This is my first anniversary blog ever so I want to make it count even though I have to wait until next year to get the five year emblem. So what makes this year great is the fact that Assassin's Creed 3 came out on the Exact day I joined GameSpot October 30th 2008 is when I became a GameSpotter. Also I got to message with two of my favorite editors on this site and they are Maxwell McGee and Seb Ford! I almost forgot Chris Watters such an interesting man. Interesting fact they are the same age as me which is 25, but Chris is older though anyway I'm rambling on here so much to tell, so little time.

I finally made my costume of one o my favorite characters from the Naruto Anime. Most of you seen it is the six tails form of the demon fox Kurama. The total cost was under 100 dollars, but definately worth it. Comic Con 2012 is a ig deal for me since Shaun McInnis was hosting since Chris Watters was on vacation and it shocked me that Shaun read most of my tweets. Second Day during the One Piece Game Demo he read my comment about staying hydrated in San Diego and thanked me for it. I just typed it, didn't think he wuld read it, but I felt all numb which is a good thing I hope. On the third day of the stage show though he read most of my questions although I missed the Halo 4 demo, still it was awesome and near the end when he talks with John Davidson and Justin Calvert he has a small stack of the 2012 Alex Ross Comic signed in which he wanted to reward one of GameSpot's twitter followers and he said my name!!! I screamed and I died yes I died of shock and joy and I have it on display.

Also this year is sad too because alot of editors are now gone to do other things in the gaming industry. I really miss Tom Magrino and it angered me when I found out he was laid off due to budget cuts or something stupid and that The HotSpot was being put down for good. I still cry about it since it hurts and okay I need to be strong here. Then on GamePlay Podcast John Davidson announced on an episode he was leaving GameSpot to start some gaming project and I hope he does well. Then I found out on Quoted for Truth that Brendan Sinclair was gone as well!! Madness people I mean I liked him alot and he is on my friends list along with Synthis and Jody It made my day on the Super Mario Kart Anniversary video when Tom McShea was talking about the quality of the different versions and I typed in "My God I am surprised that Tom McShea is still alive Despite all the smack he talks about Mario." Brendan read it twice which made me laugh and the fact that Tom McShea liked it left me confused. Anyway even though this site is changing to fit in the future, there is no other gaming website I rather be at and I made so many friends here, why would i leave all that so this is my 4th year here and I hope GameSpot stays online for a long time

The following was written for Chalk Talk:

If its one thing that is guaranteed to generate talk across the internet, it is whenever a new console is rumored or details of said consoles appear. But there are always two sides argued. One side insists its the only way forward and once we all have new hardware everything can progress exponentially. The other protests and strongly believes more time with the current generation would bring about greater games than advancing to new technology so quickly with possible higher production costs.

The interesting thing is a predominantly PC gamer like me never really gets bothered by all this.Sure we get flashier games too but we dont have to wait for the next generation to shell out a load of cash as the PC hardware market is almost constantly evolving. Obviously though, to those who are using current generations of consoles, this is a massive deal.

So Im going to take a look at what we have, what we might get and maybe what we need from the future of our beloved hobby.

What we have: What we have now is incredible, look back 15 years and we were all on repeated textures with low polygon counts and not much in the way of artificial intelligence. Stories were limited by what the developers could achieve and games simply couldnt compare to the other media out there. We now have sophisticated graphics, AI that at times, have their moments generally are of a much higher quality. And stories that are no longer defined by what is possible, but rather by the developers imaginations.

I think that with a longer time in this generation we actually could see some truly great titles. Developers can push the engines they use further - a lot of what weve seen can be advanced and changed to create new opportunities. Only when the current technology is truly mastered would we see the best results and some developers believe that there is more to come from the current generation.

What we might get: Now this is the part where I needed my crystal ball to predict the future but as I seem to have misplaced it Ill just have to go on what little info we have. The advances we may see in the next generation all depend on the hardware that is used. But there are a few that say the next generation is where all of the best advances dwell, and that our current generation is in fact holding us back.

It becomes easy when looking at the next developments in consoles to focus on the visuals. Yet there are many features that will actually benefit from the increase in power and resources. Simply having more processing capability and a higher RAM will mean that tasks can be handled quicker and in greater quantity allowing more sophisticated on screen action. Will it be a big enough jump from what we have? I think is the most important question though but it is only time that will reveal the answer to that one.

So we might get some something spectacular that can only be achieved with the latest and greatest hardware and tech. But wasnt that true in the previous generation switch too? And are we only now starting to see what these consoles can truly achieve? When they first released it was said that Crysis would never come to consoles. And not only has the original come to them but two sequels also is this proof that we dont yet need another cycle? Releases like Halo 4 are also proving what can be achieved on this generation. Then there is cost to consider. How much will the new generation cost and what cutbacks will be made to keep costs reasonable?

What we need: Is to take a step back, really look at what we are chasing. Developers making completely opposite claims and a community who just want to see more of what they love and less of what they dont. It seems every time a console releases the world stops and looks for a second. But what are they seeing, what has actually been promised? We are told a new generation would herald a new era, but what exactly would that era bring?

