As obvious and redundant as it is, I'm going to say it: the important part of being good at a game is to enjoy it. Here come the eye-rolls and well, duh!s. I say this because it may not always be obvious. The elephant in the room for me, before I got rid of my X Box 360 and converted to PS3 and PC gaming, was that I was always afraid I'd end up going up against my former best friend and/ or one of his cronies via XBL.

Even playing other games on the 360, I was afraid I'd cross paths with one of them. I didn't enjoy playing games like Halo or Call of Duty anymore because I always felt like I had a target painted on me and I lost more matches than I won because I wasn't able to focus and enjoy the games. It got to the point where I just canceled my XBL account and sold my 360.

Enjoying a game and feeling like you're good at it can go hand in hand. With games like Call of Duty, you're going to switch back and forth between having good and bad games. After taking an almost year break from the franchise and dwelling into other games like Uncharted 3 and Borderlands 2, I started to realize that having that theoretical weight lifted off of my shoulders let me focus more and (gasp!) get better at gaming in general. I started to see the difficulty of games as less of a threat and more of an overall challenge and built up confidence that way. I think it also got me to start working on writing projects again, but I digress.

Soon after Black Ops 2 (II?) came out, I went and picked up a copy for the PS3. Sure, I was rusty with the multi-player at first, but it wasn't long before I started poppin' headshots and blowing fools to bits. Recently, it dawned on me that the reason I'm doing better at the game is because I'm legitimately enjoying it more. Making on-the-go strategies and switching between playing smart and a good ol' fashioned run-n-gun routine felt fresh and fun without the Facebook worthy social drama.

Sure, it took a gaming-exodus for it to hit me like a boss in Dark Souls, but it's nice to be able to focus on the game and learn it. Whether if you're doing it to de-stress, challenge your mind/ skills, or just to see things blow up good (as they do often tend to), enjoying the game is a large part of being good at it. It wasn't that obvious to me.

Reviewed on February 4th, 2013
Fox presents a film directed by Steven Spielberg 
Screenplay by Tony Kushner, based on the book 'Team of Rivals' by Doris Kearns Goodwin 
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader and John Hawkes
Running Time: 150 minutes
Rating: M
Released: February 7th, 2013

Are films too conveniently timed to coincide with contemporary moments or do they force us to address the unwanted memories and atrocities of the past? To this day, America struggles to address its racial history, determined to shield itself from its ugly and divided past, particularly in pop culture. Only two years ago an edition of Mark Twain's novel "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (1884) was published replacing the word n**ger with "slave".

The same attitude applies in Hollywood. Director Spike Lee declared he wouldn't view Quentin Tarantino's slave-Western Django Unchained, as it would be insulting to his ancestors. The film has also been criticised for the frequency of the word n**ger too. However, this year Steve McQueen (Shame) will also be releasing a film called Twelve Years a Slave and the frequency of slavery as a film topic could infer that there is genuine interest in exploring the subject as a result of recent America history.   

Yet despite documenting Abraham Lincoln's efforts to pass the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, Steven Spielberg's Lincoln isn't concerned with foreshadowing modern history, like Obama's 2008 inauguration. Spielberg bought the rights to Doris Kearns Goodwin's book "Team of Rivals" before it was written in the early part of the last decade. The film began development under the Bush administration and Spielberg stated in an interview with the ABC: "It's not about America today, but it has tremendous repercussions looking back about what America could be today under the right leadership".

Spielberg is deemed one of the most iconic Hollywood filmmakers since Frank Capra. Through cinema he has recreated some of the most important historical events of the last century, including the Holocaust (Schindler's List) and the Invasion of Normandy (Saving Private Ryan). He is a great fit for this material but like Capra, he is susceptible to over sentimentalising his most work, as was the case recently with War Horse (2011).

Through their films both directors have shared a vision of America becoming an idealised land of equality. For Spielberg, this stemmed from childhood as he was tormented for being Jewish and admitted to being embarrassed by his heritage. After 9/11, the way that the Bush administration shattered relations with the Middle East stung Spielberg's American Dream.

Hence, Lincoln is a film concerned by the need for great leadership and social equality, though at the expense of bending the political and legal rules. The haunting image of a pile of amputated limbs, thrown into a ditch, visualises the film's moral dilemma and poses a question to the War on Terror itself: in times of conflict, how long can a political party withhold change before engaging with social reform?  

