Given recent events, violent video games have been headlining a lot of news stories. Countless pundits have labelled them as a culprit for instilling violence in our youth. Most recently, even the president of the NRA, placed the blame of school shootings squarely on the shoulders of violent video games. Congress appears to be jumping on the bandwagon calling for bans or regulation of these dangerous products. On the other side, countless gamers declare that they have never been unduly influenced by their games. They claim that any such insinuation lacks merit. So which side is right?

Well, if we want to be honest, the best answer is no one knows. There simply isnt enough information to determine whether games contribute to violent behavior. Do they desensitive us to violence? Do they cause us to lose empathy and become more antisocial? It's possible but it's certainly not been proven. As such, most of the critics of violent video games are not basing their opinions on published research. They are going more on public perception or their own thoughts on the subject.

Most of the perpetrators of these mass shootings have been young men, and not suprisingly a lot of young men play video games. Hence, there is a correlation between those who perpetrate violent crime and those who play violent video games. But as we have often heard in these forums, "correlation does not imply causation". There are lots of things that are strongly correlated but have no direct impact on each other. One famous example - shown on freakonomics -, was ice cream and the incidence of polio (pre vaccination days). These two events had an incredibly strong correlation. So much so, that people back in the day thought ice cream caused polio. Both ice cream consumption and the incidence of polio shot up tremendously in the summertime and then dropped signficantly in the winter. But as we know now, polio is caused by a virus not food. When summer came around, kids played with each other and transmitted the virus. Given the hot temperatures, they also ate lots of ice cream. So the two events were correlated but had no cause and effect relationship.

Now this doesn't necessarily get these games off the hook either. They certainly may have deleterious effects on certain young and vulnerable minds. We just dont know. Rather than jump to unwise conclusions, maybe a little research is in order? However, psychiatry and psychology are incredibly complex disciplines. It may take quite a while to get any definitive data on this subject. The human mind is a very hard thing to study because you can't just isolate one variable.

After finishing The Walking Dead I had the weekend at my parents so couldn't start a new retail game. After a quick look through the Arcade store I settled on Dead Rising: Case Zero which turned out to be a perfect fit. TWD had got me in the mood for some zombie bashing and nothing fits the bill quite like Dead Rising! I loved the first game although never really completed it. I played it more for fun than completing the tasks and saving survivors. I'm not a big fan of the time management structure and all I wanted to do was try out all the items available. I read a few reviews for Case Zero that said it was too short and there isn't enough to do but for me it was just the right amount. Yes, the map is pretty small and weapon types are limited but not once did I get bored playing. The full first game got very samey after a while but this arcade release wasn't meant for longevity and was a good length for me.

The story isn't anything out of the ordinary or inspiring but it keeps the game ticking over to the end. I played through it three times focusing on different elements each time. First time round was just for fun, finding all the good items and testing them, and getting an idea of what I'd need to do on a proper play through. Second time round I focused on escaping and getting the good ending, and then on the last run I saved the survivors. The last two can be done in one go but there's not a lot of fun in that as it's then just a race against the clock.

The weapons as in the first game range from the mundane and surprisingly fun, to the new combo weapons that pack a punch. I've never been a big fan of the guns as they wouldn't get you out of a tight spot and there are generally too many zombies for a gun to make a difference. It was still nice to give them a go to make a change from the melee weapons, but killing zombies with a park bench is much more satisfying than a handgun!

Overall I thought it was well paced and provided the right amount of game to make you want more, but not enough to get tired of playing it. Although it was supposed to be a taster to get you in the mood for Dead Rising 2, I'm now not in any rush to play it having got my zombie bashing kicks from this.

Since my last blog, I hit the equivalent of gaming buried treasure by discovering a work colleague who is a big gamer. Unlike me she doesn't trade in her games when she's finished them and has no problem with lending them all to me. Seeing her collection got me a little excited as she's got almost all the games on my wish list here and more besides. I think she's got about 30 games I want to play so I'm sorted for the foreseeable future! My only difficultly is deciding which games to borrow which is not a problem I mind having! It does mean I'll put my few games left to one side whilst I make the most of this. The first three games I've borrowed are Modern Warfare 3, Gears of War 3, and Dante's Inferno.

First up of those is Modern Warfare 3. I've only borrowed it so I can complete the single player. MW2 was my multiplayer iteration and I haven't felt the need to delve into another one. I generally bomb through the single player modes on this and the Battlefield games just so I can say I've played them. They are generally honed to perfection and provide a tight and compact story that doesn't take long but provides plenty of thrills throughout.

The story took me slightly longer than I thought it would although that's no bad thing. Usually when that happens it's because it's dragged on longer than I'd like it to but this was about right for me. I always think level based games should be shorter rather than longer and then open world games to take longer. There's obviously a number of level based games that are awesome over a longer span but as a rule I prefer them shorter. MW3 packs a lot into a short space of time and gives a variety of situations to work through. I felt that Black Ops has a better range of locations but MW3 does exactly what it needs to tell a great story. On all the previous COD games I just skipped over the story to get to the action but this one pulled me in.

As you'd expect from the top online shooter, the shooting mechanics were pretty top notch and it felt quick and fluid and kills generally felt satisfying. I normally prefer tactical shooters like the Ghost Recon games but this is a nice change from the norm. This game has its fair share of set pieces but it also does sneaking and stealth kills pretty well. The only negative I'd have for it as it's a very on rails game. Completely linear with usually only one way of completing a level and you never have to think about what's next.

I dipped into Spec Ops a little bit but didn't check out the full range it had to offer. I like that they offer an additional single player experience to the game as they did on MW2. Not really being into the whole online multiplayer scene buying a COD game at full price always felt a bit steep. Zombie mode on WAW and BO didn't really interest me beyond curiosity but Spec Ops is totally different and a whole game in its own right. I can imagine that playing it with friends online is a great experience but I've never really had anyone else into gaming like me to do it with. Not that I particularly want to, I do love a good single player game!

As I mentioned I don't really play online games so I can't really comment on the multiplayer game. My one and only game that I've ever played online for any length of time and got invested in was MW2 so I've got some experience with how it plays. I can only imagine that it is as good as it or better but I'm sure you'll put me straight if not! I gave the game an 8.5 as I thought it was a great campaign and a pretty well rounded package. If I was an online gamer I'm sure it would've gotten over a 9. I'll get BO2 at some point to do the single player as well but I've had my COD fix for the time being.

Next up is Gears of War 3 which I've already made a start on. Enjoyed the first one and loved the second one so have high hopes for a great end to the trilogy.