I think the next generation needs to have a large advancement in almost every aspect to make the grade. Last time HD gaming meant upgrading was worth the investment. We are now however at a stage where we have a lot of the shinier graphics and sophisticated gameplay. Would you shell out the cash for a new console that only improved a small amount? Do you think the next wave of consoles has been much needed and the sooner the better?

The Case of the Paper Mario: Sticker Star review

Ok, I get it. People are upset that A) Another Nintendo game didn't get a 9 or above; B) Another 3DS game didn't get a 9 or above; and the last one people are having the most trouble with C) A Paper Mario game not getting a 9 or above.

Let's just try to figure out what happened here. First, if you don't get A, B, or C or all of the above, try reading the review first. If that doesn't help you understand anything, try playing the game first. If you played the game and still don't understand, then perhaps you're simply a raving fanboy. I'm most likely going to put my money on the latter.

Nintendo fanboys are about as rabid as they come, and their behavior is clearly seen on any review comment wall of a Nintendo game that doesn't get a 9 or above. GS long timers, can you think of the two biggest review upsets? Twilight Princess an 8.8 and Skyward Sword, a 7.5. Sticker Star would have been a greater upset had it gotten a video review here, but it didn't, which goes to show you that no one likes reading.

So, back to the case of Carolyn's review. I'm about a third into the game, working through World 3, and so far what she's been saying has been pretty spot on. No, I don't say this to troll. No, I don't say this because I'm a cow, a hermit, a lemming, a hedgehog or an echidna. I say this as a critical, level-headed, open-minded gamer. Sticker Star is... disappointing.

There are reasons for this, though. For starters, the feel of the game in comparison to its pedigree is smaller. True, the game is huge, but the interactivity of it all isn't as grand. It's hard to explain, because although you see flashy things happen with the stickers you press onto the game world, you simply aren't rooted to the world as a traditional RPG does. There is a lack of towns, which means a lack of NPCs, which means a lack of dialogue, which means a lack of meaningful story. The game feels more action-adventure than action-RPG or adventure-RPG.

The lack of RPG feel is definitely attributed to the removal of the leveling system, as well as badges and equipment. You can still up your HP, but you need to find the upgrades. You actually can't increase your defense, so the more powerful enemies begin to wail on you harder and harder. There's no need to cast magic, because your more powerful attacks are in the use of stickers, and therein lies another problem...

Using stickers is fun, but it can also be frustrating. There are times where the game throws a lot of enemies at you that require jump attacks, but you've run out and only have hammer attacks and other more powerful items you don't want to use just yet. It's not the end of the world, because you can simply run or avoid enemies altogether. You really shouldn't ever feel the need to AVOID enemies in an RPG. The game is very liberal with the sticker distribution, though, and you earn coins like nobody's business, so you can always afford to restock. Still, it's a poor combat system when compared to The Thousand Year Door's battle system, which was phenomenal.

One of the most common complaints I'm hearing about Carolyn's review is the "It's no fun being stuck" comment. This is actually a very valid complaint. The bosses are RIDICULOUSLY overpowered. Their health is enormously high; their defense is iron-clad. Sure, you could spend every sticker you have and hundreds of coins on the Battle Spinner (which is a great feature, btw) to beat them, but it's very exhausing that way. The best way to fight them is to use a Thing sticker (you find a thing, like a bat or fishhook, and you can make it into a sticker to use in battle) to strike at their weakpoint allowing you to finish them off without consuming three pages of stickers. One such boss is a fish,who if you don't have the fish hook sticker to fish them out of the water, you will not be able to beat, as it keeps diving into the ocean healing all the damage you did. Nothing like wasting your best stickers on a boss you can't beat because you didn't have the precognitive foresight to find and grab the sticker beforehand, right? Right. So, I don't want to hear this whole "SHE SUCKS! SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY!" Trust me, you'll run into the same issues if you aren't playing it with a FAQ on hand.

Aside from these large flaws, the game is still fun. It's better than Super Paper Mario, and that alone should make you more than happy. It IS, however, short of being held up to the N64 and GC's Paper Mario by a long shot, and that is me shooting from the hip, calling it like I see it, no bullshi t. Nintendo goggles do you a GREAT disservice, because it doesn't allow you to analzye, criticize and surmise properly. You are hung up on a preconceived notion that Nintendo is infallible, which they haven't been in a very long time, if ever. They make great games; they make average games; they've even made poor games (Yoshi's Story, anyone?) But see, your Nintendo goggles cause you to ignore this. You always focus on the negative, and make it worse than it actually is. 7.5 is still a good score, and it means the reviewer likes the game. You have to get it out of your thick skulls that GS "hates Nintendo". No, GS hates Resident Evil 6. 4.5; now that is a lousy score.