Following his re-election, President Lincoln (a magnificent, chameleon performance by Daniel Day-Lewis) faces pressure to end the Civil War and abolish slavery. Yet he is reminded by his staff, including William Seward (David Strathairn), that ending the war before the vote will mean there is no reason to emancipate slavery: "It's either the amendment or this confederate peace, you cannot have both." Lincoln is also urged by wife Mary-Todd (Sally Field) to end the war because their eldest son Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is determined to enlist in the army. Lincoln requires twenty votes to pass the motion, including votes from the Democratic Party, and enlists some men (John Hawkes, James Spader) to offer jobs as bribes to those who will support the vote.

What's surprising about the film is that despite encompassing many of Spielberg's staples, the lost child, an anti-war message and social and racial equality, it is without the director's usual preachiness and cinematic gaudiness. The narrative is conventionally structured but resembles a play rather than an epic. The screenplay by playwright Tony Kusher (Angels in America) gives the film and its backroom drama well researched and highly colourful conversations to work through. I did find some of the political terminology, combined with Early Modern English ("buzzard's guts!" "water closet"), to be intimidating at times though. 

Buoying the film past these challenging moments is the amount of humour and wit. There are hilarious conversations and anecdotes in the film, which are respected by Spielberg's restrained direction. The colours are gloomy and drab and the camerawork is sparse. The film is mostly compromised of men talking in rooms and the containment of these scenes is a reminder of, for better or worse, where leadership begins and ends. Relying heavily on the charisma of the cast is an intelligent move by Spielberg as no one here is anything less than convincing. Tommy Lee Jones is hugely enjoyable in a highly theatrical turn as Thaddeus Stevens, whose public image and values are tested as he momentarily suppresses his passion and fierceness to help his party secure the vote.

One of the few cinematic moments is an opening scene where we see the abstract images from Lincoln's dream about a ship. He later says in the film: "We're whalers!" This reflects the same themes equal to Herman Melville's novel "Moby-Dick" (1851): a Manifest Destiny and the impossible search for equality. Spielberg and Lincoln therefore share a collective and optimistic dream for America, but the director resists lingering over the film's contemporary relevance. His film and its necessity for leadership achieves an applicability that extends far beyond what has happened in the last four years of American history and surges deep into an uncertain future.  

Thank you all for your patience. I know it took a while but things came up but here it is, I had to do some serious research to find the worst games that dared tried to copy the MK formula and there are some stinkers on here.

#5 Pocket Bike Racer

It's probably not fair to put this one on the list becauase most of us got it free from Burger King and it's like complaining about a crummy Iphone game that was free but still, Burger King and MS collaborated to make what is essentially a commerical. Though most people I know who got this one said it wasn't awful and was the best of the 3 BK games but still, I was amazed BK had enough mascots to make a racing game.

#4 Kinect Joy Ride

I have to take a moment to go piss on Kinect once more. Here's a brilliant idea, make a racing game with an invisible steering wheel. And since MS doesn't have cuddly mascots of it's own, you get to use your Mii....er Avatars and it's probably not right to lump it in with MK clones because it has a lot of other modes besides standard racing but it is another reminder of how poorly any Kinect game not called Dance Central fails. I had found a video of a guy playing this where he basically sits there and barely moves and gets third place.

#3 Wacky Races: Crash and Dash

You'd think this classic Hannah Barbera cartoon would make for an excellent kart racing experience and from what I've heard, other illeterations of this are pretty good but this one for the Wii which my nephews owned is abyssmal. There's no acceleration button, the items are useless, the controls suck and the races are boring. It has very little challenge or excitement as you don't accelerate or break, just steer through an autoscrolling stage until you finish.

#2 Sonic Drift

I had to put the first Sonic Drift on the list especially since I gave Sonic's most recent racing game the #1 slot. This came out not long after Super Mario Kart and it's easy to see this was Sega trying to quickly cash in on Sonic's sudden populairity as well as the populairty of Mario's kart racer. But it was only on the Game Gear, a handheld that sucked up batteries like Honey Boo Boo sucks up spagetti. The first one wasn't even released in the US and if you played it, it was probably unlocked on Sonic Adventure DX. You get a whopping four racers to pick from, Sonic, Tails, Robotnick and Amy. The screen is so small, it's hard to see and it's cut in half with a map taking up the top part, also due to the hardware, the draw distance is pitful. Sonic Drift 2 slightly improved it, adding Knuckles, Fang and Metal Sonic and having slightly better track design but overall, one of those games that not even the most idiotically devoted fans will defend. "Why am I in a car? And that's why Sonic Drift sucks!" -Sonic Shorts

#1 M&M's Kart Racing

Talk about a shameless tie in. I like the M&M's characters in the commercials. They made one of the more memorable Christmas ones with a fainting Santa and who doesn't love M&M's but of all the shamless ways to make a buck. One of many games out there that's just a commercial tie in and hopes to make a few quick bucks off unsuspecting kids and casual gamers. Awful controls, bad graphics. Even got Gamespots Dubious Honor of 2008.