Today, we collectively failed as a community once more. Even though not every one of us acted poorly, the fact that one side clearly pushed its rhetoric through has made this less of an open place and more of a restricted area: No fun allowed. To give this ongoing lament some context: Today, Deep Silver announced a risqué collector's edition called the Zombie Bait Edition, which prominently displayed a severed and dismembered torso with big breasts and small clothing. Is it tacky? Yes, probably. Is it a reason for a mass outcry? Hardly.

The culprit du jour.

Normally, I'd make this into an official piece, thinking up of a point by point case, argument, solution, future thought and that sort of thing. However, that would require me to go on endlessly about a topic that is out of my hands in this industry already. Instead, the swift rebuttal here serves to prove that this is a personal standpoint, though it has the same basis as most of my op-ed pieces, when I'm not using my education to look outside of my values, which I personally believe are the only rules to live by. For those wondering: I live by The Golden Rule. In short, it's that well-known line that goes "treat others like you yourself would wish to be treated." On that aspect, we treated the Zombie Bait Edition news like we would like to be picked apart by vultures. It's a standpoint I can respect, but not one I can condone.

News outlets were quick to release statements how "offensive," "disgusting," "repulsive," "outrageous" and more of these strong words on how appalling the limited edition was thought to be. Mayhap; I'm not saying such a provocative item won't burn in anyones eyes. I, too, am offended when Halo thinks it's a good idea to provide their promotional features with Doritos chips and Mountain Dew, implying that we're all greasy pigs. However, would I call for a massive outcry for someone offering a bust? No, not really; I'm not mad at art history for doing the same.

This point can be argued until the cows are dead and we're serving their racks in a self-righteous buffet of hypocrisy, but it's where my mind immediately went to. I immediately associated it with a bust, because that's what it is: a bust, which is defined as "the human chest." That seems accurate to me. Dead Island also features dead women in skimpy, tropical outfits and has dismemberment elements. All these things are fitting and no one gave a crap about that when the original came out. No, more so, prior to that, Deep Silver released a clip containing the "magical negro" trope, which was linked to their character Sam B, but doesn't resemble him in the slightest. That is, unless you're a racist and think all black people look alike. More so, that clip is also filled with objectification, but that is fitting, why exactly? Is it that hip-hop makes it okay? Is it because black people use women as toys? No matter how you look at it, it's going to be bad when a clip shows over a dozen shots of body parts with no face, for no reason other than to show it. Again, here no one cared. It's an issue now that Deep Silver rubs it in our faces. We're not being very consistent in how are brainwashing works, but I'll leave that point open to debate.

This shot of headless torsos is completely justifiable because...???...profit.

No, other than your personal stand on whether or not it's offensive, it's how we reacted like infants to it that caught my eye. Even that would normally not faze me too much, since we all know how the gaming community can be. However, this time is different for one particular reason. This frothing of the mouth; the knee-jerk, quick wit with no further thought came from the very crowd that would pretend to be different: It is those that make the sensible, adult remarks on how we need to evolve, accept each other and so on. I don't know about you, but I've never been taught that acceptance needs to be shoved down my throat and if my opinion is wrong I need to be snuffed out. That sounds like the reverse of accepting anyone for their good or lesser ideas and ideals.

How does acceptance work in Riptide's case? It made a provocative piece, so it needed to be shut down. Well, all this media outrage worked, as Deep Silver issued an apology the same day at how appalled they were by their own behavior. It must've struck them by surprise and so it should, because they did nothing out of the ordinary. They marketed their product with cheap attention grabbing, as anyone else in any walk of life does. No, not in our gaming community; we're fighting for equality in here, so there's no room for this.

That last sentence doesn't work. You can't have your cake and eat it too, then sue the baker for making you fat. At some point, this mass hysteria needs to end. Whatever happened to disagreement? "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Isn't that how the enlightened philosophers thought about equality? There doesnt seem to be any defending in massively coming down on Deep Silver. There seems to be only offense. What people are doing by projecting negativity on this campaign is calling for exclusive behavior that will only allow certain things and disqualify others. This is being part of the very problem you're trying to fight. I'll even leave out the fact that publications were quick to publish the provocative item once more with the apology update, because showing a bloody bust is so disgusting that you should do it twice, right? It can't just be updated in the same appalled article, that picture must be drained for all its juicy contents. Again, consistency is lacking.

Perhaps just use your fingers.

However, the lowest of all points today was not even this sad state of affairs; it's that the dogs weren't appeased with the blood on Deep Silvers hands. Instead, it went after their personnel and showed the true nature of what it means to not know what you're angry about. Some of you may know Maurice Tan from his time with Destructoid. He's now an employee of Deep Silver and earlier today tweeted an off color joke about this ordeal. Seeing as I don't want to actively feed the flames of other people's misery, I wont link it and just state what it said; which goes as follows: "It is cut off, so who knows. S(he) might have a cock down there." The response to it was immediately and overwhelmingly negative. Ill post a screenshot here.

Did we notice a pattern here? It has the same irate state of knee-jerk reactions, immediately going for the jugular, in the name of equality. The community had choice words for Maurice, because this was deemed offensive and bigoted. Yet, nothing in the tweet can be pulled any which way on that topic. There is no divide that would suggest a fixed view. Still, the immediate assumption is negative and the reaction is downright hostile. It's bullying in pure form, skewed on the platform of freedom of speech. It's not offensive, but it might be, so lets presume it is. It's these same presumptions that the community should fight, not endorse. That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. The whole day today I thought I'd elevate myself and not fume like I watched people fume about their delusions. I failed, we all failed. Today was a bad day for gaming. We're not welcome in our own world, so what do we do now?

That's my secret...

It's getting to be exhaustingly late, the day was endless and I still need to edit this post with pictures and such, so excuse the longevity and unfiltered approach of this write-up. Again, I'd like to state that this is my personal reactionary movement and thus doesn't come equipped with the necessary softening filters. It is still based on my belief and my idealism focused on inclusion rather than exclusion. Let me end this rant, the only way the internet knows how:

TL;DR: Judge not lest ye be judged. We didn't fight for equality today, we merely fought equality. Deep Silver shouldn't have had to apologize for endorsing freedom of choice and the fact it did has made our world smaller, not more open. We are all to blame.

This is it ladies and gentleman, my five favourite games of the year. But first a disclaimer, I will admit the what I view to be the best game released this year (by quite some margin) and my favourite game released this year, is not on the list. Purely because it's a re-release of my game of the year last year, so if people want to say, 'how come Prepare to Die Edition didn't make it' you know why. It's the best game this year but I felt it didn't have a place on my list, Dark Souls got its praise from me last year, and remains one of the finest games ever made. So let the blog commence!