I'm growing old and tired of debating this reader hostility issue. It's getting to the point where I don't even know if I want to review myself anymore. If I was in Carolyn's position, I'm not sure I'd even want to read the comments at all. She's had to develop a thick skin, and a particularly thicker skin than most reviewers because of her transgender status. My hat's off to her for dealing with as sholes who always have to bring up comments like "he-she" and "tranny" every time she writes a review that doesn't coincide with their expectations, because I wouldn't be able to handle it as well. Regardless, I'm just not sure I like this community (not GS, but the gaming community in general) enough to do this as a profession anymore. I'm tired of the wining and fussing over reviews and scores in particular, and it gets worse every year.

Thank god Black Ops II got an 8.0, because people are finally starting to see that GS is for once being stricter across the board. It's no more "This game got a 7.5? Watch COD get a 9.0!" People are starting to get it, but I digress. I just want to say PLEASE try to understand why reviewers give out the scores they do and review the way they do. This REQUIRES at least reading the review with a high school level reading comprehension and preferably an adult-level sensbility, and ultimately requires you playing the game for your opinion against theirs to have ANY credibility. And even then, don't think you're better than they are just because you disagree with them. They don't think they're better than you; they're just doing their jobs.

When I first caught wind of the Assassin's Creed series, I initially thought it was about a 11th century assassin who fought against a brutal religious order. Digging deeper, I soon realized that Assassin's Creed was far much more than the sum of its parts. It was a complex, interwoven story that transpires against the fabric of time itself, leapfrogging between modern day heroes and stalwarts of the distant past. It also revolved around the frightening idea of a devastating, cataclysmic event. But I didn't start off with the original Assassin's Creed. Nor did I start with Assassin's Creed 2 or Brotherhood for that matter. My first real, hands-on exposure to the franchise was Revelations---the fourth game in the franchise.

I didn't understand a word of it. I didn't even know who Ezio Auditore was. It was probably a mistake on my part.

Apparently, I didn't learn my lesson because I went ahead and leapfrogged again to Assassin's Creed 3 this year. Perhaps I was caught up in all the excitement and the hype, and I had pre-ordered it from GameStop because I wanted that limited edition game tin---which, to this day, has never left its celophane. This, however, turned out to be as much a blessing in disguise as it was a double-edged sword.

For one, each game provided an in-game primer that chronicled the events leading up to the games in question. For AC3 and Revelations, I got to know more about Desmond Miles, the Assassins, the Templars and the roles they play in this world. However, I inadvertently removed the element of surprise from the early Assassin's Creed games, meaning I know in advance specific events that I probably should not have laid my eyes on. The only consolidation here is that my newfound respect and admiration for the Assassin's Creed franchise enables me to enjoy the fruits of its solid gameplay and explore its surroundings further. And to its credit, the retrospectives included in the AC games serve as helpful tools for newcomers who, like me, jumped past the earlier entries simply because the newest game in the series was getting overblown by press releases and attention.

But I already know a lot of the major events that occurred because I had made the mistake of spoiling myself. So does it make sense to play the rest of the franchise for the story? Or for the experience?

My excuse is that the experience overall was worth the erstwhile sacrifice. That said, I plan to one day own the entire series for my 360. But leaping ahead isn't something I'm likely to do again in the near future, because I like the element of surprise. Most game sequels do not require that you had to know about earlier games to enjoy them, and other franchises have gone so far as reboot themselves. This is the nature of the industry to expose successful franchises to newer audiences. I came into Assassin's Creed rather late in my gaming career, but my pride did not allow me to buy the original Assassin's Creed when I could be enjoying the much-improved, far superior, newly-released Assassin's Creed 3.

Yet, I realized I was slowly starting to repeat my mistake yet again with the Halo series. I just got Halo 4. And Halo 4 transpires directly after Halo 3. Fortunately, I played and finished Halo 3 beforehand (back before I was a FPS gamer, and I had played it with friends at the time who were FPS nuts), but that was roughly five years ago. Still though, I'm holding off on Halo 4 for a bit. I played it some, but I already knew what happened at the end of Halo 3.

So, is it considered a crime for newcomers to leap ahead in a game series, not knowing a thing about the games that preceded the latest release? Have you done what I did? Did you feel good about it overall? Or did you feel you made a mistake? Let me know your thoughts on this.

Cover Shot (Exact original image source uncertain)

(Note: I am aware that the picture may well be the result of some person's imagination.)

---------------------------

SOME DISCLOSURES

Firstly, I am not a frequent consumer of console hardware or console games. However, I do acknowledge their appeals though, especially that of consoles being mainly dedicated gaming hardware.

Personally, I am wary of the proprietary restrictions that come with being a (legitimate) consumer of console products, but I do recognize the conveniences that are provided by these, such as being able to send faulty hardware for refurbishment (albeit for a fee), as well as the ease of design that developers get from having to work with systems with specific (albeit somewhat limited) technical designs.

I also find this very convenient for moving a player character about a 2D plane.

In other words, I am a lot more open to console gaming than you would think.

---------------------------

A HOPE FOR MORE VARIETY IN GAME PRODUCTS

First things first: the technical designs of console machines will make it likely that game designs eventually hit a technological barrier. When this may happen is debatable, of course, but it is difficult to argue that it won't happen for certain. Besides, there had been generations of console machines that are more sophisticated than their forebearers that came along to usurp their predecessors as the dominant products in the console hardware markets, thus making it difficult to refute this claim.