So there's the worst MK clones around. It was hard to find worth contenders as many either had no reviewes to read or weren't as bad as I thought because when it comes to bad kart racers, we tend to avoid them so if you don't like my picks or think something was left out, go write you're own list.

So I just picked up XCOM last week and I'm fully aware that I am addicted to it. The gameplay is tight and balanced (the A.I. cheats, dammit!), the progression is addictive, and the atmosphere is wonderfully tense. I love the game and it deserved its 8.5 as well as its multiple GOTY nominations (did it win any awards? If you know, please comment!).

However, there are some qualms I have about the game, and there are a few ways that I think could greatly expand on its replayability. Luckily, Firaxis has strongly hinted through several post-release interviews that they are working on a sequel (HOORAY!) and are looking to improve upon the first game. These are my suggestions.

1) More Maps

One of the things that makes XCOM so great is the tense atmosphere that the game creates while slowly moving through a fog of war shrouded battlefield. The map design in this game is top-notch, but a huge problem I have with it is that they like to repeat. A lot.

I'm in my first playthrough and I have played on the same map on three different occasions (actually, on two of those occasions it was the same mission, too. Just with different enemy spawns). I plan to play the game at least 2 more times (one on Classic and one on Impossible difficulty), and the game loses some of its tension when you know the map before walking into it.

But...how...? I shot this UFO down last night! It's back!

Another reason why I want more maps is because...well, they're so damn good. I would not mind waiting an extra month or three for the game if it meant I would (truly) not see the same map twice in two playthroughs. That would be awesome. It would be even better if we could get a random map generator that creates these great maps when a mission starts, but it seems that the crafting of the maps must be done by humans. And that's fine; I just want more so that I can keep the feeling of suspense on my second and third playthroughs.

2) More Enemy Types

OK, this one is also aimed at the vein of replayability (excuse me, but this game just screams at you to play it more than twice). To be clear; the amount of variations in the enemies here is great, but there's potential to make it better for subsequent playthroughs if, say...we didn't see them all.

I'll give an example. The very first alien you come in contact with in XCOM: Enemy Unknown is the Sectoid. For those of you who don't know, here's a picture:

Him? He comes in one piece, but then I turn him into pieces.

This little guy is the grunt of the game, and quickly becomes the least of your worries as you encounter enemies such as Chryssalids and the terrifying Ethereals.

Okay, so let's say that, in the sequel, on my first playthrough this "grunt" creature is a Sectoid. Good. But what if that only happened by chance? What if there were, say, 3 different "grunt" creatures I could have been given for my playthrough, and I only got to fight the Sectoids by chance? You would get the Sectoids for the entirety of the playthrough for continuity's sake, but let's say you play again. This time, instead of Sectoids you find a creature called a Lurker in your mission, and then Lurkers are the "grunt" creatures for your playthrough?

I feel that adding and then randomizing enemy types would be greatly beneficial to the replay factor of the game, possibly with a feature to start a game where you can select which creatures that you have already discovered that you want to show up in your campaign. I would want to play again and again just to see what else Firaxis created for me to kill (or be brutally murdered by, for that matter).  

3) Flexible Weapon Upgrades

One of the most satisfying moments of the game is when you finally research a new gun to fire at the aliens. The only issue with that feeling is that, once you create the gun, you're done. There's no more for you to do with it. Sure, you can upgrade ammo capacity and such in the Foundry, but there's no way to modify each gun's stats for individual soldiers.

I feel like it's a missed opportunity. My favorite example of this element is in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance where you could craft a custom weapon for one of your soldiers to equip. You could customize its stats and colors, and could even give it a cool name (or a stupid one). Of course, in that game you could just pay for the best stats on any given weapon type, so XCOM would have to do it differently for game balance, but I feel like it could be done.

4) A Story...Maybe?

This suggestion is out there, I know. XCOM isn't a game that's particularly built for a story: aliens are coming to do something bad to humans, and we have to stop them before said bad things happen. The skeleton of a narrative works for the game's structure. But what including a campaign that focuses on the experiences of a squad of soldiers? Their families, their past, their weaknesses and vices, etc. There's potential for a good character-driven narrative here, especially when you throw in that they could still be permanently killed. You'll care about them on the battlefield more, not just because they have really high hit-percentages and psionic abilities, but because you know their story and want to see it end.