5. Spec Ops: The Line

This was a game I had no interest in at all. I dont care for modern military shooters and this one looked completely generic. How wrong I was. Spec Ops is definitely the most interesting game I played all year and is a landmark release for the medium. Now I recognise that on a gameplay level Spec Ops is flawed, its unexciting and overly generic, however besides that the game does so much right. What really made the game excel for me is how in reality it was a commentary on military shooters, rather than just one itself. It took the tropes and it subverted them, it instilled the player with familiarity and then shocked them when it became something so different. Its a game that goes some way to show the effects of war, in several intelligent ways, and one that has a stance. It has something to say and it says it so well, but importantly it says it through being a game. Spec Ops is the most important game of the year, but its a game that isnt fun. That is weirdly why it is so brilliant, I did not have a good time playing Spec Ops, but its in the same way that I dont have a great time watching Apocalypse Now (an inspiration for the developer). I still think Apocalypse Now is a tremendous movie and I still love Spec Ops. Its not a game you enjoy, but its not un-enjoyable in a pejorative sense, it does what it sets out to do and is excellent for it. Its an eye opener and wholly thought provoking, if you havent played it you should.

4. The Walking Dead

It seems Im in tune with the rest of the known world when I say Telltales The Walking Dead is rather magnificent. Ive been following this series from the beginning, picking up each episode as it came out and awaiting the next (Ive also reviewed every episode along the way for WikiGameGuides). I think I echo everybody who played these when I talk about the emotional attachment to this series and how it affected me in a way games usual dont. I cared for the characters deeply, and I agonised about my decisions. I echo the words of my good friend Ran Harpaz when I say that the Walking Dead is not a game that makes choice matter per se, it makes the act of choosing matter. Its a key difference, I didnt feel my choices had far reaching consequences that impacted the game, it carried on regardless and most things were the same whatever. In the moment though, it completely mattered because the choices were so well crafted. They were truly grey and questioned personal morality rather than abiding by a games system. Im somebody who has fallen out of love with morality systems; they are too clear cut for me. Recent games like Mass Effect 3 and inFAMOUS 2 really hammered home the bits I dont like about these conventional systems (though I stand by Mass Effect 3 as an excellent game), causing me to flock towards the Witcher 2s and Dragon Age: Origins of the world. But Walking Dead took it further, and while I agree that it was the act of choosing that was important here, I would also highlight the character impact as most important to me. My choices didnt change the story, but they changed how I felt about it and how I approached it. They didnt change the game but they changed me to a certain extent, and importantly they changed how I interact with characters. Situation A may still play out the same way every time, but Person B is angry at me because I took choice C. This really doesnt make a difference, but because I was invested in the characters it made a difference to me. It would upset me when friends took against what I did, or I would make sure to speak my mind to a character who acted wrongly in my eyes. Though this didnt change the overall picture, it changed my experience and thats what really matters. Yes the gameplay wasnt really good, it could drag, the pace was frequently halted and certain segments were completely misguided. But in spite of this, purely due to writing quality and interactivity, The Walking Dead excelled.

3. Fez

For me, Fez is the best 2D puzzle game since Braid. I say 2D purely because Portal 2 exists, and I havent really thought about whether I prefer it or not. I probably do, but Fez is still amazing. Why Fez worked for me is due to how unique it was, and how it turned out as something completely different from what I expected. If you havent played Fez but want to, dont read on, the discovery process is magical and I dont want to spoil anything for you. If you are not in that boat then let me tell you why I love Fez so much. It is partly because of how crazy it is, its a game which required me to write out several full pages of notes, which look like total gibberish, just to decipher its puzzles. Notice I say decipher, not solve, Fez is a game you decipher. It is so much more than a faux 2D world that you can spin to marvel at the clever design and the wonderful pixel art. Its a deeply complex puzzle; the whole game is one massive puzzle. Everything exists for a reason, what looks like background detail is all part of the riddle; its a game where you have to work out a new written language, set of numbers and a code made up of Tetris pieces. All of these things you need to know in order to solve Fezs grander puzzles, but getting to this stage is a puzzle in itself. You have to note repetition, keep an eye on the environment and actually work things out. Not just work out mechanics and apply in game logic, you have to use your mind, your external reasoning. A basic example of this is having to translate and solve a riddle, but the more complex examples are so brilliantly obtuse yet achievable that you cant help but sit and wonder at Fez. Its a remarkable game, the music is great, the aesthetic is wonderful and its just so very charming. Its beauty though is in how imaginative and creative it is, how different it is. But importantly not just different for the sake of it or having different as its only plus. Its great at what it does and it inspired something wonderful. Fez was so complex and abstract that it united the internet to solve it, it wasnt a case of get stuck and look up an FAQ. If you got stuck you headed to a forum where others were stuck and you discussed it, you worked it out together. You shared ideas and you had a social experience. Sadly thats not something you can capture again, if you didnt get in at the start, you missed out on one of the best parts of 2012. It was a magical time and Fez is a magical game.

2. XCOM: Enemy Unknown

At one point, during my deep XCOM binge, my housemate came into my room with his girlfriend and said that if she wanted to see what a man addicted to a game looks like, she should look in my direction. XCOM was a game that grabbed me for a long period of time, all I thought about was XCOM, all I wanted to do was play XCOM and all I talked about was XCOM. Perhaps this is a bad thing, but I thoroughly enjoyed it at the time. Taking my team of elite space marines to tackle the alien menace, whilst also making sure my base was researching what I needed, properly built and that countries were happy with my progress. Every facet of the game was excellent to me; I loved the tactical ground combat and the base building. They complimented each other and made the game as great as it is. It was also the most satisfying game this year, though it wasnt the pure fun of Far Cry 3, it was so much more engaging and worthwhile. Satisfying is the perfect word for it, when your sniper pulls off that headshot that he really shouldnt, when the aliens come in and the odds seem so against you but your tactical decisions wipe them out in a single turn, there was nothing as gratifying for me this year. Though XCOM may have lost some of its novelty with repetition, and how you can get to a certain point where you have broken the games back and nothing really bothers you (a step away from the brilliant challenge that made it so involving) I still put a great 60 hours into it. Its impressive that Firaxis made this deep yet accessible traditional strategy game in 2012, its modernised and streamlined for sure, but these arent detractions. Its just brilliant and one of the best games Ive played in a while.