Non-game products are intended to extend the life cycle of console machines.

Of course, I am aware that console-makers are resorting to adding non-game-related functionalities to the console machines. However, this effectively turns them into general home entertainment devices, away from their roots as dedicated gaming machines. This may not be pleasing to puritan gamers of course, but any wise person would realize that these people are no longer the target customers of console-makers.

Personally, I am in favor of these decisions of the console-makers, as the console machines have the technical prowess to support applications other than just gaming. I find it wasteful if all those electronics are dedicated to only segment of digital entertainment. Yet, even these non-gaming applications will hit the aforementioned design barrier eventually.

That said, returning to the matter of next-generation consoles, having consoles that are more advanced than the current-generation ones would allow for even more applications, which of course means more variety of entertainment options to be had for the customer.

Perhaps more importantly, more advanced technology allows for more sophistication in the games that would be designed for these machines. Of course, this statement is ultimately just a forecast, based on examination of previous generation consoles and their games. One could argue that the only improvements so far have only been aesthetics, though another can argue that games that were once limited to the computer platforms are already appearing on the consoles, namely the shooters, the simpler ones of the real-time strategy genre and of course turn-based strategy games.

On the other hand, it remains to be seen whether consoles would be just playing catch-up with the computer platforms or not when it comes to offering variety in games.

It would be easy to presume that next-generation consoles will be more technologically sophisticated in order to offer more variety in games and non-game products. However, there is the doubt that there are ...

UNCERTAINTIES IN DESIGNS AND OFFERING OF GAMES ...

Now, I am not one to have no skepticism and be all "glass half-full" - or "all-full", if I would be deluded enough to think that there cannot possibly be any issues when I do not have any information or guarantee that nothing could go wrong.

(Yes, there are people like these - namely those that say that "console-makers have learned lessons from the past" or that "the next-gen consoles won't be expensive" when they do not have any concrete data to support these claims.)

The only way to clear these doubts is by having more information on these next-generation consoles, but all there are to be had seem to be merely unverifiable statements and images that may or may not even be true.

Hopefully, the differences that next-generation consoles have compared to their predecessors are not just only aesthetic. (Orbis is not entirely confirmed to be the PS4.)

There is little if anything concrete on the designs and specifications of the next-generation consoles that Sony Entertainment and Microsoft Games are developing, and whatever claims there are, if they are true, only pertain to designs that are still on the figurative drawing board.

Then, there are the games that would come in the wake of these would-be new consoles. Looking back at the history of past generation of consoles, console-makers made use of launch line-ups of games that are convincingly different from those for previous-generation ones to market their new consoles with.

The Wii U, if it can be considered a next-generation console (and there are many opinions that express doubt at this or even outright denial), could be seen as having failed to do this.

After all, the confirmed titles for the Wii U include many games that have already debuted on other platforms, or are continuations of franchises that have been around for a long time.

There is a silver lining to the Wii U's line-up of games, of course, such as ZombiU, which has a control option that I find somewhat refreshing, namely moving the Wii-U gamepad around for finer aiming, as opposed to using only analog sticks (which I do not consider to be practical enough for this purpose). Moreover, the usual control options for console games are still there on the gamepad, e.g. the usual D-pad layouts and analog sticks.

The use of two screens (one on the TV and the other on the gamepad) may allow for features that are infrequently seen in video games, like tracking and manipulating two objects of interest separately and independently of each other (which is a feature that some games for Nintendo's current handhelds have done already, I am aware, and perhaps which the VITA and PS3 would do).

I am very much aware of the jeers that these are just "gimmicks", if you are thinking that I do not. However, I would say here that if not for these gimmicks, console machines would just be playing catch-up with the computer platforms, as suggested earlier. (I am also aware that the more snobbish of PC elitists would love to keep claiming this.)

Without these gimmicks, there would be nothing to differentiate games on console platforms from those on the computer platforms. Of course, others (likely the same snobbish PC elitists) can argue that whatever the console platforms can do, the computer platforms can do, but I am not seeing any concerted effort by hardware- and game-makers to develop the same gimmicks for the computer games market (for which the same snobs would say that these gimmicks are not wanted, of course).

(Side note: Much of what the more outspoken of PC elitists say are bitter, sanctimonious and exaggerated arguments that are often not substantiated by hard data and unarguably relevant facts, by the way.)

It remains to be seen if Nintendo and its game-making partners would utilize the potential behind the Wii U's gimmicks, but if Nintendo wants the Wii U to be as successful as its predecessors, it had better provide support for game-makers who have ideas for the Wii U, and not just help them port existing IPs over to the platform.

... AND UNCERTAINTY IN COST INFLUENCES ON DESIGN AND PRICING

With more advanced technology, the new consoles would be more expensive than previous consoles which use older technology. This is a difficult-to-deny statement.

Of course, one can argue that the next-generation consoles would likely use technology that had debuted years earlier to cut costs, much like what had been done for the current-generation ones, but they would still likely have price tags that are higher than the current price tags of current-generation consoles (which have since dropped in asking price since their launch, by the way).