---
I know it's a lot I'm asking for, but with the first game out and the formula created, I feel like a good sequel to the series would try to significantly expand upon the first. This all being said, I'm on board with whatever Firaxis wants to do with the next (unnanounced-but-it's-so-happening) title.

What do you think? Am I completely off my rocker here, or do you agree with anything I said? What do YOU want in a sequel to XCOM? 

Over the past couple of weeks I was able to finally finish the Gears of War trilogy with Gears of War 3. I wasn't a big fan of the first game as I think I came to it too late. When it first came out it was pretty original but I think by the time I got round to it I'd played a few imitations that meant it didn't seem as imaginative as it should have. The second game was much better for me and I think will be my favourite in the series. It expanded greatly on the original and offered so much more, along with a cracking story from what I remember. The one thing I've always loved about the game is that it's a game that seems tailored to exactly what gamers want. If I made a game it would probably be something very similar to this.

I've never had much love for the characters apart from Cole as they all seem pretty generic and not exactly a character you can relate to or find much love for. I was really pleased to be able to control Cole for a section of the game and I think that was definitely my favourite Act. The rest of the game was good but this was a standout for me.

I'm not a fan of big set pieces as I don't always feel I'm completely in control of what's happening so the game play is not to my liking. Every time you clear an area you move along until you come to the next carefully constructed area for another battle. While the scenery is great it's a bit jarring to then come across an area set out with barriers and boxes that look totally out of place and are purely for cover in a fight. This removes any element of surprise of what's coming next. Luckily the enemies come in their droves and aren't totally incompetent. I don't feel as satisfied shooting aliens as I do soldiers in warfare games. Sounds strange to write that and I find it's true unless you get a head shot there's not much reaction from the Locust/Lambent until they die.

The story did a good job of finishing off the trilogy and it was pretty epic in parts. Breaking a game up into different acts allows for multiple big finishes which were brilliant. This game was a lot more colourful than the previous two and although I cannot remember specifics, I'd say this has as much variation with the locations as the previous game.

It took me a bit longer to complete than I expected but it was enjoyable throughout. I couldn't decide whether to give it .5 less but when I thought about it thought that although it didn't move the series along as much as Gears of War 2, it was equally as good so deserved a 9.0.

I also finished Dante's Inferno during which I spent most of my time deciding whether or not I hated or like the game. I started off finding it a bit too monotonous and not very engaging. Although there are some combo moves (if you can call them that) it just felt a bit too much like button mashing. Punishing/absolving enemies was also pretty dull as the smaller enemies mean you have to do them one at a time which added a fair bit of time to a battle compared to just blazing through it. As the game progressed though it definitely improved, with the middle third being a particular highlight for me.

The game play, whilst simplistic ended up being a lot more satisfying that I first though. Combat was definitely action packed and plentiful and to begin with there was a decent array of enemies to get stuck into. The different enemy types dwindled off towards the end but having introduced enough to begin with I didn't feel that was too much of an issue. The game play between the action was fairly traditional platforming but towards the end it did feel like they'd run out of ideas and then were just reusing past sequences with a different colour scheme. There were a couple of sections that made me swear more than the average man should more because of the sheer stupidity of the game mechanics not letting me do what I wanted to. For most of the game they were fine but in just those couple of situations I was properly annoyed.

I have never liked boss battles and don't think I ever will but I definitely tolerated the ones in this one more than I would usually. None of them were particularly rage inducing once you got the hang of what you needed to do. For a change they added a nice change of pace rather than slowing down the game which is what I usually find.

The story was actually really good and I like the differing areas that represented the nine circles of hell. The cutscenes were all worthwhile and the comic book style ones really impressed me. I don't like the fact it ended with to be continued as that just feels like it was half a game and I doubt it will get a sequel. Still, it ended pretty well and wrapped up this game as much as it could so suppose I can't negatively score it because of that.

Overall I think the game achieved what it needed to and was a decent God of War imitator. Having never fully played those games I can't comment on how much originality there is in Dante's Inferno but it kept me happy enough for the duration. My only annoyance is missing out of the silver coins and missing out on the achievement for it. Didn't think it would matter as I was sure I'd miss others down the line but that wasn't the case! I couldn't decide on a score for this game but looking my scores for other games I felt it ranked similarly to the games I'd given a 7.5 so that's what I settled on in the end.

Next up is Battlefield 3. Having only just finished MW3 I'll be able to compare the single player pretty clearly and I have a feeling B3 will come out on top for me.