1. Max Payne 3

Apparently some people dont like this game. That confuses me. As you can tell by its placement, I adore Max Payne 3. I would call myself a shooter fan, but that doesnt mean Im a fan of most shooters. In fact Im generally very critical of the genre; Max Payne 3 though is a game that reminded me that when a shooter is good, there isnt much that can match it. For me Max Payne 3 is just a superb shooter, and this surprised me, sure I loved the previous two games (especially the phenomenal Max Payne 2) but I wasnt huge on Rockstar this generation. Ive recently rediscovered Red Dead Redemption, and fallen in love with it in a way that I didnt when I first played it, but the things that Max Payne was offering are things I dont class Rock Star as being good at. Rockstar make some decent open world games, why Red Dead is great is because of the sandbox open world. Where Red Dead falters is its core gameplay (especially gunplay), the pacing and some parts of the storytelling. A great linear style shooter like Max Payne needs to have excellent gameplay (especially gunplay), the pace needs to be spot on and if the game is going to be as good as those that came before, the core storytelling needs to be amazing. What Max Payne 3 showed is that the flaws I see in Rockstar come from their open world formula. It makes their games overlong (bloated) and the structure they abide by makes for story and gameplay conflict. This was gone in Max Payne, this game was just amazing. The production values where top-notch, the sense of style was sublime and it was just a joy to play. The game was a decent length, but excellently paced with nail biting action and perfectly judged quiet moments. The game posed a decent challenge, but wasnt overtly hard, it was just really fun. The core shooting (if you are a sane man and turned off auto aim) was perfect, the precise dot and your freedom of movement meant satisfying gunfights where skill had a deciding factor.

Some took against how fragile Max was, and how crazy shoot dodging was no longer the deal of the day. Well, I had got that deal done to almost perfection in Max Payne 2. Something different but excellent is fine with me and the game felt enough like Max whilst offering something new. It wasnt carefree anymore, it was tight and you had to cleverly use the skills at your disposal to get through. It wasnt just diving around; it was knowing when you should dive and when a dive would pay off. It was knowing to use cover and to use slow down from cover to rack up the head shots. It all came together for me, and it was also complimented by what I found to be an excellent story. It was dark, and brooding, and superbly written. It was very Rockstar, and not very Remedy, but it was very good. If you want to complain that its different from one and two, then you are right in saying its different. Its not a complaint though. One and two exist and three is an excellent game that captures enough Max Payne to make it fit, whilst allowing Rockstar to make it their own. Im glad they did, because it made for an astounding game that is no doubt my favourite game of the year. Judging by other peoples lists its not a popular choice, but for me it is the obvious one.

2012 was an absolutely wonderful year for films. There was not one time in any given month when there wasn't at least one movie I saw and loved. I consider myself as much as a movie buff as I do a gamer, so when a year this damn good comes around, I cannot help but write up a top 10 list and put it out there for everyone to see.

One thing: opinions on movies are objective. If your favorite movie this year isn't on my top 10, it's not because I consider it a bad movie. After watching AMC Movie Talk, I have developed (*cough* stole *cough*) a new criteria for film. It's simple and all inclusive. Films should make you do one or all of these things:

1) Think

2) Feel

3) Experience

If a film excels in one of these areas, it's a good film. A great film excels in two, a masterpiece does all three.

For clarification, there are times when I definitely will put a good film over a great one, or even a masterpiece. This is not because I feel that they're better as films, it's because when asked what movie I would rather watch, I would put my #8 over my #9. That makes sense, right?

Now, onto the list.

Honorable Mentions:Brave, Ted, The Dark Knight Rises, The Amazing Spider-Man

10) The Cabin in the Woods

This is a film that too many people missed for the wrong reason. If you haven't seen this film, do not look into anything regarding the plot. Avoid reviews, avoid the trailer, just avoid any mention of the film. In fact, avoid this write-up, because all you need to know is that it's one of the smartest horror movies I've seen since The Ring.

What makes The Cabin in the Woods so inherently wonderful is that it is, in essence, a satire of the slasher genre, much like Scream was in the 90s. However, like Scream, it keeps its integrity as a horror film. And even while I'm going to keep comparing it to Scream it effortless separates itself from the equally great film. A strong cast coupled with extremely clever and extremely funny writing makes for a good film on its own, give it a plot that flawlessly builds upon itself, not giving the audience every answer until the very end of the film, and you have something extremely special. It's my firm belief that everyone who's remotely interested in a smart horror movie has to see this film.

9) Chronicle

Talk about a surprise. I remember sitting in the theatre for...you guessed it, The Cabin in the Woods with my father and seeing a trailer for this movie. I thought the idea certainly was novel. Three teenagers get superpowers and start recording their adventures and trials on video. Yes, it's another film that jumped on the POV bandwagon, but it's, in my opinion, the first film to get it right. Underneath a trailer filled with teens performing pranks with their newly discovered powers is genuine tale of friendship, trust, betrayal, heartache, hurt, bullying, revenge and, ultimately, redemption.

Calling Chronicle a superhero movie is misleading. It's a drama with superpowers. It's a story about three teenage boys who have nearly nothing in common and their friendship, how it grows, and how their superpowers ultimately destroy it. It's gripping. It's compelling. It's excellent. Go see Chronicle.

8) Detention

Oh dear God, it's another horror(?) movie. What the heck is wrong with my list? Absolutely nothing, I tell you.

You see, when I choose to sit down and watch a horror movie, I do extensive research into it (except for Cabin, but that's because I took heed of the advice of the reviewers). If you want to research Detention, do it. Why? You won't see anything coming. I didn't. It's impossible.

Detention is a slasher movie about a villain named Cinderhella who makes homages to 80's films while wearing 90's clothing because it's retro and they go back to the past to fix the future and...wait...wait..wait...what?

If that sounded confusing, I did my job. Detention is many things. The first thing is funny. Josh Hutcherson (of The Hunger Games fame) and Dane Cook work surprisingly well together in the few scenes they have in this film. If you aren't a fan of Dane Cook's work on a normal day (like me) I will come out to say this is one of his best films to date. It's an indie movie with a low budget of $10,000,000, making you wonder if all of the embeddedness of the plot and smart, not-so-subtle movie references are the result of not being able to afford the writers to write a completely original plot, but it's done so well it doesn't matter. This movie has everything from Scott-Pilgrim like effects to time-traveling bears. Oh, and it all makes sense. Complete sense. Go see it.

In fact, here is a link to the end of the first scene in the movie. You'll get it then. I hope. (excuse the quality)

7) The Hunger Games

Fangirlism aside, The Hunger Games is by all means a great film. It's easy to give it a pass, with the Twilight-esque "TEAM PEETA" and "TEAM GALE" nonsense and all. On top of that, it was adapted from a young adult novel, makingThe Hunger Games begins to sound way too close to Twilight.