If this is so, this will ever pose a hurdle in getting consumers who are used to the current-generation consoles' prices to buy the next-generation ones.

A (rather naive) person could say that console-makers would sell the next-generation consoles at a loss to cut down its asking price and spur sales, while compensating by making money off the software products for the consoles. The same person would point to the past (again) to bolster this claim.

But here's a catch (I like saying this, I admit): the next-generation consoles have to offer products that have not been offered for previous- and current-generation consoles in order to be seen as offering something new. Otherwise, it would be seen as just recycling things that have already been done before.

Another catch is that investors may not allow this to happen. The likes of Sony Entertainment have sold some of their consoles at losses, promising investors that there would be pay-offs down the line from having a wider customer base for its software products. Although this move certainly did not turn out disastrous (at least for the PS3), the pay-offs have not been consistently substantial either, upon examination of Sony's yearly financial statements and the segments on its Sony Entertainment subsidiary.

Of course, if one is to look at somewhat-related facts, Nintendo appeared to have persuaded its investors to allow it to do this for the Wii U, citing the same promise of compensating by software sales (albeit this was reworded as "combining sales of hardware and software"). However, it remains to be seen if Sony and Microsoft can do the same without investors baulking and thinking that their executives have gone bananas.

On a not-entirely-unrelated note, this is popularly thought to be a hint at Donkey Kong, but the kanji above him (which Iwata said is a reference to Nintendo's work culture that is oriented around "creating something unique" - and another Donkey Kong game is certainly not "unique") may suggest that this is a sarcastic jab by Nintendo's leadership at its skeptics.

... AND DOUBTS OVER WHAT REALLY IS "NEXT-GENERATION"

I believe that the worst outcome that could happen is that the next-generation consoles are not really more technologically advanced. They might turn out to be just repackaging and restructuring of existing console technology in some new shell.

(Having gimmicks in addition is not the worst outcome to me. At least the gimmicks make the console remarkable, for better or worse; this is still better than recycling, which would be boring.)

I know, it is quite difficult to believe that this can happen for Sony's or Microsoft's next-generation consoles - but we do not have any guarantee that this would not happen, do we?

Using the example of the Wii U again, it has been argued, such as by the likes of Bitmob, that the Wii U is only "next-generation" because it is a successor to the Wii, and does not have other "qualifications" of being next-generation, such as having convincingly "better" technical specs than the PS3 or Xbox 360, and that its main difference is it having gimmicks in its control options.

Then, there are counter-arguments - usually by Nintendo's supporters, such as Nintendo Life - that the next-generation is "about the experience", that is, the utilization of gimmicks for gaming experiences that are more than just a single lonely gamer holding a conventional controller in one's hands and sitting on a couch.

I am using a lot of quotation marks here, because those who are putting forth these arguments do not seem to be aware that there is no empiric definition of what is "next-generation", much less any consensus. They are making unilateral definitions of what is "next-generation" as they see fit.

That there are all sorts of outlandish concept art for the next-generation is, to me, another indicator that people don't really know what "next-generation" really is, if it is anything other than a loosely-coined term.

---------------------------

ANOTHER HOPE: MORE OPTIONS AND FREEDOM FOR CONSUMERS

Personally, I consider consumer-friendliness to be the most important aspect of any product.

Unfortunately, this aspect is also the reason that I am not too eager to peruse some console-makers' products - specifically Microsoft Games' and Sony Entertainment's. (You may want to notice that I am referring to specific subsidiaries of the corporations that are Microsoft and Sony.)

Neither of them has gained my confidence. The legal agreements that customers have to accede to in order to receive services from either of them require customers to use their products in ways that are only sanctioned by Sony Entertainment or Microsoft Games, or else lose privileges for customer support and online services (i.e. Sony's PSN and Microsoft's Xbox LIVE), as well as face possible lawsuits if they publicly reveal ways to use their consoles that are not condoned by either console-maker.

I cannot stomach these (especially the lawsuits), and therefore when I was faced with the "take-it-or-leave-it" deals that they have, I leave. That is not to say that I haven't used their products before though - I thank my friends for letting me mooch off them for an hour or two with some console games that caught my interest.

Therefore, it is my hope that Sony Entertainment and Microsoft Games would at the very least, be like Nintendo when it comes to relationships between customers and them, i.e. being laid-back, having their figurative hands off the customer and letting the customer do whatever he/she wants with the console machines.

Otherwise, the likes of Ouya can always claim to be "better" than what they can offer, despite criticisms that arise from Ouya's requirements that its games be either "free-to-play" or demos, to cite just one perceived setback (which I do not personally see as a problem, but I know some other people do).

After all, Ouya is having collaborations with open-source organizations like XBMC and Google Android - something that remains unheard of for Sony Entertainment's and Microsoft Games' consoles (or at least not that I know of; I am having difficulty finding info for any such collaborative project for the Xbox or Playstation).

These two mascots might never appear next to the logos for the Xbox or Playstation.

