licenses it properties to videogame publishers. It used to have a videogame division, but it sold that to Vivendi in 2003.

-Lionsgate: Licenses its properties to videogame publishers.

-MGM: Licenses its properties to videogame publishers.

-Paramount: Has traditionally licensed out all its properties. Just starting to get into publishing itself.

-Sony Pictures: Its corporate sibling is Sony Computer Entertainment, maker of the Playstation consoles and maker of games for them. Sony Pictures used to own Sony Online Entertainment, but that vidgame division very recently moved under the control of SCE as part of a corporate re-org. Despite its close corporate relationship with one of the industry's biggest videogame players, Sony Pictures licenses out its properties to various different videogame publishers. There is now special relationship with SCE.

-Universal: Licenses out all its properties.

-Warner Bros.: In 2004 established Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, which has been growing and handling more and more of Warner. Bros.' properties in the videogame space. WBIE owns developer Monolith and is considering buying more developers. It also oversees licensing to other publishers for some Warner. Bros properties that it doesn't handle. Warner's homevideo unit distributes WBIE games at retail and also handles those duties in the U.S. for Eidos and Codemasters. In addition, WB recently bought British developer/publisher Traveller's Tales. It's not yet entirely clear to what extent Traveller's Tales will work with WBIE and to what extent it will operate independently. Oh, and Warner owns a 10% stake in Eidos.

Big news exclusively in today's Daily Variety: Paramount is getting into videogame publishing.

There have been vague rumors about this in the past and wild speculation when an executive said the studio is "very excited" about the space. But we've got confirmed what the interest is and how they're implementing it.

In short, Paramount is going to start publishing and co-publishing games based on its movie properties. It will still do licenses, but it's going to start spending some of its own money and getting more involved in production. I don't know yet what the games will be, but there's a slate in the works and the first few will come out later this year. My sense is that Paramount is leaning more towards casual, mobile, or handheld games given the lower risk, but they say they're looking at everything.

That makes it only the second film studio, along with Warner Bros., to be in the game publishing business. However I know that that several others are considering it, both because they see how much faster the videogame business is growing than film and TV and because they want to try and ensure that there won't be crappy games based on their films. Of course Disney and Sony aren't looking at it though, since they both have sister companies in the videogame biz.

Want all the details on Paramount's entry into the videogame biz? Just click here.

GTA IV has a new trailer and I've got to say, it's pretty kick ass. What I like is that -- with the exception of the final shot on the rooftops -- it doesn't just try to rip off a standard movie trailer, which is what most videogame trailers do. It's a really interesting, non-standard music choice, and I think it captures the diversity (I hope) of the game characters and setting really well, rather than trying to encapsulate a narrative. That's what most games trailers do and it's especially annoying given that the narrative is often less deep in the game than in the trailer.

Here it is. If you're under 17, you shouldn't be watching:

As part of its presentation to analysts today, Take-Two Interactive presented a few "potential untapped opprtunities" in markets it hasn't yet entered, including MMO's and mobile, as well as licensing to "traditional" media or, I assume, producing itself.

On a slide that was part of its presentation, which I copied above, it even named some potential names, noting that "Bioshock" and "Civilization" could both make great MMOs and that "Bioshock" and "Carnival Games" could work as mobile games.

These are only possiblities, of course, and not reason for fanboys to start clearing space on their hard drives or buying a powerful new phone. Given the way analyst presentations work, I take it as more Take-Two demonstrating to those in attendance that it can move into these markets if/when it is ready, because it has properties that would translate well. It's not a hint that the "Bioshock" MMO is actually in development.

As for the "Bioshock" movie, that should be a big "duh" to Cut Scene readers. As I wrote last month, "Take-Two has been bombarded with  requests from producers and studios interested in obtaining the rights, agents interested in representing them, etc." The only question is which big name is going to get the rights. And whether Take-Two will try to get commercially/creatively involved itself, possibly investing its own money.

Also of note: Executive Chairman Strauss Zelnick said that online play is becoming increasingly important. "Not all of our games have been multi-player," he noted. "Going forward, the bulk of them will be."

My immediate thought? I can't wait to play "Bioshock 2" online multi-player next year. I want to be the Big Daddy.

Leigh Alexander has our review of "Condemned 2: Bloodshot" and reports that it's a disconcerting mix of grizzly horror and CSI-style forensics. My favorite detail: "To keep his gun hand steady, Ethan must continue swilling alcohol salvaged from dirty alleyways and abandoned buildings."

