Note: I am currently going through rage that the servers are down on Day 2, so I'm writing this first impressions based on earlier observations

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. No, I'm not talking about the infuriating server issues, which I've had little issues with until day two of the game. I'm talking about building cities to have them, somewhat literally, burn, collapse and sink into the swamp. Sim City has a steep learning curve, but that's part of what's lured me in hook, line and sinker.

After putting in 4-5 hours of game play, which may be a liberal under-exaggeration, I'm convinced that the next city and region will be better! Though it may be sad that my last city was less successful than my first one, I have the perseverance to try and carry on. Watching vids helps out too.

The concept is simple in theory: try and build a city and try not to eff it up. After building that first road and setting up your Town Hall, though, things become quite a bit more complicated. It has that in common with the original Sim City, which was the last one I played.

When it works, this game oozes charm. The visuals are a good mix of cartoonish and realistic animations. Light instrumental music is nice to listen to and keeps me calm when times are tense, juggling the different aspects of making people happy and building a healthy economy and community. The emphasis on roads, smaller cities, and an overall region are interesting changes and add some more strategic elements to the formula many people love. Also all of the residents (and you) spend simoleans and speak in sim speak, I mean, if that's not just adorable I don't know what is.

I had a blast playing it for hours, trying to keep my city duct taped together as it economically collapsed. The simulation is impressive as well, with the buildings being constructed and there being heavier traffic at rush hour. It adds a nice touch to an already impressive game.

Sure, the DRM issue will be worked out, but the multi player aspects sound impressive, if not a bit too much like actual work. So far, my experience in multi player is making a public region then people come in and claim the other two so I can't claim them. Awesome, right?

So, for now, I continue the struggle of building a city that doesn't burn and fall into the swamp. I played it for one good night, but that was enough for it to stick in my mind and make me want more. Try, try, again.

So, I got a lot of comments on my previous blog on micro-transactions regarding DLC, and while that wasn't the topic of the blog, it did have a bit of relevance to the conversation I was trying to start (to varying degrees of success). Instead of writing out my thoughts on DLC (as a separate idea from micro-transactions) in the comments of my previous blog, I decided to write them as a new blog because I have a lot to say.

Now, let me get this out there, while I do not care about micro-transactions in my game, I do take a different stance on DLC. I don't hate it by any means. In fact, there's quite a few games where I welcome it. However, there are, of course, companies that abuse the practice of DLC, and I feel that gamers focus far too much on those companies' practices. The general consensus about DLC from what I've seen is that DLC is pure evil and should not be tolerated in games. It's always content that should have been included in the original release of the game and now [insert developer] is nickel and diming its fanbase with content excluded from the original game.

I like DLC when it's done right. And believe me, there are developers out there who do it right.

To me, DLC is a wonderful opportunity for developers to extend a player's time spent with a particular game in a meaningful way. Whether it's adding new missions, maps, characters, or gameplay modes, DLC can make for some surprisingly great experiences in games you might have forgotten about.

Please note that I used the word "opportunity". In no way, shape, or form do I believe that every single piece of DLC out there matches what I believe it should be idealistically. No, for every Fire Emblem: Awakening (a game that makes proper use of DLC) out there we have two Capcom titles that has on-disc DLC. For every Mass Effect 3 we have three shooters that charge $15 for new maps every 2 months.

What I admire in Fire Emblem: Awakening and Mass Effect 3's DLC policy is that there is a mixture of substantial, meaningful free content as well as paid content. I will go into detail into both of these games later, but I want to note that there are many developers out there that should look at these two titles and take notes. There has been some very positive reception for them both.

Fire Emblem: Awakening's DLC exists in two forms: the "bonus box" and the "outer realms". The bonus box is where gamers will receive their free content, and the outer realms is where you can buy DLC maps and challenges. Now, typically a developer would have the bonus box include a sparse amount of content. It would exist only to entice a gamer to buy more DLC maps, but this is not the case with Fire Emblem: Awakening. The bonus box includes (as of today) seven challenge maps, approximately forty recruit-able characters from past Fire Emblem titles (all with their own army for you to fight),  two rare weapons for your army to use, and two bonus paralogue (side missions) chapters, where you can recruit villains from the game's main story to your army. And, if we're going to get everything Japan got in their bonus box, there's a hell of a lot more to come. For free.