For the video game industry, 2013 hasn't been off to a particularly great start thus far. The issue of video game violence is once again being examined and scrutinized after the horrendous events of Sandy Hook last year, and a recognizable name in the industry, THQ (Toy Head Quarters for anyone who wondered what it stood for) has been dissolved. Nearly all of its intellectual properties have been sold off to other third-party publishers in an effort to help consolidate THQ's bankruptcy. Whatever your opinions may be of THQ, it is generally agreed that they did possess a number of promising franchises. Among them Saint's Row, the WWE games, Metro and Homefront. As of this writing, many of THQ's backlog have established new homes within the likes of Electronic Arts, Sega, Ubisoft, and Take-Two (to name a few). Yet, as of now, only one franchise failed to find a home. And it's one that I have a deep fondness of; a little known apocalyptic adventure known as Darksiders.

When I first bought Darksiders on my 360, I was drawn to how it indirectly references the Zelda games. Such a claim has been stated on numerous occasions and, when you play the game for yourself, you'll come to understand why. Puzzle solving, exploration, complex dungeons that require specific tools and items to navigate and intense combat round out the package. I wouldn't go so far as call it a Zelda-clone because while it shares many similarities, it possesses a identity all its own in a blood-soaked, apocalyptic, extraordinarily-violent atmosphere. Following up on Darksiders, Darksiders 2 expanded on the original with a bigger world, a protagonist that swelled of pure awesomeness on every level, an addictive loot system, side questing and more depth. It also took an interesting story approach by taking place during the original game when War was going through his struggles -- through the perspective of Death and how he fought to clear his brother's name. Yes, the story was quite outlandish, but damned if it doesn't make for a good excuse to kick some serious ass.

Darksiders was one of those games that did things a little differently with a formula that has already been done (more or less), and showed a great deal of promise in becoming its own successful franchise for THQ. Unfortunately, as THQ teetered on the brink of collapse, the future of Vigil Games and the Darksiders series fell into uncertainty. When THQ was finally dissolved earlier this month, no other third-party publisher expressed enough interest in giving it a new home, snapping up Saint's Row and the WWE franchise as they were proven money makers. Darksiders enjoyed moderate success, but it ultimately did not convince potential takers. As a result, Vigil Games was disbanded---many of its team going on to other development houses (like Crytek). This is truly a shame, because the Vigil team possessed more than enough potential to be a valuable asset for any company outside of THQ, and it wouldn't have mattered if they made a Darksiders game or not.

Interestingly enough, there is some hope on the horizon for Darksiders, and it's from a surprising source. Platinum Games, developers of Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and the upcoming Wonderful 101, has gone on record inquiring about obtaining the IP and using their own development team to possibly craft a third project. Whether or not Darksiders under a Japanese development team would be as good as its Vigil-produced forebearers would depend solely on how much they really care about and respect the source material to please long-time fans and possibly draw in newcomers. Of course, God forbid if they consider rebooting it.

Although nothing's been confirmed yet, at least there may be a second chance----a second coming if you will---of a franchise that, for the time being and like the dilemma War faced with Earth in the original Darksiders, has died way before its time.

Thank you, dear Tom McShea for sparking up the desire for me to beat a dead horse again. *keeps beating the dead horse until flesh, skin and hoves fly off in a red mist* HAHAHAHAHAHA! STUPID HORSE!!! *ahem*

Read Tom's thoughts if you have not already done so.

So basically what his article is saying is to pause for a second before you go off and attack opponents of violent video games and try to see that there is some blame to be had. I think it's not the fact that we need to pause and look at the situation; it's that many of us are sick to death of looking at the situation. We looked at the situation when Mortal Kombat came out. We looked at the situation when Doom was used as an influencer in the Columbine shooting. We looked at the situation when it was said that Halo trained the DC snipers. We're tired of pondering and always coming up with the same conclusion from video game violence studies: inconclusive.

How many more times are we going to have to go through this? Apparently, 10 million dollars worth of times as Obama somehow thinks it's a good idea to give that much of our tax paying money to the Center for Disease Control to do more studies; the CDC of all places!

Ok, enough cynicism. Let's focus on violence in video games again. First, let's understand why it exists. In the early days, violence in video games was nothing more than a little ship shooting a block at other ships and having those ships explode in a bunch of boxes. Not really that offensive, but violent by definition. The thing is, would the game make any sense if it the ship was just shooting blocks into empty space? No. The reason why the ship is shooting at other ships is because those ships are the enemy. The goal of the game is to erradicate the enemy ships because, well, they're the enemy!