I am not saying that I would be supporting Ouya whole-heartedly and without reservations; besides, I didn't contribute to its Kickstarter project. However, I can say that I have far less aversion to Ouya than I would PS4/Orbis or the XBox 720/Durango, which I expect Sony Entertainment and Microsoft Games to shackle with stifling legal agreements.

---------------------------

That's all that I would write for now. I may update this blog post with more things if you would leave a suggestion. That said, happy Thanksgiving, Deepavali and Muharram for anyone who are celebrating/observing them!

Hello all. Recently there was a fun little forum game going on over on Giantbomb. Users had to create a picture containing parts of four different screenshots from four different games. Other users then had to guess what game the screenshots came from. I thought it would be fun to post all of my entries in a single blog here for everyone to guess on. Not much of an editorial but I thought it would be fun. So here are my three entries, each containing four games for twelve games total.

EDIT: I'm going to list the games as they are guessed to make it easier for people.

EDIT 2: Anc the game comes to a close. Good job everyone. A lot of classic games were named today stemming as far back as the mid 70's. Hope you all enjoyed it!

1. Blood - The early shooter from Monolith, known today for games like FEAR and Gotham City Imposters

2. The Longest Journey - A turn of the century adventure game considered by many to be the greatest game of its type ever made. It's sequel Dreamfall came out six years later, and the third game in the series is finally on its way after a 7 year wait.

3. Jazz Jackrabbit - An early platformer from Epic Games (Gears of War, Unreal) and designer Cliff Blezinski.

4. Ultima Underworld - The original game from Looking Glass Studios, the team that would go on to define the career of Warren Spector and Ken Levine and launch the free form style of gameplay that Spector is known for today.

1. Heart of Darkness - This 90's PS1 game by Eric Chahi is in my opinion one of the most underplayed games of all time. Chahi's earlier game, Another World, get's a ton of love but this game made in the same style is sadly often ignored.

2. LSD Dream Emulator - No, LSD doesn't stand for... Oh wait yes it does. Probably the weirdest game ever made, this Japanese only PSOne legend is about as strange as they come. The game attempts to simulate the random nature of dreams and certain other things that can't be mentioned here. Good luck finding a copy. They don't even have this one on Ebay. But there are some great Youtube walkthroughs if you are interested.

3. Black Onyx - Most people will cite Dragon Quest as the first JRPG but it is actually predated by Black Onyx, arguably the first JRPG ever made. The game is heavily influenced by Wizardry and would go on to inspire Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy. Sadly forgotten by time, Black Onyx is one of the most important milestones in gaming history.

4. Metal Arms: Glitch In The System - People often complain today about short, mindless shooter campaigns. Metal Arms was anything but. A lengthy, intense, and all around brilliant third person shooter that got swept under the rug due to its cartoony nature, Metal Arms sadly doesn't get the same sort of love from people that other quirky last gen games like Psychonauts and Beyond Good and Evil do, despite playing better than either of those games.

1. I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream - This 90's point-and-click adventure game is based on the legendary short story by Harland Ellison, and tells the tale of a group of five people tortured by an AI for over one hundred years following the destruction of humanity. Both the story and the game basically shows each of the five characters being tortured.

2. Akalabeth - The first game from Richard Garriot, creator of the Ultima series. This game is one of the first publicly sold RPG's, predating Wizardry, Ultima, The Bard's Tale, Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest. If you want to see how the RPG genre got its start in video games look no further than this game.

3. Alien Carnage - Also known as Halloween Harry this side scrolling action game is a game I spent a lot of time playing in the 90's. It was one of many now obscure PC games published by the then mighty Apogee Software.

4. Witchaven - Back in the mid-90's Doom style shooters were all the rage. Witchaven was a first person melee game built using the legendary Build Engine. It is probably the least famous of the Build Engine games, another one being the first game on this list, Blood.

The video game market is rife of modern-day shooters, games based on military-like situations and scenarios. Shooters have never interested me, as a gamer, but this past summer, I stopped to take notice of one shooter, Spec Ops: The Line. When I hear about Call of Duty, Battlefield or any game like that, I turn off, mentally. Ive seen them played, watched YouTube videos and never seen anything substantive. When the argument begins that games like Call of Duty are desensitising people, I always want to counter with, have you played the game, because if you had, while it may be realistic, it is a game with a bare-bones story, most of the time.

I may be acting like an elitist, but to me, story is key, in any and all games. If the focus of a military shooter, like Call of Duty, is the multiplayer, which it sounds like it is from what I hear and read, then story is meaningless. That being said, and hold onto those turnips before you throw them, the game is just for having fun. It isnt about seeing another human and killing them and gleefully celebrating your success because it was a real person. The whole focus of games is to take you away from your day-to-day life and experience something you may not want to experience first-hand, but might enjoy.

Despite all that, the one military style shooter I did partake was the aforementioned Spec Ops: The Line. The literal line between garden variety shooters like Call of Duty pale in comparison to this game on story alone. Without spoiling the plot greatly, the premise of the story is a small group of soldiers are dropped into Dubai where a general has gone rogue, forcing his troops to take over the city. The game forces you, as the gamer, to make morality choices, consequence unknown until the end of the game. Again, not to spoil, but the story was pulled straight from the pages of Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness, later turned into a movie, Apocalypse Now.