As someone who took the time to read the entire trilogy, let me say that The Hunger Games is nothing like Twilight. As a film, it's a movie with smart editing, good adapted screenplay, a fantastic cast, and extremely-well handled scenes of kids brutally killing one another. The one thing I was worried about the most in this film is that they would either A) dumb down the killing so as it make it easier to watch or B) glorify it to the extent that the movie becomes a film about who's killing who next. The director did a fantastic job portraying the brutality of the world of Panem, and an even better job of showing what parts of our own society reflect in it. The film is riveting, suspenseful and shocking (that is, if you haven't read books for the last one) and is definitely worth at least one viewing.

6) Argo

"Argo **** yourself."

I'm a bit more of a conservative fellow, so when I see that Ben Afleck is directing a movie I always get a bit nervous and cautious of a more liberal message that I'd rather not hear (I did, however, love The Town). When I saw Argo, however, I was blown away.

What this film did was take a premise that sounded pretty boring to start with and made it one of the most tension-filled movies of the year. I went with 4 of my college friends, and two of them would not stop freaking out over the constant suspense that permeated the air during the film. They just couldn't contain themselves. The tension is not created by fake gunfights or artificial conflicts; Afleck just let the movie create its tension naturally from the situation it portrayed. And he did it wonderfully.

5) Wreck-it-Ralph

I'm nothing if not a fan of Disney. I'm double-nothing if not a fan of video games. I'm triple-nothing if I'm not going to flip tables over from pure excitement when I hear that Disney is producing a film with a video game theme.

It's hard to talk to about this game in front of gamers. Some will say that "Why didn't [INSERT GAME HERE] get in?" or that the movie spent too much time on Ralph's and Venelope's relationship instead of the gaming world they live in. Personally, I wasn't looking for this game or that game to make an appearance in the film, I was looking for a Disney film set in a video game world. That's what I got. And it was great.

Sarah Silverman, John C Reily, Jack McBryer and Jane Lynch executed all of their lines perfectly, never missing a beat. The animation was an absolute treat to look at (especially Sugar Rush) and Ralph and Venelope's relationship as well as Felix and Calhoun's were wonderfully written and orchestrated throughout. Add in a ton of intelligent implementations of video game ideas, staples, and genres and you have a really unique film. What's especially wonderful about this film is that it didn't forget that non-gamers would be seeing it, too. It effortlessly walked the line between fan service and accessibility, and for that alone it's a great film.

4) The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I understand the mixed reactions on this film. It had a lot to live up to and, indeed, it's a film that fans of the book have been waiting to arrive for decades. I was raised as an avid Tolkien fan by my father, and, as such a fan, I can tell you that I loved this movie.

First off, it's beautiful, especially in 48fps. It's one of the most technically stunning movies I've seen since Avatar (I have yet to see Life of Pi [I read the book before it was cool (I am not a hipster)] so shush). The pacing was wonderfully quick and gave the film an extremely adventurous feel, just as the book did when my dad read it to me as a kid. Andy Serkis blew every single scene he did in the original trilogy away and into space in the highly-anticipated riddle scene. Sure, it pulled some stuff from the appendixes to make it into a trilogy and take more of our monies, but if every movie in this new trilogy is as good as this one...well...take all of mine! (Yes, I just went there)

3) Les Miserables

I don't understand why critics gave this film mixed reviews. I loved every second of it. The live singing allowed the cast to act out their emotions through their singing, with every single member giving a stellar performance. Nobody can deny Anne Hathaway's tear-jerking performance as Fatine, safely securing her numerous awards for best supporting actress. Hugh Jackman surprised everyone with his ability to show that Wolverine can sing, and Russel Crowe was one of the best tragic villains I have seen in movies this year.

I think a lot of the bias against this film comes from the fact that 1) It's an operetta, and critics usually have a certain aversion to any form of musical in the first place and 2) those who are fans of the stage show were expecting something similar to their favorite production, and this possibly did not live up to their standards. That's fine, it might have been done well on stage before, but this is a movie, and it's a damn good one.

2) The Avengers

The Avengers. That's all that needs to be said.

1) Lincoln

I'm not the biggest fan of biopics. They're usually drawn out and a bit boring, and usually fall into a realm of extreme campy-ness and cheesy-ness that is impossible to stomach. Lincoln did not do that, and gave us the best performance of any actor this year via Daniel Day Lewis.

Yes, Daniel Day Lewis. His performance as Lincoln is the product of something that happens when an actor falls in love with their character. You could tell that he wanted to portray one of America's finest presidents as accurately as possible, and he did it flawlessly. Spielberg, a director of extraordinary merit, once again proved his abilities with this film. Even though every audience who sees this film knows the ending before walking into the theater, the tension created when the final vote is being cast is paralleled by no other film this year.

An all-star cast that was clearly gathered to celebrate the life of this incredible man all did amazingly well in their own right. The writing highlighted all of their strengths as actors and actresses, giving us a wonderfully rendered telling of the end of America's days of slavery. Seriously, if you haven't seen Lincoln, go see it. It's one of the best movies I have ever seen and is my #1 movie this year.

---

The Nintendo 3DS has a problem. Regardless of what stunts it might pull off, of what masterpieces it may eventually house and of how many great games will continuously grace the system, it will always be a handheld that will be compared to its older brother: the Nintendo DS. Like a younger sibling who gets a masters degree in his twenties, and whose older brother already was a doctor at that young age; and like an Olympic medalist that collects three gold medals in an edition where somebody else captures ten of those; it is destined to live obfuscated by the gargantuan shadows of the accomplishments of its contemporary. That is by no means a terrible death sentence for the system, it is just the fair acknowledgement that it has a whole lot to live up to. And given how rare systems with such a high degree of quality in their library are, it is easy to bet against the Nintendo 3DS' chances to beat its predecessor. A good system it might end up being, but reaching the level of historical greatness of the DS is a far-fetched notion.

The Nintendo DS had a lot going on its favor. Not only did it enjoy the massive support that comes along with being the handheld system of a company that utterly dominates the market, it also introduced the fantastic novelty of the double screens. The system thrived in the junction of those for two factors. A lot of talented developers and resourceful companies wanted to develop games for it, and once they started the process, what they discovered were the perfect flourishing grounds for new explorations in gameplay and design. The glorious match generated excitement among developers, and the direct results of that breath of life are unforgettable: Mario and Luigi 3, The World Ends With You, GTA: Chinatown Wars, Advanced Wars: Dual Strike, and many other titles were significant marks in the history of gaming for their audacity and freshness, and elevated the Nintendo DS into a level that can only be matched by the Super Nintendo and the Playstation 2; two systems that were filled to the brim with new brilliant franchises and old familiar faces at their creative peak.