As technology has improved over the years, graphics have become more and more realistic, yet the goal remains the same: erradicate the enemy. It's just now instead of shooting blocks, you're shooting bullets, and instead of the enemy exploding into blocks, they have gaping exit wounds at the approximate location of their body, and use ragdoll physics to fall down properly. Yes, it's starting to become more offensive because our senses are relating it more to realism. But, that's where our most important sense comes in to play: the common one. We know it's just as fake as it ever was, no more as ludicrous as when politicans were trying to ban Death Race 2000.

Look at a game like Afro Samurai, which I just recently finished playing. We have a game that uses enourmous amounts of blood and gore to drive the action forward. But, Afro Samurai is not doing this killing senselessly. He's fulfilling a quest for vengeance, seeing his father killed before his very eyes. Since he's a samurai, his title and the game's effective era dictates that it will be a violent game. It would not make sense to make Afro Samurai be polite, going around asking the enemy, "Please lie down won't you, so that I may proceed through the game?" The ship didn't ask the invading aliens to stop invading its planet; no, it shot blocks at it.

Then there's Tom's example of God of War. Yes, the game is full of blood and guts and gore and carnage and savagery. Yes, it punctuates the violence again and again with every execution. There's no mistaking that Kratos is a very angry person, and he's set in a very bloody era. Should he be killing people? Yes, he should, as he's the GOD. OF. WAR. Not God of Tea Parties, not God of Picnics, not God of Corporate Functions (I lied, back to cynicism. It's what I do.), God of WAR. You betcha being a violent, bloody game is the only way to tell this narrative. There should be no need to excuse it.

Now, let's visit Grand Theft Auto for a spell. I'm currently reading a book called Jacked: The Outlaw Story of Grand Theft Auto, by David Kushner, and it's a great read so far. It really helps to put into perspective why violence was needed in an entertainment medium that is not just continuously evolving, but also growing up. It also tells of Lemmings creator David Jones, who was making the next big game involving an open world that allowed for realistic freedom. The game was called Race 'n' Chase, and it played pretty much like Cops and Robbers. It allowed for an almost unprecendented amount of freedom as you could just drive anywhere around the city, but then someone pointed out something. It sucked. Why did it suck? It was too realistic. You had to stop at traffic lights. You couldn't run over people. You were still pretty much playing nothing more than a kid's game. Someone suggested, "What if you were the robber instead of the cop? There car is there, why can't I just yank the driver out and take it?" Suddently, the game sparked to life and it was renamed Grand Theft Auto.

The rest would be history, had it not been for the fact that the franchise is still making history. Arguably the most controversial video game franchise of all time, Grand Theft Auto became the sort of alpha scapegoat. Whatever went wrong with the world could be blamed on Grand Thef Auto. On the surface, it's easy to see why. You're basically a thug, yanking people out of their cars, picking up hookers in them, beating them up, taking their money, driving off somewhere while running over countless pedestrians only to get out in the middle of the intersection to pick off police with your sniper rifle. Heads popped off (oddly enough, Rockstar had to edit out code that allowed limbs to be shot off as well since the censors thought it was too "gorey") and blood sprayed everywhere. Is that senseless? Of course it is. It doesn't propel the story forward or help you in any way aside from some arbitrary high score. But everyone forgets that all that mayhem is optional. You don't have to play that way.

Rockstar had to keep reiterating that fact when defending their game in court. No one seemed to care that for every negative action you made, an equal reaction occured as the police would hunt you down. No one seemed to care that this video game was a narrative equivalent to highly acclaimed crime dramas like Scarface, Goodfellas and the Godfather. Everyone overlooked the fact that you could get in a police car and chase down real criminals, or get in a firetruck and fight fires, or do anything in the game that wasn't 100 percent criminal. Rockstar, constantly under pressure by the media, continued to push the envelope because they believed in something truly important: games aren't for kids anymore. Violence should be at the forefront of any M rated game, because it needs to be readily apparent to the parent that the game is not meant for their kids, just as Scarface wasn't meant for their kids, which I'm sure they themselves loved as adults.

So why is it that most of the time, movies and other forms of media are given a free pass while video games are painted as the only culprit? Participatory action. I love that phrase. By participating in the video game, you are essentially the killer. You are making the decision to pull that trigger. Fair enough, but aren't you participating in witnessing violence when you buy a ticket to Die Hard, to Aliens, to Friday the 13th? Please don't try to say you don't willingly enter the theatre, or pop in a DVD or Blu-Ray to watch a movie filled with violence. You are compelled to see it. You love the violence, otherwise you wouldn't be watching those films. Violent video games only let you create the violence yourself. There isn't that much difference. In games like Grand Theft Auto, you can choose to not participate in a lot of the violence, only doing what's required for the story. Or, you can choose not to participate entirely by not playing the game at all. If you choose to engage in wanton violence, that is a call you made based on free will. The game did not spur that moment of violence out of you.

