In the days of yore when Japan was the epicentre of game development and buying a PAL PS2 was how you played weird Japanese rhythm games region locking was more of an issue than it is now. In this enlightened age of the twenty-teens you'd think limited access due to the mere geography would be a thing of the past, but of course Nintendo has other ideas.

As some of you may know I'm the recent owner of a Nintendo 3DS and am currently traipsing about the British Isles. It should be a match made in heaven.

Unfortunately, I've run headlong into the solemn realisation that Nintendo has spent the last six years with its head buried in the sand in stern denial of the existence of the internet. My 3DS is a US model, which means that UK 3DS games are unplayable due to the region-locking firmware baked into every 3DS console. This wouldn't be a problem if the Nintendo eshop could provide games via the miracle of the internet but sadly Nintendo have screwed it up on that front as well.

You see prior to my spint in the UK I was living in Singapore and thus have a Singaporean credit card. The way the eshop works is that you can't buy anything unless the postcode your card is registered to matches up to the region you've chosen for the eshop. However, Nintendo is convinced that only the US, the UK and Japan buy games via the eshop because the Singaporean eshop front is a joke. There are no games available for purchase, only a selection of game pages are up telling you to go buy said game at retail. No virtual console, no Pushmo, no nothing. Although funds can carry over from adding cash then switching to another region, the region from which all my money plastic originates prevents even the addition of e-money to my account.

Singapore isn't a swamp anymore Nintendo. It gets the internet there too.

Unless you hadn't realised Nintendo, the 3DS is a portable system. It's a platform designed to be taken, for example, on a trip to England. Perhaps someone who was undertaking such an expedition would want to purchase a 3DS game, both physical and digital, during his/her travels? It's not what one might call an unlikely scenario is it?

Of course I understand the reasons behind region locking. The internet gives players an uprecedented access to online delivery services that allow them to avoid the mark-ups on game prices in their region, thus undermining the profitability of a branch of a large publishing company. Nintendo obviously wants to protect its cut of every game sold for its platform and the lack of region-locking on the DS caused them no end of problems.

Nevertheless Nintendo has done an atrocious job of populating the eshops for each country with games to compensate 3DS owners for this inconvenience. It's also hard to condone region-locking in general when Sony has opened up the PS3 and the Vita to games from all regions and hasn't exactly suffered for it. For the limited number of consumers who actively exploit price differences in different countries that region-locking combats there are hundreds of consumers like me who are prevented from having a optimal experience. If Nintendo insists of using anti-consumerist measures then they need to provide sufficient digital services for every single region where their handheld is sold.

Luckily DS games aren't region-locked and I seem to have missed out on a generation of handheld games. I'll probably buy them used. I'm not feeling benevolent enough towards Nintendo to pay new game prices to reward their backward approach to the eshop, digital services and ensuring that consumers such as myself who would happily support Nintendo and its partners have the opportunity to do so.

I realise this a gaming website, but there was one huge response to my top 5 films of 2012 blog. It was, where is Django Unchained? Well Django Unchained only came out yesterday in the UK, and for that reason (being a UK resident) I hadn't seen it. Now I have, and I feel that I owe you guys my take on the film. So here goes.

Review:

Django Unchained is a highly entertaining movie; its brilliantly funny, sharply written and well acted. If you have an affinity for Tarantinos sensibilities there is no way you wont enjoy your time with this film. However its also tonally quite confused, leaving it as a fun movie but one with no lasting impact. Its classic Tarantino b-movie style revenge, in a way it feels like Tarantino making a Tarantino movie, aping his own style rather than doing anything different. This isnt really a problem, the man has made some exceptional films, but Django doesnt reach that level, it has high points where the film starts to excel, but as a whole it merely manages to entertain. Of course entertainment is something we want from a film, but the reason why this is somewhat of detraction here is because Django shows a clear want to be something more than entertaining. It wants to say something, it wants so give a lasting impact, it wants to expose a part of history for what it was and make you think on the past. It wants to do this, but it fails to do this. This is due to an imbalance of tone and how self referential the film is, Tarantino has caught himself up in a web of his own tropes and is determined to peddle out the sharp witty dialogue he is known for, and the bloody violence, at any point. All of this is done well, but it doesnt gel with the films other ambitions.