Joe Lieberman is really gonna love this one!

Here's the intro to Leigh's review:

“Condemned 2: Bloodshot” will strike some players as a pulse-pounding, mind-challenging delight; for others, it will be a nausea-inducing nightmare. Investigator Ethan Thomas’ sophomore outing unevenly combines innovative CSI-style forensics with a bloody barrage of alcohol-induced, unsettlingly visceral violence. Ultimately, the game can’t seem to decide whether it’s a gritty cop story or a cult supernatural horror-fest; as a result, it won’t fully appeal to fans of either genre.

And you can read the whole thing right here.

My friend Justin astutely pointed out that "Rainbow 6 Vegas 2" is one of the most unfriendly-to-non-gamers titles we've ever seen. What the hell is an average person supposed to make of that? How would the uninitiated understand that the first number refers to the name of the squad, but the second number refers to the game's place in the franchise? It sounds more like the final score of a baseball game than a videogame title.

As I pointed out in my review today, "Rainbow Six Vegas 2" barely even qualifies as a new game. It's basically an expansion pack to the first "Rainbow Six Vegas," with all of the original's many great qualities and its few basic flaws.

According to reports, the game has already shipped over 1 million units, so a solid expansion pack is apparently worth $60 to a lot of gamers. It's also possible that plenty of people who didn't buy the first one will start with the second, since it's essentially the same game anyway.

One change I found interesting is how this franchise went from stats heavy in the first game to stats obsessed in the second. There are literally four different stats: marksman, close quarters, assault and experience points (plus, for those playing on Xbox 360, achievement points). Literally every kill gets you points in at least one category. The screen is constantly popping up "+3" or "+5" messages. And you can't go more than 10 minutes, max, without finding you leveled up or ranked up or something in one of the categories.

It's weird, since of course the basic concept of "scores" in games has pretty much gone out the window (save for "Guitar Hero" and "Rock Band"). But now instead of "scores" we have "stats," which is somehow more meaningful, I suppose. I guess it's great for those who like to get constant validation. Every time you play "Rainbow Six Vegas Two," you're sure to get an ego boost for "achieving" something or other.

(The screen above, for instance, shows the player simultaneously getting "kill using explosive" points and "experience points" for taking down an enemy.)

Here's an excerpt from my review:

At its basest formulation, a videogame franchise with annual sequels is a lot like a car with a new model every fall. So it is with “Rainbow Six Vegas 2,” which takes last year’s hit squad-based shooter, makes a few minor improvements, and offers essentially a big expansion pack of what was a tightly designed game with a few notable flaws. As such, it should enjoy solid sales amongst hard core fans of the original eager for more and some new fans who want to start with the souped up version, but won’t turn as many heads as its predecessor.

And you can read the whole thing here.

This one isn't exactly a surprise to those following Midway lately: CEO David Zucker was shown the door today after years of big losses and no revenue growth. (Read the whole story here.)

Sumner Redstone, who owns 87% of Midway, can't be happy with the returns he has seen since buying the company in 2004. His daughter Shari, who took over as chairman late last year in a little noticed corporate coup, didn't mince words in a statement announcing Zucker's departure. None of that "David has done a great job but has achieved his goals and wants to spend more time with his family" claptrap we usually get when someone gets fired. As far as press releases go, this is pretty much as harsh as statements go in my experience:

"Dynamic new leadership is needed to bring Midway to its full potential,” said Shari Redstone, Chair of the Board. “I believe that Midway has the resources and creative capability to once again be competitive with the best in the videogame business. The Board is confident that a new CEO will be selected who can fully utilize the opportunities presented by this next-generation console cycle to renew Midway’s position as a major player in the videogame industry.”

Here are some rough stats I calculated that show just how badly Midway has done for Redstone since he acquired it:

-Midway's net losses since 2004: about $300 million

-Revenue growth from 2004 through 2007: -3%

-Increase in net loss from 2004 through 2007: +399%

-Change in Midway stock value from the day Redstone took over through today: -79%

-Loss in equity value for Sumner Redstone: Over $500 million (this is a very conservative estimate given that Redstone's exact stock ownership has fluctuated over the years)

While the company has done OK with franchises like "Mortal Kombat" and "NBA Ballers," it has been plagued by delays and seen some significant disappointments, most recently "John Woo Presents Stranglehold" and "Unreal Tournament III."