Another thing that gets me is that it seems violence in the media is only a problem that exists in North America. Some of the most violent entertainment comes from our distant neighbors in the East: Japan. I just recently saw Battle Royale, and God, what a messed up movie that was! Kids killing kids for the sake of survival! Yet, it wasn't completely senseless. There was a lot of different emotional theme, such as survival, friendship, desperation, courage, etc. But you know what gets me? One of the most successful movies of recent times is The Hunger Games. Kids killing kids, in a franchise that is targetted towards young readers. The Hunger Games trilogy has been highly requested in my library for years, yet parents don't bat a brow. True, the violence may be tame in comparison to Battle Royale, but the themes are still exactly the same. Violence. Violence. Violence. Let's see the parents start caring when a Hunger Games game is made...

And Japan also makes some sickingly violent games themselves. Platinum Games is renowned for this, as anyone who's played MadWorld and Bayonetta can tell you, but do those games ever get brought up during a violent video game witch hunt? Well, that's easy. They don't get anywhere near the same exposure as an Activision or Rockstar game. And with Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance nearly out, Platinum Games looks like they'll continue pumping out ridiculously over the top violent video games. But even then, maybe the people who took notice that these games were extremely violent instantly dismissed them because of the way their violence was portrayed. Maybe it was just so fantastical that it warranted no concern. The opponents of violent games are looking for something that's much more relatable, like people shooting people, or games that have Westernized characters chopping each other up. Japan's culture on violence is actually far different than ours, so maybe their society is more easily acceptable of violence in the media, while too many of us in the states still treat it as taboo.

The bottom line is this: the numbers don't add up. You cannot look me in the face and tell me with a straight face that violent games causes people to be violent. If that was the case, we would see hundreds, maybe even thousands more shootings a year. Since there are HUNDREDS of millions of gamers in the world, you might even say we'd be seeing hundreds of thousands, or even millions more shootings. We'd be seeing kids running out in the streets with swords pretending they're Dante or weilding their chainsaws thinking their Jack Cayman. We'd hear from mass shooters as they claimed they were Chris Redfield killing zombies, and even then, did anyohe take James Holmes seriously when he said he was the Joker? How come Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan aren't being lambasted to great length like our video games are? This guy flatout points his finger at a fictious character saying, "HE MADE ME DO IT!" Oh, but introduce the fact that he might have played a video game or two during his life and suddenly it's all the game's fault. Don't even get me started on the number of killers that would be created if movies even had a fraction of the percentage of influnce people say games have.

I'm writing this article to you, Tom McShea, and anyone here on GameSpot, in Politician Land and wherever else that thinks that everyone is having knee jerk reactions to when games receive the finger of blame. This is me, not replying as a gamer (although I'm inherently one, I excercise no bias in writing this editorial), but replying as a reasonable person viewing the situation from all angles. Viewing a situation that has been viewed by me over and over again, by others over and over again. Obama can waste 10 million dollars of our money, and the CDC will reach the same conclusion that researchers reached back in 1999 when trying to correlate the effects of violent games making violent people: inconclusive. Enough is enough. We aren't knee jerking. We are tired of seeing misdirected energy. We are going around in circles, and this is why gamers are becoming angry.

There you have it. My moment of reflection. Please don't make me reflect anymore. I have violent video games that need playing.

Last week, Gamespot posted an article about the Last of Us, the latest entry from the creators of Uncharted, Naughty Dog. In the article, the game is receiving yet more LE versions, these are now character specific. I have blogged about this before, it would seem, but I found myself frustrated this past Saturday when I adventured into my favourite Gamestop and found that it, and all other locations nearby, had sold out of the Post-Pandemic version, the $160 version of the game.

• 12 inch premium statue by Project Triforce
• Steelbook edition of the game
• The Last of Us - American Dreams #1 Comic (Variant Cover)
• Survival DLC Pack (Voucher Download):
• Multiplayer bonuses:
• Bonus XP
• Melee Booster
• In game currency
• Customizable Character items
• Bonus Joel and Ellie skins available once play through of single player game is completed
• Sights and Sounds DLC pack (Voucher Download):
• Official Game Soundtrack
• PS3 Dynamic Theme
• PSN Avatars: Winter Joel and Ellie
• Naughty Dog Sticker sheet

On our way home, I was out with my cousin who was visiting from FL, she checked site after site on her phone, Amazon, Best Buy, Newegg, Toys R Us, the list goes on and the only version available was the Survivial version, had the same stuff, just no statue. So why, pray tell, did I go on Gamestop's website today, see the Post-Pandemic version and pre-order it? I know the easy answer is that I have a problem, and to be fair, I haven't bought a new game since Hitman, but still, the question remains. I, like many others, are lulled into picking up the more expensive version of a game, enthralled by the limited nature of the package, no doubt.