If youve been following the film its hard to separate Tarantinos claims about it from the movie itself. They are very different beasts and linking the two can cause the film to be a disappointment. However, if you are to judge the movie on its own terms you have the net result of a superbly crafted piece of entertainment that gives you what Tarantino does but in a new setting. This isnt a Western film that just happens to be directed by Tarantino, this is a Tarantino film that just happens to be set in the old West. If you look at the directors claims though a different picture is painted, one of an important movie, an eye opening movie. Django Unchained is not that movie. Tarantino holds himself responsible for bringing the topic of slavery to the lips of the world, because obviously nobody even thought to tackle or talk about this before Quentin put pen to paper. He also claims to be drawing peoples attention to the reality of it all, he himself speaks of a holocaust that happened in the States that people dont know about and his aim is to show things for what they are. Noble aims indeed, but not ones he achieves. If you know anything about the world you will go into Django Unchained with a negative view on slavery, you will also exit Django Unchained with a negative view on slavery. As a society we are pretty aware that slavery was a bad thing and Tarantino does little more than re-iterate this point with little nods to look dont these slaves have it bad. Theres nothing special about it on this front. Now of course there is still the aim of showing a historical account, the point of exposing how bad America was. This is a separate thing, it expects you to know slavery was bad and then educates you by giving accurate examples of how the American people used to act, shaming us with history. Once again, a fine aim, but one not reached.

Fun Fact: Tarantino is terrible in this movie (thankfully not for long)

The core problem of Django Unchained is its tone. The film is so over the top and detached from reality that its hard to learn anything from it. Yes horrible acts towards people of a different race are depicted, but it never seems like something real, it seems like back-story for a B-movie revenge flick. This is a revenge flick that is excellently realised, but it is only this. The film goes for the ludicrous at every point, it plays for laughs throughout and even when it turns sincere it is a fictionalised sincerity which applies to a fictionalised world. The characters are brilliant, they are well acted and cleverly written, but they dont feel like real people in the slave trade, they feel like characters from a Quentin Tarantino film. Quentin plays to his strengths, but he does so at the jeopardy of his ambitions. Whats more troubling though is the films depiction of violence. The trouble doesnt come from gratuitous violence on screen; the gratuitous violence is for the most part highly entertaining. Its all unrealistic and laughable in a way that works for it, its not used to shock or to make you uncomfortable, it is used to entertain. For the most part its successful, when early on somebodys head oddly explodes from a gunshot, the scene is set. Violence is entertainment for the next few hours, and it is knowingly so. The trouble comes when Tarantino tries to have his cake and eat it. Not only does he use violence for entertainment, he attempts to use it for other means. He attempts to shock the viewer, unsettle them, and show them something real and gritty that they dont want to see or accept, and ultimately use this to show how bad the slave trade was. This just causes a large dissonance though; you cant go from comically over the top blood splatter to a very real portrayal of the whipping of a slave. It doesnt fit and it detracts from the film later. Something could have worked with this, he could have turned the table on the viewer and stuck with a you think this is entertainment, well lets see how it really is. The problem is he flits between the two and neither has an impact. A particularly excellent and suspenseful scene is ended with the threat of brutal violence, its gripping stuff and an unappealing prospect. However the very same scene is followed up with a lengthy and hugely bloody gun battle, once again featuring unrealistic amounts of blood spraying everywhere and clearly using violence as a way of amusing and entertaining the viewer. This falls flat though and the scene is off putting due to the carryover from before, its also far too long, the end result being a contradiction in tone. The film cannot quite decide whether it wants to seriously say something about slavery or just be a violent and really funny revenge film. In the end it is just a violent and very funny revenge film with a few weird forays into out of place sincerity that fail to make an impact.

Christoph Waltz however is superb, take note Mr Foxx!

Overall it is a really good film though, a great film actually, it's just nothing special. It's not a film to hold up against Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, merely another solid Tarantino flick. Personally I will take a solid Tarantino flick any day of the month, but there comes a point where it isnt quite enough, where his films become expected and pedestrian rather than seminal moments in cinema. Thankfully he still gets great performances out of his actors, Christoph Waltz is the standout as the hilarious Dr Schultz and Leonardo DiCaprio is almost as brilliant as Monsieur Candie. Jamie Foxxs Django fits the bill, but the morality of the character is ultimately quite strange and earns him the role of a well acted caricature. Samuel L Jackson is as entertaining as always, but is just playing himself once again. The problem here is that his character starts out as something slightly different, and just lapses into pure Samuel L Jackson when needed. This makes for entertaining diversions, but its stuff youve seen before and its mildly inconsistent. The bottom line is this, if you like Tarantino movies this will work for you as an excellently made piece of entertainment. Its a bit too long and can drag in places, but not aggressively so, its a self-indulgent movie but Tarantino just gets away with it (who knows, next time he may not). If you want something that excels, something with meaning to it and, basically speaking, any kind of lasting impact, Django Unchained doesnt deliver. It may set out to achieve this, but its attempts fall flat and are all half baked. Tarantino is too busy trying to do what hes known for and make his style of movie to commit to something else. This means you get a fun film with some great highpoints, but some out of place moments that detract from the picture as a whole.

We have been doing System Wars Magazine for over 5 years now, and it is so fun seeing System Wars user's reactions to articles written by other System Wars users. Although our little project has gotten a bit....tiny...over the past few years (only three of us left), we are always open to have more people join in the fun.