Probably not what Sumner Redstone had in mind when he took control of Midway in April 2004 and said "Midway is clearly a second-tier producer, but it has the potential to be in the first tier, and that's what attracted me to the company. You're going to see an enormous infusion of talent in the very near future."

I should note, by the way, that in all my interviews with him, Zucker always seemed like a smart guy. I would suspect he has an interesting story to tell about what went wrong at Midway, though who knows if we'll ever heard it.

While Midway's board (basically, Sumner and Shari and those they approve of) search for a new CEO, the company has appointed senior VP of worldwide studios Matt Booty as interim CEO. Wondering about his gamer credentials? The photo on the right is the one he uses for his corporate bio on the Midway website.

My story about Ubisoft buying the Tom Clancy license in perpetuity for videogames, as well as any other media based on those videogame properties, is already online, so I recommend getting all the details by reading it.

However, my interview with Ubisoft CEO Yves Guillemot (right) about the deal produced a lot more interesting information than I could fit in the article. So Cut Scene readers get the extended version, with everything of interest Guillemot had to say (and then some):

-[Explaining the deal] We just acquired the name "Tom Clancy" for videogames movies and books and all ancillary products can be done based on those games. This gives us the opportunity to create, at the same time as the game, linear entertainment for it that can be launched at the same time time as the game.

-[What does this do for Ubisoft?] It allows us to be more of an entertainment companies. We're not just creating games, we're creating stories, books and characters.

-[When asked for more information about the terms of the deal] We used to just have the videogame rights for Tom Clancy for a certain amount of time. Now we have the game rights in perpetuity, royalty free. We bought them outright. [Guillemot then confirmed that Ubisoft paid a lump sum for the rights, though he wouldn't comment on the cost, though he did note that it's a "substantial" deal for his company.]

-[Explaining the benefits for Ubisoft] We're extending the videogame rights forever and getting complete freedom to complete all other projects. We don't have the rights for a "Rainbow 6" movie, however. Those aren't part of this deal. We do have it for any new properties we create... We'll make products within the limit of our know-how and ability to perform. We will also work with partners [to make licensed products]... That will vary depending on the power of any project. The goal each time is to make sure that the experience comes in many formats.

-[What can we expect to see as a result of this deal] At the moment there is nothing in development... What we have to do now in videogames, because next-gen consoles are more powerful, is create games that will be as well defined and expressive as a CGI movie. All this helps us create better characters, backgrounds, and stories and improve the emotions we have in games... Step by step we have to learn how to give more emotions to our consumers. This will help us get closer and closer to creating movies or Internet products that will entertain... A  year ago we started to create Ubisoft Digital Arts in Montreal so we can have  a group capable of creating animations and movies in the future.

-[What about working with Hollywood on live action movies?] We are open to that because we don't have that kind of know how... In the future we plan to work on them at the same time as games... This is a substantial deal when you look at the power of the brand already in games and books and in past movies. The four [Clancy] movies [grossed] more than $1 billion.

-[How important is this to you?] It's a big event for us. Creating the Clancy name in the videogame industry 10 years ago was a major step for us. We think this is the same thing.

How in the world did MTV/Harmonix manage to sell 6 million "Rock Band" track downloads so far? I ask not because the game isn't awesome (it is) or because there aren't some great songs to download (there are), but because the the downloads are so damned hard to find.

Until today, there was no way to access the downloadable tracks from the game. On Xbox 360, you had to go to the console menu, click on "game store," click "more" or "other" (something like that), click the "music" category, then click on  "rock band," then scroll through the available song titles . OK, that's not exactly the process, but it was definitely at least four clicks and a major, confusing pain in the ass.

Then when you find the songs, the information scrolls very slowly on the right before you finally find the name of the artist and whether it was a cover. Basically, it's a nightmare. The fact that people went through that six million times is amazing to me, and definitely a testament to how great "Rock Band" is.

That number's going to get a whole lot bigger now that MTV/Harmonix has finally released an update with a really well designed music store accessible from the game's main menu. Wired's Game/Life blog (from whom I stole the above screenshot) has a great rundown. Suffice it to say it's easy to navigate, has album art, difficult ratings, previews... it basically looks kind of like what we've come to expect from music download services like iTunes and Rhapsody.

It's a shame it took Harmonix this long to launch the store (albeit understandable given the crazy tight schedule for "Rock Band's" release) but at least they knew what they needed to do and got it right.

(This is also, it's worth noting, way better in design and depth of content than what "Guitar Hero III" offers.)