The DLC that is paid for is quality, as well. It includes maps where you must fight armies comprised entirely of past Fire Emblem characters, maps where you can harvest loads of experience, gold, and legendary weapons, and in Japan there are maps that constitute entirely new storylines. However, even though these maps exist, the game does not feel incomplete without them. They exist to augment your game, rather than dangle a bit of content in front of your face that the game feels incomplete without (ala Resident Evil 5's multiplayer mode).

Mass Effect 3 does what most multiplayer-focused games (NOT that Mass Effect is multiplayer-focused) should do with its multiplayer DLC and makes it completely free. I remember when I used to have my Xbox 360 and was a frequent player of Halo: Reach and feeling cheated when I had to fork over $15 for 3 new multiplayer maps (for the record, I never paid for it). Or even in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (when I used to play those games), when extra maps meant extra money. At the time, it was an OK practice in my eyes because I didn't really see the issue with charging for the time the CoD devs spent making those new maps. After seeing how Mass Effect 3 handled their multiplayer DLC, I don't understand why other devs won't follow suit. Clearly you can make your new maps, characters and weapons free and not lose any money, otherwise Bioware wouldn't be doing it. The only time I ever paid for new maps was in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and I will never do it again after my experience with Mass Effect 3's surprisingly good multiplayer.

Say what you want about Mass Effect 3's day-one DLC, From Ashes (I do think it should have come with the initial price tag, but some people were OK with it being paid-for. The game does feel incomplete without Javik.) but it does its paid-for DLC, for the most part, correctly. It's substantial, and that's what we should be asking for when paying for something. Quality can be debated upon (I think Leviathan and Omega were sub-par) but one cannot argue that the game feels incomplete without them.

DLC is done incorrectly when it is clear that some desirable part of the game has been arbitrarily withheld from the players in order to make some more money off of it. Capcom is the most frequent offender of this scheme, with many of their titles having DLC that's already on-disc, but blocked off from the players (unless they pay). It's unfair to fans of the game, whether it be holding off two fighters from Marvel vs Capcom 3 or multiplayer mode in Resident Evil 5. The game is complete, we just can't play the whole thing unless we play $5 or $10 more. That's cheating, and that's what I have a problem with.

What's ultimately abusive about on-disc DLC is that what's usually withheld is something that gamers will really want. It becomes irresistible because of its relatively low price, and people will buy into it. I admit, I did buy Jill and Shuma-Gorath in Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 because I hated seeing two grayed out portraits in their places on the character select screen.

What I feel is really important to remember when talking about DLC is that not all DLC is bad (even though that's the popular opinion). The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is a wonderful example of a game where both good and bad DLC exist. Yes, there was that really crappy Horse Armor DLC, but there were also full-on expansions available (ala The Shivering Isles)  that allowed you to spend more time in the game's universe, something that many people valued. If done right, DLC can be a very good thing, and I feel we need to stop focusing on the bad. 

To be clear, Oz the Great and Powerful is not a prequel to the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz. It is a precursor to the book by L. Frank Baum, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz". As a children's author Baum wrote 14 books about Oz but he never explored the backstory of the faux-wizard.

It is a relief to say that director Sam Raimi (Evil Dead, Spider-Man) has made an origins film about the wizard, where the world of Oz is not only realised in stunning detail but plays host to a richly characterised anti-hero, who like the audience, comes to realise the power of illusion.

The film is a technical marvel in 3D and overcomes many of the format's shortcomings. Filmmaker and author Lenny Lipton states that stereoscopic cinema (3D imaging), films with the added illusion of depth, is mostly projected using digital projectors and is what he calls 'field-sequential'. He argues that illumination is decreased by fifty percent because the light is divided between both of our eyes.

Further, the polarizer filters in the 3D glasses block the light from the screen so that each eye sees a different image but the lighting is dimmed. A footlambert (fl) is the unit of measurement for illumination and film critic Roger Ebert believes regular film projection offers 15fLs, whereas 3D films only display between three and six foot-lamberts.

The art design Oz has been meticulously planned to address these issues by brightening the screen and reducing the gloom. Primary colours are well-chosen and employed spectacularly, showcasing plants and vegetation by using red, yellow and green palettes that saturate the frames with colour and light. The widescreen ratio also combines effortlessly with Raimi's formal control to showcase these sumptuous features.