Truthfully, I think the trouble, for me, started a long time ago, when I realised I enjoyed collecting things. At an early age, I had baseball/football card collections, then as I got older, comic books and entertainment trading cards. Is collecting versions of a game really any different? I fully admit I have more CE versions than I can count, not one of which is being displayed in my room. Like all my Sideshow Collectibles statues, these too are safely stowed in a closet with my impressive baseball/basketball/hockey bobble head sets. There is nothing wrong with collecting, I think, as long as you know how to stop.

The larger question for me, comes back to the original point of this belaboured topic, why do the gaming companies produce these collectables, is it just another way to pull money from foolish gamers, such as myself?

In the above edition, the gamer gets tangible and intangible items, a statue, a steel book as well as a wealth of DLC. To Naughty Dog, this is worth $160, but will it be worth that to me in May? In November I picked up my AC3 LE and while the game itself was lacklustre, the extras from paying more were decent. Though I may have hated Connor, the statue was quite well made, the belt buckle impressive. The PS3 version came with DLC, as did the pre-order. Unfortunately for me, I never did figure out how to get the saw-tooth sword to be equipped, and at some point during the game play I just didnt care anymore. In advance of release, I think, collectors editions are perfect for the impulse shopper in all of us. In retrospect, I think I need a professional buyer to tell me 'no' when I even dare to pick one up. By that same token, if this is one of my only vices, then it isn't all that bad. At the end of the day, perhaps these will be worth something, even if they aren't mint in box. Games should be enjoyed when played, I know, but the statues and display pieces perfect for bookshelves are hard to ignore. Most statues of the calibre I see with game sets are actually quite pricey, averaging at least upwards of $100 apiece. But does that mean I should get it? I mean, I bought the CE of Ninja Gaiden 3, and I still have egg on my face, as they saying goes.

I know Ive asked this question of my faithful readers, but at what point do you stop yourself, realising that you're spending bad money after good? I think I might need an intervention.

Augmented Reality is an interesting thing. The potential for amazing things is almost unchecked, offering a world where every day life can be seen in a whole new way, allowing access to data you didn't even know you needed, and of course, a brand new way to play games.

Ingress is one such game, using AR to present a fairly unique experience. I have to say the interface does look very cool, NianticLabs@Google presenting a way to make a GPS interface look slick and futuristic, while also adhering to the world and fiction they have created. Said fiction, is that Higgs-Boson research has created a strange side effect, a substance called Xotic Matter that is both energy and matter. This is seeping into our world via portals, and two factions are vieing for control of those portals, so that they may have control over the minds of people.

Ok, so its a bit hoaky, but it works in the context of the game. The interface presents a GPS view of your current position, and a blue circle surrounds your arrow. Floating dots are scattered around you, and any thay enter this circle are sucked to your arrow. This is XM, and powers a lot of your abilities in game. You must then find 'Portals' that can be hacked, attacked and linked to gain items and other goodies.

To find these portals, you must walk. A lot. In a noble effort, however, portals are generally located on either art projects or post offices scattered around various towns and cities around you. This is all well and good, but at present, at least in the UK, there simply isn't enough of them. I don't live in out in the sticks, my town, Birstall, is pretty central to no less than 3 large cities, all in easy communting distance, but I can only collect XP locally. There is a large statue of Joesph Priestly in Birstall (he discovered oxygen), but that doesnt count as a portal. Neither does the post office or anything in a 3 mile radius.

I understand that the point is get you to seek out art in your local area, but first starting out with the game can be confusing and with little do if you don't live in a major city the game becomes boring. This is a shame, because despite some GPS lag that means your arrow never, ever, appears to be on a road, the game is very cool.

All of these things can be addressed as the beta progresses, and I personally think the look of the game is awesome and so doesn't really need much improvement. The problem is the lack of things to do if you don't live in major metropolitain areas, and Ingress unfortunatly falls down here, with even the cities I do go to not having enough to do within the game to warrent the battery drain.

I you live in a major city, give the beta a go, its free and can be fun. If you live anywhere else though, give it a miss, you just won't make any real progress at present, try it again later in the year.