It's a tough time to be developing a game for Vivendi Games' Sierra label, the division that makes "normal" videogames -- i.e. AAA, boxed, non-MMO games for PC and consoles. That's because all of the label's titles now have to justify their existence to their soon-to-be corporate masters at Activision.

What does that mean practically? I've had numerous sources tell me that development teams on all of Vivendi's games now have to essentially pitch their projects to Activision executives. Until the merger is technically complete, work proceeds as usual, but once it's over, Activision will start making some decisions. And it seems very unlikely that everything at Sierra will keep going as it has been.

Just like when a new executive teams takes over at a film studio, some projects in development get killed and others get changed as the new folks in charge start establishing their own tastes and corporate priorities.

Vivendi's Blizzard label is, of course, quite safe from all this. The merged company is going to be called Activision Blizzard, after all. So long as "World of Warcraft" keeps printing money faster than the Fed, they'll be left alone by Activision's execs to do as they please.

But the future of the rest of Vivendi Games is quite uncertain. Even though Vivendi proper will retain a majority stake in the merged entity, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick will keep that title and his president of publishing president Mike Griffith remains in charge of all non-Blizzard games.

Activision obviously made the deal to get its hands on the biggest MMO, and really the biggest game, in the industry. Everything else is basically an afterthought. Which leaves all of those making the afterthoughts in an uncertain position.

Titles set to come out this year, like "The Bourne Conspiracy," "Prototype," "Brutal Legend," and "Ghostbusters," are probably fine since they're so far along. But those in development for 2009 and later? They'll all TBD.

Question marks include whether we'll see more games from VIvendi's costly Robert Ludlum license, or if Activision thinks its conflicts with its costly James Bond license; whether there will be a sequel to "Scarface" as expected; whether Activision will put out a sequel to "F.E.A.R." in conflict with Warner/Monolith's "Project Origin" (Vivendi retains rights to the name while Warner kept the underlying ideas); and if we'll see more games starring Crash Bandicoot or Spyro.

Also, will Vivendi's nascent Sierra Online and Vivendi Mobile divisions be allowed to continue?

It's all in Activision's hands now. Which leaves some nervous developers at Sierra.

Foundation 9, the motley assortment of independent developers brought together by private equity money, has lost its CEO.

Jon Goldman, who has headed the Irvine-based company since The Collective and Backbone Entertainment merged almost three years ago, is "ankling," as we say in Variety parlance. That means he's not quitting in the most believable way, but he wasn't officially fired either. Somewhere in between.

Here's his official statement, which is about as bland as bland statements come when senior executives ankle:

After 14 years building this business, I am delighted to pass the reins to James. It’s been two years since Francisco Partners invested in Foundation 9 to fuel our tremendous success; I’ve accomplished what we agreed to do and now it’s time for me to actually enjoy some of the fruits of that success. As a shareholder, I eagerly look forward to what lies ahead for Foundation 9.

It's not a radical shift, though. James North-Hearn, who was head of Foundation 9 in Europe, is now moving to Irvine to take over as CEO. Goldman gets to stay as non-executive chairman for 6 months.

Since its founding, Foundation 9 has grown to include talent management firm Circle of Confusion and developer Shiny Entertainment. It also received, as Goldman alluded to, $150 million from private equity firm Francisco Partners in 2006.

It has since worked on a slew of different titles, including "The Golden Compass" and "Silent Hill V," along with lots of XBLA ports through its Digital Eclipse  brand. It also lost, under very cloudy circumstances, the assignment to make "Dirty Harry" for Warner Bros.

It's time to do a gross injustice to three upcoming games by summarizing them in a few sentences. But honestly, it's not that much of an injustice. I was really taken when recently attending previews of three upcoming videogames by just how similar they all are to a certain well regarded title from 2005...

-Prototype (Sierra/Radical, October): Remember "Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction?" This one comes from the same development studio, except instead of a lumbering behemoth who can destroy anything and anyone in his path, run up walls, jump onto helicopters and destroy them, and turn his environment into weapons, it stars a lithe guy with parkour skills and mutant powers who can destroy anything and anyone in his path, run up walls, jump onto helicopters and destroy them, and turn his environment into weapons.

-Iron Man (Sega/Secret Level, May): Remember "Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction?" "Iron Man" is just like that, except instead of running and jumping through environments as you wreak havoc and weaponize enemy vehicles, you fly and shoot rays while wreaking havoc and weaponizing enemy vehicles.