Watch as the camera crabs sideways while Oz walks with his friends down the yellow brick road. The fluidity of the camera as it drifts across the frame accentuates the spatial width and depth of the world and provides us with enough time to absorb many of these visual treats. Together, the high contrast lighting effects and 3D depths make this an incredibly beautiful film.

Not all the scenes are shot in colour though. The opening scenes in Kansas, 1905, are photographed in black and white and use a 4:39 box ratio, like the 39 film. These scenes are valuable, establishing Oz's personality as a magician who treats the people around him like they are props in a trick. He lies to women, giving several of them the same music box, and he sees no reason to befriend his assistant Frank (Zac Braff). He doesn't even deem himself as worthy enough to be with Annie (Michelle Williams) either.  

Chased by an unhappy strongman, he jumps into a hot air balloon, unaware of the tornado that will whisk him away to Oz. One of the first people that Oz meets is Theodora (Mila Kunis), a timid and brittle witch, who falls in love with him, telling him that he is a great wizard.  As she leads him to Emerald City, they meet a talking monkey Finley (voiced by Zach Braff), who accompanies them.

Arriving at the city, Oz is introduced to Theodora's sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), who stresses he'll have all the riches he wants once he defeats the white witch Glinda (Michelle Williams again). Oz travels with Finley to find her and they discover a pintsized China Girl (voiced by Joey King), who needs repairing and insists on joining them.

The film balances precariously on James Franco's performance and his expressive face punctuates every lie and self-serving opportunity of the wizard. Enlivened by Franco's infectious and cheeky comic energy, Oz becomes an unlikely and funny anti-hero, weaseling his way through situations but learning to utilise his powers of deception in clever ways, without drastically changing his personality.

Baum always believed in empowered women and the three witches each feel distinctive in their presence on screen. They're great examples of how efficiently women can be used in modern blockbusters. Michelle Williams, with her face never short of emotion, brings gentleness and sincerity to Glinda, even when she becomes aware of the deception around her.

Many scenes in the film are accompanied by the power of deception, lies and illumination. Since Baum was against violent resolutions, the battles in this film are unique in their tactics of trickery. The people of Quadling Country can't kill so there's a clever visual scene where scarecrows are dollied across an open field to draw out an army of winged monkeys into a bloodless trap.

Additionally, a projector Oz uses late in the film echoes the very formal features of cinema used to create this extraordinary and beautiful world. Though the film concludes without a bookend to determine whether the Land of Oz is real or a dream, the magic has you believing for this long that it's best not to question the sleight of hand. 

FPS Doug: Poster Child of Our Gaming Community!

Boom, headshot... BOOM headshot.... BOOM!!! HEADSHOT!!! From the recent publicity attempting to link violent acts in the world to video games, FPS Doug (WARNING: link contains strong language) may as well be the poster child for gamers worldwide in the eyes of the media*.
 
Whether you believe the hype or not, playing video games have also been linked to some very positive effects. Several studies have shown that video games can ease pain in patients, and that violent video games may increase pain tolerance in some people. My mother, who is in chronic pain due to various conditions, has personally found that Farmville helps her relax and improves her pain management.

Then there are all of the conflicting reports from the media at large, showing that 89 percent of parents believe game violence a problem but that a former FBI profiler says games do not cause violence. So, what to believe?

Enter Cody Thompson: Walking Gamer

Whichever side you're on, there's one gamer who is breaking this stereotype. Enter the Walking Gamer. Cody Thompson is on a mission for both himself and for charity. He is going to walk across the country, from North Carolina to California, on a journey that is to start this weekend and will take an estimated 8 months to complete. During his travels, he will be dependent on the kindness of strangers for lawn space on which to pitch his tent, donations for food and supplies during his travel and support during the difficult months he faces away from his home and his wife.

So, who is this Cody Thompson? In the spirit of full disclosure, he is the husband of one of my sister's dearest friends, and that's how I first heard of his journey. He is an avid gamer and has been since the age of 4, is a former EMS dispatcher and has a bone to pick with DLC--I won't repeat here what he had to say about the horse armor DLC for Oblivion--and he was kind enough to allow me to interview him personally for this blog. (I found out the hard way that he also hates being called "Mr. Thompson", which I did when I first requested the interview and subsequently made him twitch something awful...)