I want to thank Jynxzor for writing a Preview on Don't Starve, which the developers liked enough to put it right on the game's official website. Photo proof!

Also, let's not forget DraugenCP, who has written a ton of great articles from reviews, previews, and deep editorials on the art of foreign videogames. In my opinion, he should be working for a real website, not some forum past-time, but he's legit. Read his thoughts on the Dawnguard DLC for Skyrim and The Scorchers DLC for Rage.

I also like doing fanboy articles, which parody real fanboys while also exposing the flaws in their arguments. What's scary is that a lot of people actually think like this, and I simply just copy their arguments almost verbatim. This issue I did one on Wii U saving Gamestop and how Pokemon X and Y looks like an N64 game; both ideas are frankly ridiculous and terribly wrong, but the arguments are very much real ones that people use and believe.

So here is Issue 64 of System Wars Magazine!Hope you guys enjoy it!

With the recent bashing of DMC: Devil May Cry by fans on Metacritic, the question that comes to those who are on the fence about buying the game becomes this: who's opinion do we value the most? The critic's, or the user's? Do we take the professional opinion, or the fan's opinion?

It's a topic I'd like to discuss because I, myself have issues buying games when fan/critic reception is polarized as it is with DMC. On one hand, I really do trust critics; they will, more often than not, give a fair, honest, and balanced review of the game at hand. On the other hand, I like to look at what fans have to say about a game because it's nice to have that raw, uncensored opinion, especially with franchises that have lasted years and years.

However, in a situation where the opinion is so polarized, who do we look to for advice?

To me, the choice is and always has been critics. I know that's a bit of an unpopular opinion, so allow me to explain it:

When looking a review for anything...a book, movie, or video game, I always make sure to look at multiple sources. After all, different reviewers have different tastes and biases, so in order to get a full picture of what a game is, you need to look as many of these tastes and biases as possible. To ignore one reviewer's opinion on a JRPG because he doesn't like JRPGs is silly; his opinion is as valuable as everyone else's. In fact, I feel it's important that we frequent the reviews of such biased people.

For example, one such biased person is Yhatzee from Zero Punctuation. Yhatzee is famous for the way he berates most games that come to his screen, and therefore many people don't take his opinion seriously because, frankly, it seems that he doesn't like games. However, when Yhatzee does like a game, it means much more than it would if he praised every single game that crossed him. I am often on his page because when Yhatzee likes a game, it's doing something right (That, or he's just a banana and is getting old). After all, what does the industry learn if we praise everything thrown at us? With too much praise, nothing is left to improve, and games would become stale. That's why anti-JRPG or anti-shooter critics are important; they will nitpick at a game of a genre they dislike, and they will, at least, effectively point out a game's weaknesses even if they look over a strength. What's more, if they like a game from a genre they have an aversion to, it means so much more than if they liked a game from their favorite genre.

These reviews are seriously entertaining and informative.

That all being said, I do feel that professional reviewers, in general, give a fair and balanced opinion on games most of the time. It's their job to play games, after all, and after playing so many I do not see why I should not trust their opinion. They've played hundreds of more games than I have in my lifetime; surely their perspective is inherently more informed and balanced than my own.

This trust in an informed and balanced opinion is important to my argument; professional reviewers have played a large range of games, larger than most of us have. Their decisions on what to play are determined by their work, our decisions are determined by our wallet and our interests. Reviewers don't always get a choice on what to play; they just play what they're given and review it. We get to choose, and because of that our range of games played will be naturally smaller than those played by the reviewers.

For example, I'm an avid JRPG player. With this information, which game would I be more likely to buy: Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch or Hitman: Absolution?

The answer is clear. I want this game. Now.

Now, let's say that, after a long period of time this year, I buy 4 JRPGs 3 Adventure games and 1 FPS game. Which genre would you trust my opinion on the most? The one I have the most experience playing, of course. If my only exposure to the FPS genre was, say, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, I might think it's a fantastic game. After all, with nothing else to compare it to, why wouldn't I? The game is extremely average, so I wouldn't find anything inherently wrong with it if I hadn't played games such as Half-Life 2 or Bioshock in the past.

This expectation of experience is where I find weakness in the reviews of fans: I will never know what games they've played before, hell I won't even know if they've even played the game they're reviewing. I could go give a review of Ni No Kuni right now, provided I do enough research, and bash the game without even having had played it before. Nobody would know I didn't play it, a fact that makes the entire review invalid. On the flip side, we have to expect that professional critics have played the game before because...well, it's their job. If you don't do your job, you get fired. Clearly a reviewer has done their job if a review is posted.

Of course, this is not to say that fans can't give as good of an opinion that a critic does. Sometimes fan reviews can even be better than professional ones; it's just hard to find those reviews and, honestly, there aren't that many. In a community where fanboyism and trolling run rampant, I take more comfort in a review by someone who I can expect to be above such things.

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.

---