-The Incredible Hulk (Sega/Edge of Reality, June): Remember "Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction?" "The Incredible Hulk" is just like that game except... except... ummm.... well, he climbs up walls instead of running up them. That's a difference? Right?

This isn't necessarily a criticism. "Hulk: Ultimate Destruction" is a fantastic game -- one of my favorite action games ever, in fact. So I can hardly blame developers for drawing inspiration from it. And of course I don't mean to suggest that these games are total rip-offs. I'm sure they have plenty of original elements in them. But the similarities are striking, to say the least.

Still catching up on some previews in the past few weeks of upcoming games I've checked out... this time, it's Sierra's "The Bourne Conspiracy." (Which sounds exactly like the titles of all the books and movies, but is actually original.)

"Bourne" is the first (and definitely not the last) game that Sierra (a division of the soon-to-be-merged with Activision Vivendi) is making as part of an expensive, multi-year license with the Robert Ludlum estate that I first wrote about in Variety in summer of 2005.

The goal is, pretty explicitly, to make Ludlum for Vivendi what Tom Clancy is for Ubisoft -- though it'll be interesting to see whether Activision shares the same goal (more on that issue in a blog post tomorrow or Wednesday).

"Bourne" is, of course, best known to most audiences today for the movies, not the book, but Sierra's license is for the books. Developer High Moon Studios is heavily inspired by the movies and collaborating alot with the talent, though there are some key differences.

Most importantly, gamers will notice that Bourne is not modeled on Matt Damon. The team was considering making a deal with the star, but abandoned that after Damon said at the Cannes film festival last year that he was done with the character. Getting Damon committed to the game when he was no longer committed to the movies would obviously be awkward. (Although -- oops! -- Variety has since reported that Universal has "landed Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon for a fourth "Bourne" movie, even though the director and star seemed ready to wrap it up after three pics.")

But there's lots from the movies. Even though Damon's not involved, Franka Potente is playing her supporting role from "The Bourne Identity" as Marie, which actually strikes me as kind of awkward, but anyway. Film writer Tony Gilroy consulted on the story, which basically tracks "Bourne Identity," but makes all of Bourne's brief flashbacks in the movie fully playable levels, along with some new missions in his past that we haven't seen. Essentially, it's a lot of backstory as we learn more about how Jason Bourne got so f*cked up by the CIA.

The most important collaboration, however, might be with the movies' fight coordinator Jeff Imada, who spent "hundreds of hours" working with High Moon to motion capture all the different fight moves (dozens, if not hundreds) in the game, which are in the exact same style of the movie. Beyond giving Bourne his signature take-down moves using items in the environment, each of the bosses has his (or her?) own unique fighting style designed by Imada.

That's the most important thing because the game is pretty much non-stop action. It's all adrenaline, with basic third person action that we've seen before interspersed with takedowns, which you can pull up when you build up enough adrenaline (or whatever "Bourne's" name for the boost meter is; they all kind of blur together). Not only do they look really cool, but the camera moves in close, with camera angles that mimic the hand-held fast moving camera that director Paul Greengrass used in the second and third "Bourne" films.

All of the takedown moves I saw, which involved using walls, filing cabinets, pens and dry erase boards to take enemies down, along with Bourne's hands and feet, were really impressive. Will they be just as impressive after playing the game for a few hours? Will the shooting and driving -- which seemed fairly standard in the demo I saw -- stand out as much as the hand-to-hand action?And will the multi-player be able to take advantage of the game's signature moves, or in an effort to balance it out will it be a chaotic mess, a la "Stranglehold?"

Those are all the big questions I'm left with leading up to June, when "The Bourne Conspiracy" comes out.

(Oh, and a note to developers: If you want to flatter me during a game demo, tell me that I'm doing a better job than some enthusiast press (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) writers who were there earlier in the day. Sure, you may be transparently flattering me, but it totally worked during "The Bourne Conspiracy" demo, I can't lie.)

Vidgame companies try to stay as tightlipped as they can about sales, except when they have a huge hit.

So it's no surprise we heard from Nintendo today that "Super Smash Bros. Brawl" has sold a boffo (as we say at Variety) 1.4 million units in just its first week on sale.

That's a truly astronomical number, especially considering that this is a game that is pretty much targeted at the hardcore gamer audience (who else gets excited by seeing Pikachu take on Sonic?) and it's launching well out of the holiday sales period, when most videogames are sold.