As impressive as the Nintendo 3DS is from a hardware standpoint - all that it takes to display that is a few seconds of Ocarina of Time 3D footage - it trails from the get go in relation to its predecessor because, aside from 3D, it bets in the very same dual-screen mechanics that the Nintendo DS already explored to great lengths. The two screens still have a whole lot to offer in terms of great design possibilities, especially with the 3D effects added, but they aren't as fresh as they were seven years ago. As a consequence, the 3DS is not only being compared to a handheld with an unbelievably great library, but it is also - when that comparison is done - facing a friendly enemy at its own field of battle, giving the DS a considerable advantage.

Still, even when those two core negative factors working against the 3DS are taken away from the equation - the undeniable and hard-to-reach greatness of its ancestor, and the difficulty to establish its own identity due to the great features it inherited - it is hard not to feel that the 3DS has had a bit of a slow start in terms of software, which is the most important measure of a system's quality. For many months negative comments towards the system were rightfully shielded with affirmations of how it was just way too early on its life to make any judgments. Right now, though, nearly two years into the life of the system, the overall feeling is that the Nintendo 3DS, though sporting a nice collection of very good games, still hasn't really reached a great pacing, and - even worse - it has, so far, failed to deliver a group of games great and original enough to start defining its identity.

It is not just a random feeling supported by blind nostalgia for the DS' unreachable library, it is something that is confirmed by cold hard numbers. According to Gamespot's scores, on its first two years of life, the Nintendo DS had 5 games that scored 9 or higher, a set of titles that included Advanced Wars: Dual Strike, Yoshi's Island DS, Mario Kart DS and New Super Mario Bros. The first was a glorious technological display, the following two were top-notch reinterpretations of important games, and the latter was a refreshing return to the past, albeit too easy. Sitting two months from its two-year anniversary, the 3DS has precisely zero games that managed to reach that score. Obviously, a game that does not reach that grade is far from automatically bad, but it does show that none of them caused the same impact as the four titles mentioned above, which says something.

More worrisome, though, is the fact that a portion of the top games of the Nintendo 3DS are remakes: Ocarina of Time, Metal Gear, Star Fox and Street Fighter. Other than that, the system has housed the sequel to New Super Mario Bros. - which is a weaker affair, a stellar Mario Kart installment, the fifth Professor Layton game, a good Resident Evil adventure, a weak Paper Mario entry and a tridimensional take on the New Super Mario Bros gameplay in Super Mario 3D Land. Kid Icarus, Rhythm Thief and Zero Escape are probably the only three highly rated exclusives that brought to the system an experience that cannot be had anywhere else, and for a Nintendo handheld that is not quite good enough. The Nintendo DS also beats the 3DS when comparing their first two years when it comes to games rated between 8 or 8.9 (20 against 16), and it absolutely mops the floor with its younger sibling regarding games in the 7s (65 against 18).

By this point on its life, the Nintendo DS already had two Phoenix Wright games, Animal Crossing, Tony Hawk, two Castlevania titles, Elite Beat Agents, Kirby's Canvas Curse, Mario and Luigi, Trauma Center, Hotel Dusk, Meteos, Metroid Prime Hunters, Mario vs Donkey Kong, Age of Empires, Sonic Rush, among others. In other words, it had more games than an average human being can afford to play. What that difference may indicate, especially the one between games rated between 7 and 7.9, is that while Nintendo is definitely bringing out their support, third-parties are being weirdly shy. Investing on a Nintendo handheld is usually a sign of immediate profit, as the company pretty much dominates the market in a very remarkable fashion, but the on-going dominance is apparently not being as strongly backed up by other companies as it usually was in the past.

It can't be argued that the DS simply started out very strongly, as its pace was very continuous. For instance, after receiving five games rated 9 or higher in its first two years, it went on to have eleven more of those through the remaining four years of its life. In some cases, its pace got even better, as it is the case with games in the middle category (between 8 and 8.9), where in the other four years the system had a whopping sixty-nine games rated in that range, compared to the twenty of its first couple of years. Once again, maybe the achievements of the DS were so gargantuan that whatever the 3DS has been doing loses its shine because it cannot make its light be seen outside of the DS' shadow, but there is still a considerable difference between the support both consoles received during the same amount of time.

If there is one thing the 3DS has, though, aside from a nice library of games, is time. It is clearly too far off the DS' pace to try and replicate that kind of greatness. However, there are still many years ahead so that it can offer us unforgettable portable experiences that rank up there with Link's Awakening, Wario Land, Mario and Luigi 3, or the first two generations of Pokemon titles. Looking too far into the future would be an exercise in wild guessing, but glimpsing right around the corner shows us that Animal Crossing seems destined for a glorious rebirth after the blandness of City Folk, the meeting between Layton and Wright is about to happen, the sorely missed Luigi's Mansion franchise is making a seemingly great, bigger and better come back after ten years of absence, and at least one Zelda game is certainly looming in the horizon. The 3DS has time, Nintendo has the talent, and third-parties are aware of how well the handheld is selling. The recipe is ready to be cooked, it just needs someone to start a fire.

It wasn't my fault officer, honest. It winked coquettishly at me from the electronics cabinet with its "Sale!" sticker like the family-friendly strumpet that it is. I wasn't going to get a better deal anytime soon and it came with an SD card and Super Mario 3D Land. I couldn't help myself.

So yes, I bought myself a Nintendo 3DS after quietly promising myself weeks prior to give up on trying to own every console and just stick to playing most of my games on PC. But I'm a sucker for a deal and once I haggled the price down even further I realised I was going to walk out of that store with Nintendo's handheld so I may as well embrace it.

Things didn't work out as well as planned as the 3DS that I ended up with had obviously been used by the store owner to demonstrate the wonders of handheld 3D technology to the uninitiated window shopper and in doing so had engaged parental controls, complete with a pin number. After discovering this, returning to the proprietor and doing my best to look angry and imposing I got the intended black model swapped for a properly brand new 70's bathroom blue model. It was that or one emblazoned with pokemon. I think I dodged a bullet there.

This all played out five or so hours before a 14 hour flight to the UK. An excellent opportunity, I thought, to test out the promise of bite-sized gaming that had been missing from my life ever since I packed up my GBA with the solemn conviction that old ladies would never again be freaked out by the sight of me playing WarioWare on the bus.