See, when Cody was 4 years old, he had a serious eye disease which required surgery. As a part of his recovery regimen, his doctor actually prescribed video games. With that, his parents got him an Atari. It's no surprise that the charity he is bringing along for his walk is Child's Play, an organization that provides various toys, books and video games to hospitalized children to try to make their stay less arduous and improve their spirits and recoveries.

He still remembers his first games, Pitfall! and River Raid. He remembers the Christmas his mom scraped together enough to get him the NES with Super Mario 2. In true gamer form, Cody will be bringing his 3DS along for the walk, with an assortment of games (if you donate enough to his Indiegogo campaign, he will even send you one of his used games from his walk!). Cody sequestered his 3DS for the last few months so that the games would be fresh and new for his journey, so he has spent his gaming time lately playing a lot of his console and PC games in the meantime (DMC, Starcraft 2 and others).

Cody's Trusty Walking Companion Will Be His 3DS

The idea to walk across the country originally came from his love of J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" which introduced him to a world of adventure and self discovery he wanted to impart into his own life. He says it is only natural to bring a charity along for the ride, especially since Child's Play is so close to his own heart.

Bilbo vs. Frodo: Tough Choice!

For those of you wondering where he stands on the issue of Frodo vs. Bilbo, when asked the proverbial question, "Frodo or Bilbo?" Cody replied, "My answer is............. [darn], that is not a fair question really...the Hobbit is such a different tone than LOTR. Bilbo is having this adventure. He is outside his comfort zone, and I suppose I relate to that more for this walk. Frodo knows he is carrying the source of all evil around his neck, and well.... that [messes] a dude up." So now you know. (Thanks to GunnyHath for suggesting that question!)

While not the focus of his journey, Cody is well aware of how the gaming industry and community is being perceived, and he has his own ideas about games, violence and the roles of parents in all of this. When asked about his thoughts on the connection between violent acts and video games, he responded, "...the issue with games and probably movies is parents think it is just a game, so they get it, no biggie. Let's hand Darksiders over to a 12 year old and not pay attention."

He also recalls how his mom handled video game violence with him as a kid: "I grew up playing violent games. My mom got me Mortal Kombat 2 for the SNES but she watched me play it and she made the call if she thought it was appropriate for me to play." He does not believe in government censorship, and instead puts duties on the parents to make the call. To all who believe that violence in games has a widespread effect on gamers, he replies, "We are going to see a HUGE boom in America's farming community any day now. Farmville was THAT popular." I guess my mom is going to become a farmer. She already has a huge garden at home.... hmmm... I see truth in this sentiment already...

With all of the negative publicity the gaming community faces, it's nice to see something so positive coming from one of our own. So the next time somebody scared of the world and looking for a neat and tidy way to explain the violence in the world blames you, the gamer, just tell them to walk it off.

Well done, Mr. Thomps--er, Cody. Safe travels on your longest journey.

Walk on, gaming brother. Walk on.

Interested in donating to Cody's cause? Donations in his honor can be made to Child's Play by clicking here. Donations will first cover his expenses for the walk, and all unused proceeds will then go directly to Child's Play.

You may also donate directly to him to cover his expenses, which he estimates will be $8,000 by the end of his trip, at his Indiegogo site.

Cody will be updating his Walking Gamer site with blogs during his travels, but you may also connect with him via other social media sites below:

Walking Gamer Facebook

Walking Gamer Instagram

*It should be known that I think FPS Doug is about the most hilarious YouTube video ever, I'm not knocking him in any way, shape or form

Beautiful, poignant and uniquely intimate, Journey makes a strong argument that games can, indeed, be art. You play as an anonymous robed figure venturing in the desert. You see a light coming from the top of a mountain and spend the rest of the time trying to reach that light.

The game play itself is quite simple. You can move, jump and chirp; yes, chirp. This component communicates to flying ribbons that, in turn, give you the power to fly. If you play online, other players will either drop in and out, or you will spend the 2-3 hours it takes to complete the game together.

The co-op adds to the intimacy of the game. You can only communicate with chirps, and the other players name is hidden from you until the Journey is completed, and yet it's probably the closest I've ever felt playing with another randomly matched gamer. You go through the same things together, face the same dangers, communicate the best you can with chirps and going certain ways.