In Spec Ops: The Line, there was little separating the gamer from the experience and horror of war. The game play itself was not significantly different, but the set-pieces and decisions made were ones that you would expect to see in a real-life military situation. The one that always sticks out for me is where you must decide if you want to put someone out of his misery by shooting him or letting the nearby flames burn him alive. Neither choice is preferable, but a choice must be made. It is in this rare instance that I would say that, yes, this game blurs the line dangerously between reality and fiction, but does so in a way that makes me as a person, more aware of the tragedy of war.

The topic of Spec Ops: The Line may not have been pulled right from the pages of the current news, but the idea isnt far off. Many of the modern-day shooters do take liberties with their topics, making them more political than perhaps they need to, but if it resonates with the gamer (read: sells more copies) then they will do that. The goal for any game, to me, should be to bring some enjoyment to a gamers life and also open his/her mind to something different. In the case of Spec Ops: The Line, I was sufficiently surprised by the ending and the nature of the narrative. In true form, a good game makes me thoughtful, and this game achieved that. I wish I could say all military-based shooters did this, but Ive no doubt they dont, or the audience isnt always receptive to it.

There is a greater responsibility nowadays for game publishers to be aware that kids are getting their hands on these games and think there are no consequences to their actions. While we can all agree parents shouldnt let little Johnny buy Call of Duty with his allowance, a discussion on parenting might devolve into an all-out brawl. Games are meant to be fun, they are meant to be a diversion. In that diversion, there can be a story, an idea, something to take away. In Spec Ops: The Line, the takeaway focused on the consequences to the choices you make in a terrible situation. Sometimes the options arent great, the outcomes worse, but you must still make a choice. I dont find fault in what Spec Ops: The Line, but I cant say the same for any other military-style games.

"Violence is not the answer" is a phrase that was repeated ad infinitum in our youths. Children in the Western world are brought up with the idea that discussing their problems is always better than talking with their fists. But for a society that claims to strive towards pacifism, violence is still surprisingly ubiquitous. Violence continues to be a part of our society, a daily reality that we all have to deal with. Whether it is war, shoot-outs or general crime, violence enters our living rooms in one way or another every time we turn on the TV.

However, while violence disgusts us, it also fascinates us. Why else would there be so many detective novels, documentaries about serial killers, and television series about police work? It is hard for us to resist a quick peek into the dark side of human nature, which explains why media focusing on violence continue to attract an audience of millions. Dutch comedian Hans Sibbel visualised this fascination by means of a fence. In all of our minds, there is a fence protecting us from potential threats. Within the fence reside all of our pleasant, acceptable thoughts. But outside of the fence, there is a whole other world. A world of violence, murder and hatred: things that cannot enter our minds because the fence protects us. Despite this protection, we can still see through the fence. We can see what is out there, and it fascinates us. When someone tells us to not think of a pink elephant, all we can think about is a pink elephant. Similarly, whenever we are informed that violence is never an option, it triggers our curiosity. What is this thing so terrible that our parents want us to avoid it at all costs? Fortunately, in most of us, the fence is strong enough to prevent us from acting upon violent thoughts, but violence remains a thoroughly interesting topic nonetheless.



With our fascination with violence in mind, it really should be no surprise that video games reflect this by often including violence as a central element of their gameplay. Violence is present in many different types of video games, be they action RPGs, platformers or military shooters. Out of these genres, though, the military shooter is perhaps the most peculiar. As its name indicates, it does not just focus on violence in itself, but lethal violence on a massive, organised scale: war. But perhaps the most distinctive aspect of war as a subcategory of violence is its reputation as a necessary evil. Because, contrary to 'regular' street violence, war is often (though definitely not always) viewed as a legitimate means of, for example, eliminating a threat or ousting a despotic leader. More often than not, war is viewed as a case of good versus evil, where one party has the right to use necessary force to subdue the other.

The perception of war violence as sometimes being legitimate is reflected by many military games, in which it is made clear that you are fighting for a noble cause. The advertisements for the recently released Medal of Honor: Warfighter, for instance, focus on the player's role as a special forces team member fighting global terror. And it should not prove too difficult to find a link between this concept and real-world political rhetoric. In other military video games, the player's violence is often justified a tad more subtly, but clear enough to counter any moral objections that may arise. The most interesting example of this is the futuristic/military first person shooter Frontlines: Fuel of War, which sees the player invade Moscow as part of the American army. Rather than the Russian army, the main opposing force is formed by armed civilians. Anticipating the moral dubiousness of an organised army taking out civilians, the game tells you that the civilians have been forced by their government to fend off the Americans. Upon closer inspection of this argument, it is nothing short of preposterous that we are supposed to be cleared of all moral objections by the information that they are not fighting out of their own free will. What is even more bizarre, though, is that we are to assume that people would not be prepared to voluntarily defend their country against a foreign invasion (when history proves this wrong on many accounts).