The 3DS held up remarkably well. Although I spent the majority of the flight watching films with Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who is apparently is essential to the making of all action movies requiring stoicism and a winning smile, the 3DS had itself a workout. Of course I wouldn't have been so enamoured with my rash purchase if not for the game I bought to accompany it.

Super Mario 3D Land is a great reminder that Nintendo is still capable of inventiveness and imaginative design in a time when other Nintendo products go back to the well of nostalgia so often they may as well install a pipeline. It's obvious that 3D Land is a product of the Super Mario Galaxy team. Like Galaxy and its sequel, each level layers on a new gameplay mechanic that you haven't seen before and then later on the game picks out the best ideas and sandwiches them all together brilliantly. 3D Land also plays to the strengths of the system; the 3D effect is used in numerous ways to enhance each level and provide a sense of scale that you generally wouldn't expect from a handheld game. The levels are nice and short which meant finishing a couple of levels satiated my desire for entertainment in about 10 minutes, as it turns out that's a fine way to break up your in-flight marathon of depressing Oscar winning-dramas and manic action flicks. So if you have a 3DS, it goes without saying that this is the game to get.

My one gripe so far is that the battery life isn't stellar. Super Mario 3D Land with the 3D slider all the way up will chew the battery up in around two and half hours and even in normal 2D mode the 3DS manages the battery life of a modern iPhone. I'm curious to see the demands that other games place on the battery, because I'm going down to the wire almost every day.

As for the hardware itself, it's smooth, elegant and compact. I chose the ordinary 3DS over the XL purely because it weighed less and could fit nicely in my pocket, as far as I'm concerned I made the right choice. It's a slick-looking system and the interface is as user-friendly and dumbed-down as it is on the Wii which is just how I like it. I may not need a tutorial for setting up a wi-fi connection but it's nice that it's there.

Right now the jury is still out on whether the 3DS will become part of my regular gaming ritual or just an amusing novelty. It's still down to the games that Nintendo has planned for the system, because 1st party titles make or break Nintendo hardware. Crashmo is next on the list of intended purchases, and there's always the allure of the Virtual console for some hot NES and SNES games that I've neglected to play. The coming weeks of freezing temperatures and solitude will determine my future relationship with the 3DS and Nintendo overall, so far it's off to a good start.

My barrage of list based content is about to come to an end! Bear with me now for the main event (in my eyes) my top 10 games of 2012!

10. Far Cry 3

In a way, its telling of how good this year actually was that this game is so low down on this list. Far Cry 3 is an excellent open world game, a brilliant shooter and is one of the most fun games Ive played all year. Its an incredibly dumb game, and I mean that both as a sincere compliment and a piece of criticism. The good dumb refers to the fun aspect, when I decide to go hunting bears using a car or finish off a mission by running at my target only wishing to knife him as I repeatedly stab myself with health syringes. As an open world sandbox Far Cry 3 does so much right. There are enough activities on offer to invite you to spend a good deal of time doing anything but the story, and that is where the game shines. Climbing guard towers, taking down outposts silently (if possible), driving missions, conventional side quests and the hunting were all a blast. The hunting especially, due to the progression of great unlocks that made it meaningful. This was all complimented by the way everything interacts in the environment which creates a great degree of improvisation to everything in the best way possible. One time I was silently scouting out an outpost with my camera, and then a tiger attacked me and in fighting it I drew attention of everybody and went on the all out offensive. This means using my full destructive arsenal not just silenced assault rifles and causing utter chaos in ways I didnt even know the game supported. Fire spread wildly (I tried to burn the enemies out but the fire spread to the bit of jungle I was in... Bad move), some structures fell (only small wooden ones admittedly) and it all felt completely out of control whilst leaving me in total control. It was superb.

The game has its detractions though, and they really impacted the overall experience for me. I loved hunting, but it was over too soon, a very subjective complaint but one I can make on a personal list. I rushed out all of the crafting stuff and then the animals became set dressing that posed no threat, and that I didnt need to interact with. It also committed a cardinal sin of dropping me in an empty open world after I finished the story. I had done the side quests, the outposts and the hunting, leaving a world with no enemies and no real activities to do. I expected to keep playing after I was done, but there was no reason to not just quit the game. They core issue though was the story, which started out so strong. It seemed self aware but ended up embracing its clichés and stupidity and coming off as very bad. It got to almost thematically offensive levels and desperately seemed like it wanted to say something but it would rather you just killed everybody ever. Leaps of logic were forgiven at the start because the mood implied something else was afoot, nothing else was, it just ended up extremely stupid. The endings themselves are also awful (a running trend this year it seems), terribly written and laughable. The game started off so well, but the last third fell apart, melding poor story with poor missions and throwing everything I had enjoyed out the window. The last thing I did in Far Cry 3 was attain the completion achievement, and it seemed very appropriate when the words What A Trip popped up to the accompanying jingle. The trip was great, but the destination leaves a lot to be desired.

9. Dishonored

Player choice is an interesting thing, something that usually brings to mind story choices and dialogue trees. For me Dishonored is emblematic of player choice at its best, and it does it in terms of gameplay. This stealthy gem placed the player in superbly crafted open ended environments and gave them a suite of tools, the rest was left to you. Movement and combat was refined enough for the level design to work and enabled you to enjoy the game no matter what direction you carved out for yourself. The powers worked together in smart ways and the mechanics just blended together for a seamless gameplay experience. The world was brilliant also. Few things were as satisfying to me this year as my non-lethal run through Dishonored. It was a game so mechanically brilliant that it felt like a simulation, a fictional magic assassin sim. Thats my kind of sim. Now I have issues with the game, the lack of new game plus was a big deal for me and the story was not good at all (culminating in another poor ending). Not having new game plus put the game in a situation where you didnt always have access to the game at its best, when you have multiple complimentary powers that you can utilise in imaginative ways. By the time you get the unlocks in the game you are hampered by having picked certain base skills that seem rather necessary, meaning you dont just have all the cool stuff, and the fact that some of the later missions arent as open and awesome as what came before. You then have to start again and wait to get to that point to do all the crazy things you hear about, when you combine time stopping and possession in bizarre ways. This was a genuine issue for me, I just feel the game could have shown why it was great and could have been greater if it really allowed me to let loose. Just let me carry on and do crazy stuff in the superior early game levels.