The worlds tale is shown, rather than told and is completely up to the viewers interpretation. I found it as a very relevant tale, talking about the power and danger of technology and about the relevancy of enjoying the small things, such as gaming. That's just my interpretation.

The game has little violence. What violence there is, though bloodless, is brutal and intense, adding a layer of fear and adrenaline to the masterfully done lite-stealth segments.

Journey is beautiful. Your robes blow appropriately in the wind and sway as you move. The snow and sand you walk through moves as you make your way, the light vividly reflecting and bringing out the grains of sand. Snow sticks to your body later on, ensuring that you are indeed a physical being.

I did face some technical issues. Falling through the environment once or twice and oddly getting caught in a pillar, spinning uncontrollably and forcing me to restart the game, took only a slight edge off of what was otherwise a sublime experience.

Reaching the light in the mountain is a metaphor. What it means is up to you, but the beauty is in the Journey and the perseverance it takes to get there. It's a beautiful and dangerous world and I'm looking forward to face it again and again.

Pros: - Unique sense of intimacy, beauty and interpretation

• Seamless, random, co-op

• Feels like playing art

Cons: - A couple of environmental bugs

In just a couple days time, the reboot of Tomb Raider will be unleashed upon the gaming populace.  Some have highly anticipated it, some have felt pretty "meh" about it, and others are in quite an uproar.  Those against each and every change this new Tomb Raider has implemented have expressed every complaint from the new combat system to multiplayer and to even her appearance.  Yes, I heard someone complain saying that the new Lara's boobs are too small. 

They seem actually... real now.  As opposed to what Lara used to look like. 

But also, if you notice something about the latter image, Lara's prestine.  She has no bruises and has no cuts and is not smeared with blood, staining her clothes.  She essentially has no marks upon her, no evidence that's she been shuffling and rummaging through dusty, dank, dangerous crypts.  If you look at the former image, you see a battered, beaten up, exhausted Lara, a realistic reflection of a woman who's going through hell.  You look at this new Lara and you're as repulsed by her as you are concerned for her.  If anything, the last thing you notice about her... is her breasts.  

Yet, people complained about that as well, her being bloodied and sullied.  I once read an argument that it was disgraceful to do this to a woman character, because it somehow promotes violence against women, or some crazy notion.    So it's okay to see a male character driven through hell in a similar type game, but you get all offended when you see it happen to a woman?  Does it somehow not connect within you that the represenation of the results of her trials on her body is making her stronger,  just as every time a male character crashes down, he gets back up ready for more?  Or are you still clinging to the old image of what Lara used to be?

Yes, there are gamers out there that are against change in any of their beloved franchises.  These gamers are jaded gamers, the kind that blames the modern trends of gaming into "killing" their favorite franchises.  I will not name names, but there was a poster in the forums who accused me of not being a "true" Tomb Raider fan for wanting to play this title.  According to this person, I was "trolling" and "supporting the death of video games" by wanting to play this reboot.  Ridiculous.  I love Tomb Raider as much as the next, but even then, I can say the franchise has been stagnating a bit.  This reboot looks to be a refreshing take on a franchise that's a few years shy of two decades old.  

Examining that argument also forced me to reflect on another recent reboot, and I actually was against it myself. 

"True" fans of Devil May Cry don't recognize this new Dante.  Yes, he hardly resembles the old Dante that we all grew to love, but the fact of the matter remains he was born out of a reboot.  In order to reboot something, many things need to be changed.  Traditions and expectations need to be reexamined and reinvented.  New ideas need to be created and those new images are products of those reimaginings.  Consider a reboot to be a rebirth; the start of something new, yet keeping a part of the original's spirit.  As much as I hate the look of this new Dante, I still acknowledge the fact that the Devil May Cry spirit is there; it's just in a completely different shell.  So, as much as I don't want to admit it, I am a hypocrite for rejecting DmC while at the same time embracing Tomb Raider.

Back to the new Tomb Raider, the game itself has been completely reinvented, not just Lara's new appearance.  The combat system is no longer that run and jumpy acrobaty John Woo-inspired guns blazing gunplay.  Rather, it's cover-based and yes, I see how some fans can be upset by that.  Considering this new Tomb Raider is going for a more realistic look and feel, having to change up the gameplay was the next logical step.  Was the original Tomb Raider's gunplay even that amazing to begin with?  And sure, the game's opening hour or two is riddled with QTEs, but then again, how useful was making Lara do handstands to the gameplay?