As such, the problem with many military shooters is not that they include violence, but rather that this aspect is handled in an immature and morally simplistic fashion. An armed conflict seldom boils down to a good versus evil juxtaposition, and while it is unrealistic to expect video games to include all of the intricate mechanics at play in a war, they should at least include some more nuances in their presentation of military campaigns. The relative immaturity of military video games in this department is perhaps best illustrated by the story of a family friend, whose 13-year old child was a fervent player of Call of Duty. At one point, the child was so impressed with the pseudo-realistic presentation of combat in that game, that he said he wanted to join the army when he grew up. This desire instantly disappeared, however, when he saw some of the gritty combat scenes in the mini-series Band of Brothers.

While the child technically should not have been playing Call of Duty at that age in the first place, it does reveal a lot about utter lack of maturity of the Call of Duty games. And unfortunately, this series is not an exception. In fact, there are only very few, often very recent shooters that make a serious attempt at showing the horrors of war. In Spec Ops: The Line, for example, the border between right and wrong is so blurry that the player's actions are not automatically justified. Sadly, it is still a rare occurrence that games dare take this route, and openly question the actions of the player.



Military games should not necessarily condemn war, as for many of us it is a necessary evil. But they should be careful not to glorify it either. Not necessarily because it sends us the wrong message about violence, but because it blatantly misinforms us on what war, or more specifically, the military actually is. There are many teenagers and young adults that buy into the idea that being part of an army means that you just shoot bad guys all the time. However, the reality of military life does not correspond with that image at all. It would thus be interesting to see video games offer a more balanced portrayal of an army's activities. Covering integral elements such as communicating with civilians, supplying remote areas, or any other activities that do not necessarily incorporate the use of deadly force could contribute to a better representation of military life, while also providing the subgenre with some much-needed variation. It is true that some military simulators already do this to an extent, but it would be interesting to see if some more mainstream games could mature a bit while retaining their appeal. It would be much more useful if military games could contextualise violence instead of outright excluding it. After all, we could never completely ignore what is on the other side of the fence.

A game is a game, separate from reality. The notion of games glorifying and encouraging violence is no different from the way film and music have done. Escapism is a huge part of the gaming concept, whether you actively seek it or whether you just enjoy it. But are we seeking escapism and being delivered something more sinister, are we actually being fed propaganda in modern shooters?

No, absolutely not. Dont be foolish, to say that modern military shooters are created to make us believe in an ideal could be applied to almost anything. Does shooting Covenant and Prometheans in Halo mean we are being conditioned to act negatively against an alien race? Could it all be a metaphor for extreme xenophobia? Would you believe that we are being encouraged to selflessly volunteer ourselves as the soldiers of tomorrow, unaware that death is final?

That is not to say that these shooters get away with everything though. Whilst military games are not modern day propaganda, they do play with the notion of war in an avant-garde way. There is a valid argument that bringing current conflict and war scenarios in to the games desensitises us from what is happening in our current world.

To a lot of the gaming community, the levels in Medal of Honor: Warfighter were simply a list of levels. Many claimed these levels to be boring and uninspired. Yet these were based on real situations that have happened in the past decade. Real soldiers experienced similar situations with fear, they had to use their wits to stay alive and to them this was anything but boring.

It obvious that through experiencing the levels in your home where you know you are safe can blur the feelings you get from these scenarios in a massive way. If you experienced a life threatening situation that others shrugged off because it wasnt interesting to them, would you consider that reaction normal?

The other issue at hand is; where is the line drawn? When have we gone too far? We have played through levels involving the slaughter of civilians and voluntary acts of friendly fire. Weve seen games try to play on our hearts by depicting child casualties and the effects that losing a loved one in the military can have. Is this a realistic, necessary part of the game? Or simply a ploy to make it seem more real, a detail to be added in to encourage you to want to fight on.

These aspects should be allowed in our games, like they are in our other media. My question would be if they are being added for the right reasons. It would seem that we are being sold an action game on the premise of fighting off a terrible evil, and to convince us that the evil is real, we are being shown and made to do things that are simply exploited to provoke a reaction. The death of thousands of innocent people should not be a gameplay tactic to create a reason to fight on. Especially when the consequences are never properly dealt with, the game carries on, and we forget all about the massacre that we just witnessed.

That is where my main issue lies; the loss of life is a tragic event. No matter in what scenario, yet there never seems to be any consequence to it. I understand that it is difficult to create a game where if the player dies that is it, but I feel the constant disregard for gunning down hundreds of people without it taking its toll on the soldier a little too left out.

There is nothing that really connects the consequence to the action. Real soldiers are trained to deal with the situationI know, but there are some that still struggle with the concept. Im not saying everything needs to be all Im a terrible person, Ive taken a life, but some emotional effect showing on a character or those around them should be apparent at times. It isnt often that we see soldiers feeling anything in these games. That makes it all too easy to forget that they are humans.

The question we must ask ourselves is not are videogames encouraging violence but rather are we seeing the true consequences of actions carried out in a game. That question need not only apply to military shooters either. This is an important question that needs answering, not only to see delicate situations handled correctly. But also to maybe enhance the experience we receive when we pick up these titles.