8. Halo 4

Im a massive Halo fan and this was a really good Halo game. The campaign was really solid, and packed a decent emotional story (with a poorly told sci-fi narrative accompanying it), but this is mostly here because as writing this I want to go play Halo 4 multiplayer. Halo multiplayer is just how I like it, and 343 did it so very well. Its got enough CoDesque persistence to keep me invested and addicted, without all the CoD stuff I dont enjoy. Ive never been a fan of the fundamental balance of CoD multiplayer, and Halo 4 goes a bit down that road but only steals the certain elements I am ok with (luckily). In the end theres not much to say about Halo 4, its just a really solid Halo game, and thats super awesome. The shooting and movement is as perfect as it ever was and Spartan Ops is lame. Halo 4, pick it up.

7. Hotline Miami

If you want a game that will pump you full of adrenaline whilst also giving your brain a workout, look no further than the sublime Hotline Miami. Hotline is something to behold, it takes control of you in a hypnotic fashion with its sublime soundtrack and fitting visuals. Its a completely coherently designed game where every element compliments another and works towards an overall picture which is nothing short of masterful. Its brilliant from a gameplay perspective and its brimming with thematic interest. It doesnt beat you over the head with a message, it lays things out for the player to think on and make his or her mind up about. In doing this it becomes one of the most interesting games of the past few years, and its also super fun. The ultra-violent and lightning fast gameplay feels spot on; its challenging, but strategic and not frustrating. The Meat Boy like short levels and instant reloads keep you playing whilst the sound and visuals also glue you in place. Hotline Miami just works, from top to bottom it works. Its sublime.

6. Journey

After a lot of violent games on this list, Journey is a great change of pace. Its also just great. Not only is it eye wateringly gorgeous, its completely joyous. Its easy to overlook Journey in retrospect, or look upon it cynically, but when you are playing it is impossible to do it any disservice. The feeling you get in that first playthrough is completely magical, and as a jaded human being Im tempted to look back scornfully, but then I remember how the game made me feel. It was wholly involving, I cared about anonymous bits of cloth, I took in the minimal exposition, and I felt like I went through all kinds of trials and tribulations to get to my destination. I didnt wholly know why I needed to go there, but I knew above all else that I needed to reach it. Was it because of some cave paintings or hints at a mythology? Simply it was because it was there. There was nothing but me and my destination as soon as I crossed that first hill and I would do anything to get there. This was hammered in by what it took to get to the mountain and how they made it feel like a struggle while still creating a wholly accessible game that will be celebrated as a landmark title for years to come. I dont know if I will revisit Journey, I dont know if it will stick in my mind, but I know that while playing it I was completely in love with it.

It all started with the special edition of game releases before the current generation of systems debutted. Select games for the Xbox and other systems were being sold with a couple of extra trinkets, marketed as "Special Edition" or "Collector's Edition" or "HAHA, I Have This Edition and You Don't Edition". It was a test to see just how successful selling games at 60 dollars would be. And it turned out to be just that.

2005. MS begins releasing information regarding the release of their sophomore system, the 360. The price of the console itself was a bit hard for people to swallow, but it was the price of their software that really hurt. 59.99 would now become the MSRP standard. Their defense? That games are becoming too expensive to make. Sony followed suit a year later, and their only difference was that the price of their console was much higher than MS's. Nintendo that same year was able to get away with selling their system at a cheaper price because it was cheaper to make, but they also kept the games at 50 dollars. With the Wii U, however, those days are gone. After seven years, Nintendo's finally starting to sell games at 60 bucks.

As games get more expensive - or as more games that come out that people want who can't afford them all - more people look towards the used game market to save a few extra bucks. As a result, the industry feels a hit of lost potential sales, so they implement measures such as online passes and always online DRM and on-disc DLC to make money off secondhand sales. They are only ending up hurting the consumers this way, though. The real problem is not making the game worth 60 dollars; it's just that too many people aren't willing to pay 60 dollars. At all. Sure, some games sell great at that price tag, because they're being published by giant companies who have millions to blow on marketing. Well, if they have that much money to throw around... why are they trying to block used sales? Simple greed.

Now, let's look at something here.

Can you rank these games, without looking on Amazon, in order of cost from lowest to highest? If you guessed

, you're right. The PC version retails for 29.99, followed by the 3DS version at 39.99 and then the Wii U at 59.99. Is there any justification that the Wii U version should retail for twice as much as the PC version? No. Only because it's being released on a console system. Scribblenauts Unlimited is not a demanding game that taxes the Wii U's processors at all. It's practically a handheld game blown up on the TV. There's no reason to pay 60 dollars for the exact same game you can get on the 3DS for 20 bucks less, and on the PC for 30 bucks less. As for Nintendo exclusives, they don't have to worry about that. If you want New Super Mario Bros. U, they got you by the balls. Good luck waiting for a price drop on a Nintendo exclusive, so you're pretty much forced into buying second hand if you want that game at a good price.

Now look at these:

These are two new Sega games. Sonic Racing released at 39.99 and Anarchy Reigns released at 29.99. Now, you could try to make the argument that these might be cheaper games with smaller budgets, but Sonic All-Star Racing Transformed feels every bit as good as a Mario Kart game, and even better than a few of their installments. Anarchy Reigns is a bigger game than its predecessor MadWorld was, and that originally sold for 49.99. If Sega can get away with selling games at far below the 60 dollar average, why aren't other companies following suit? We aren't letting them.

Now, I've bought plenty of games at 60 dollars when I really shouldn't. It's a problem, I know, and I really don't have as much disposable income as I think I do. The only real reason why I keep buying games new is because I just hate knowing the fact that there are games out there now that I want. It's like, they aren't going to be nearly as fun if I end up waiting 6 months for a price drop. It's all about that "play it now while the rest of the gaming world is playing it, too" attitude that makes me buy games at 60 dollars. That's a will power issue that I fully acknowledge, and I think a lot of us share that same affliction.

But in my perfect world games would cost 39.99. How many times have we seen brand new video games slashed from 60 to 40 in just a couple of months? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to companies to sell more units from the very start? The more you sell at a lower price, the more you'll eventually make in returns. And here's the beautiful thing: the gamers who buy used games from GameStop at 55 would now start buying new games at 40. It would be a great way to stop the hemorrhaging that all these companies say they're experining from used game sales.

And if I could, I would start a movement. I would gather up as many gamers as I could, at least a million, and have us all commit to buying new games at no more than 40 dollars to send a serious message to publishers that games are too expensive. Unfortunately, I can't, even if I wanted to. I'm too weak of a person to lead that many people when I'll probably go out and buy a game at 60 dollars next month. It would just help my wallet if the 60 dollar price tag would just up and disappear. It would also help publishers sell more copies without losing so many sales to the used game market, and then they would stop wasting so much time and money trying to counteract it.