"This handstand is so much more fun than a QTE!"

I honestly think that those who love the original Tomb Raiders so much that they don't want to play this reboot are not giving the new Tomb Raider a fair shake.  Yes, a lot has changed.  The game's presentation is now similar to Uncharted's.  Her boobs are smaller.  She gets dirty and filthy and bloody.  She hides behind cover now instead of bouncing around the stage like she's doing floor exercises.  It's a real tomb raiding game for a real world.  If it's too real for you, by all means, revisit the older games and pretend this one doesn't exist, but just remember something.  A "true" fan sticks with a series.  It's like with sports; you don't just attend your team's games when they're winning.  You're there when they're losing, cheering them on through rain and snow.  

And who knows?  If you stick around with Lara Croft in this game, you JUST might come out pleasantly surprised.  If not, well hey... at least you tried it.  When someone asks you, "Hey, what did you think of the new Tomb Raider," you can answer with an experienced opinion, "I played it and just couldn't like it," instead of "Never played it, won't play because it isn't Tomb Raider", which then paints your opinion as coming from of a self-appreciating snob.  All I'm saying is... be open-minded.  Tomb Raider has grown up, and so should you.

Was diggin' the recent Gamespot article about perma-death, but as much as it's easy to romanticize the mechanic, it's more than merely a matter of "because it's more manly." I've plugged in over 120 hours (on all three slots) with Awakening, went back and finished Sacred Stones a few days ago, and I'm now midway through Shadow Dragon (the underappreciated, red-headed stepchild of the Fire Emblem series), while simultaneously playing Radiant Dawn off and on. I've got Fire Emblem on the brain right now. The new game has definitely inspired a personal revival.

But what about this whole "perma-death" thing. First, let me just say, though I didn't use the option, I was glad to see Intelligent Systems add the Casual Mode to Awakening (not its first appearance in the series, by the way). The series has had a bit of trouble gaining traction here in the States, in spite of a very devoted, albeit relatively small, fanbase. But it should be obvious by now, Awakening has really made a dent into the mainstream awareness of this series, I'm certain in no small part due to lowering the barrier of entry.

All that being said, I still believe perma-death is absolutely an essential part of the gameplay because, well, if death isn't a concern, all you have to worry about is getting through a given battle. But with perma-death present, you have to think several battles -- even endgame -- ahead. It's really as simple as that. It's not about being elite or manly or hardcore; it's about a fundamental change in gameplay. With perma-death, Fire Emblem is, in a lot of ways, similar to chess. Without it, it has more in common with any number of other SRPGs on the market.

I love Awakening. It's up there with my favorite FE games. I love the options, the production values, the carefree changes that play into all the trappings that make us love games like Final Fantasy Tactics. But don't underestimate the importance of perma-death in a Fire Emblem game. Play it any way you like, but trust me, it's an integral part of the formula.

You know, I like it when the writers of Gamespot voice their opinions and write articles about various issues in the gaming industry. They're usually very interesting reads. However, that doesn't mean I agree with each and every one of them. One article in question is Carolyns recent article on Persona 4. In the article, she voices her disappointment with how Naoto and Kanjis characters are portrayed in the game. She claims that the issues of sexuality and gender identity are handled quite poorly in Persona 4, and that it goes against its themes of accepting ones self. She says that their characterizations "[send] the message that such sexual orientations and gender identities are too scary to accept."

While I respect her opinion, I disagree with it. But before I start, I'll give all you readers a fair warning:  Since I'm replying to an article about sexuality and gender identity in gaming, of course I'll be addressing these issues. If you're sick and tired of hearing about this, do yourself a favor and press the back button right now. Also, this blog contains numerous spoilers for Persona 4.

Kanji is put out on the cutting board first. The tough talking, foul mouthed, troubled youth's shadow manifests as a flamboyant man in a loincloth spouting dialogue with some very obvious homosexual undertones. And even before Kanji was kidnapped and thrown in to the TV, this is heavily hinted (as you can infer from his first encounter with Naoto).  It turns out that this isn't the case. When he finally accepts his shadow, it turns out that he isn't homosexual, he just deeply dislikes women and how they judged him. It turns out that he's just more comfortable with guys.

Petit's answer to this is: "To me, this is a huge cop-out. It rings psychologically false; the ultimate truth of Kanji's character as someone who was just afraid of rejection because girls had been cruel to him in the past doesn't quite mesh with the imagery of his dungeon and the personality of his shadow self. By clearly raising the idea in the player's mind that Kanji is [homosexual] and then rejecting that idea, Persona 4 sends the message that homosexuality is shameful and should not be accepted."

First of all, the characters personalities and actions do not PERFECTLY match with the personalities of their shadow selves. Its actually said in the game that the shadows are only one facet of the characters personality. Also, the shadows and the dungeons are very extreme manifestations of the characters deepest troubles and fears. 

For example, Rise's strip club dungeon was the result of people not seeing the real her. Rise constantly had to be everyone's charming, cute, and most of all, perfect idol for the camera. Fed up with this fake personality she was forced to show, she left show business and went to live a normal life. But of course everyone still approached her, wanting to meet Rise the media darling, not the real her. Therefore, the whole "I'm going to strip and bare it all" was a very extreme way of saying she wanted to shed her generic idol shell and show the world the real her.

Yukiko's dungeon was a castle; her shadow wore princess' clothing, and constantly spoke of "scoring a hot stud." Her shadow, once provoked, manifested as a bird in a cage who summoned a prince to fight for her. This represented Yukiko's feelings of being trapped in a life she didn't want to pursue. She didn't want to inherit the family inn. She wanted someone ("a prince charming") to come and whisk her away. The Void Quest dungeon, manifesting itself as an 8 bit JRPG dungeon, represented Mitsuos idea of his actions all being a game, with him being the hero. The Heaven dungeon manifested from Namatame's view of himself as a God who was saving lives. It could also possibly represent Nanako's desire to be reunited with her dear departed mother.

The disconnect between the exaggerated dungeons and reality is especially evident with Yukiko. She's a reserved, refined, and classy girl (a Yamato Nadeshiko if you will) who's never even had a boyfriend.  Yet her shadows words that go something like "I've got my lacy underthings on, now I'm ready to score a hot stud," carry a very obvious sexual connotation.

Okay, now lets bring it back to Kanji and his whole bathhouse bonanza. Remember, these are extreme and exaggerated manifestations. Rise is not an indecent girl who'd strip in front of millions, Yukiko is not promiscuous, Nanako doesn't want to die, and Mitsuo and Namatame are delusional (among other things).

Kanjis character was handled in a very ambiguous and slightly confusing way. And at times, it seems that his confusion about his sexuality is merely played for laughs (as evidenced by the two scenes Petit mentioned. Ill give her that one). But it just doesn't seem like the creators were trying to be disrespectful to homosexuals, or paint homosexuality as dirty or shameful. I think Troy Baker (his voice actor) put it best in this video. All in all, Kanji is a kid struggling with his identity. Conflicted between accepting himself (along with his hobbies that are seen as feminine), or rejecting the world that rejects him. I also thought it was really cool how Baker said that people came up to him and told him that his character kind of gave them the courage to be open about their own sexuality.

And with that we move in to what Petit had to say about Naoto's character. First, she refers to Naoto as a male throughout the article on the basis that Naoto uses the masculine Japanese pronoun boku. I dont know if Petit knows this, but girls who refer to themselves with a masculine pronoun are known as bokuko (boku + ko, which means girl). In the west, we refer to them as tomboys. It does not automatically mean they identify as men. It complements both Naoto's personality and backstory.

Also, Naoto's reason for wanting to craft herself as the hard-boiled detective did not only stem from her attachment to fictional characters. She is descended from a line of famous detectives and she intends to continue the tradition. Her parents dying when she was young forced her to grow up quickly, explaining her mature demeanor and personality despite being a teenager in high school. The detective novels she loved as a kid were only one small piece of the puzzle.

Naoto is young, short (5'0"), and a woman. This doesn't fit her idea of what a detective is. She can't change her height or age (at least not right away), so she chose to change her appearance in order to be taken more seriously by the older detectives. Its enough that she gets treated like a child (something made evident in the game). I doubt she'd want to deal with sexism too. I think Naoto's true intentions were to become a splendid and ideal detective, not a man. Like Kanji, Naoto is struggling with her identity. I also do not think she is transgender. She just doesn't fit the bill. Later in the game, she has no qualms about putting on a girls school uniform and speaking in a more feminine voice for the protagonist. It would seem to me that if she identified as a male, she would have refused, being highly uncomfortable and maybe a bit angered by the request. It seems she would have demanded that the protagonist accept her the way she is: as a man.

Also, in Persona 4 Arena, when an illusion of Akihiko comments on her overdeveloped chest ("its all fat and no muscle"), she blushes and remarks that that's the part of her self-image that she's most sensitive about.  From her choice of words, it seems to be embarrassment of a grown man's blunt comment about her developing breasts, not shame or anger of a female body she didn't want. Also, in the epilogue of Persona 4 Golden, we see Naoto comfortably donning feminine clothing and slightly longer hair. Throughout the game and even more so in the social links, the protagonist helps the characters through their troubles and insecurities so they can accept themselves.  Naoto accepting herself as a woman who could still be a great detective without pretending to be something she was not adhered to that formula.

There's also a few other things to consider here. Japan is an entirely different country that speaks an entirely different language. Some things get lost in translation. Some subjects just aren't handled in a way that coincides with the way we Westerners would handle the subject. Japans views of gender identity and sexuality are probably much different than they are in the US. Couple that with the fact that video game stories still have a lot of growing to do as a whole. There's a lot to be desired in its budding methods of storytelling. However, in terms of video game stories and characters, I'd say Persona 4 is top notch. Its characters are as well fleshed out as they are dynamic and interesting. I don't think it was Atlus' intention to mock or shame homosexuals and transgender people.

Perhaps in a way, I am a bit biased. I absolutely adore the game and have spent well over 150 hours on it. So of course I'm going to defend it, because I think the game is so brilliant. In no way would I ever defend it if I shared Carolyn's sentiments and thought that the game was even remotely disrespectful and offensive.

With Dead Space 3's release, the hot-button topic of microtransactions in AAA titles has been resurfaced again by gamers. Yes, paying an extra dollar for a significant in-game bonus has stirred up more anger among gamers about the current state of their favorite industry (right when you thought nothing else could piss 'em off, too). I guess I can see why...people can now pay for what are essentially the new form of cheat codes. It's obviously a cash from the publishers who do it, but I seriously don't care. And I seriously don't see why other people do.

To understand my point, we should probably talk about the origin of microtransaction-based games; social networks. Games such as Mafia Wars and Farmville are completely free to play, and have a focus on social interaction with your friends who play the game. You can play them and be completely free of the worry of having to pay a dime to be successful, but there's a cost. In these games, you may have an energy bar that lets you perform X amount of actions when full, and once it depletes you must wait an hour or so before it fully regenerates. In others, you must wait for certain tasks to be completed, and if you wait too long to come back and collect on those tasks you may be punished. In order to offset those drawbacks, the game would offer players a chance to buy an item with real money that would make it easier for them to play the game and speed up their progress. The items are never expensive...usually costing around a dollar each...but if you have a game that, say, 50 million people play (I'm guessing here) and 5 million of them (10%) pay a dollar every day for a new item, you have some serious profit. That's why companies like the much-loathed  Zynga are so successful, they have a host of these games that have a large userbase, and even though the majority of players don't pay, the amount of people that do really adds up.

That Windmill will take 24 hours to build, but if you pay $1 it will build INSTANTLY!

Now, while gamers hated games such as Farmville (because, really, what don't gamers hate?) for being obvious cash-grabs (although they probably didn't even bother with playing them), they didn't have as much of an effect on the industry until recently. EA, the big bad evil devil satan publisher of the video game world, has suddenly included microtransactions in many of their new games, and has announced that they intend to implement them into more, sparking an outcry among gamers.

My question is this: why? Why do they care?

Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has a microtransaction system that lets players pay for booster packs that include new armor, characters, and weapons, but they could just earn them from playing the multiplayer enough.

My thing with microtransactions is that they're completely optional and have no direct effect on the game if you decide not to use them. You want to look around for tungsten in Dead Space 3 for free? Go ahead! You'd prefer to grind up credits in Mass Effect 3? Sure! Go for it! Do it! The game is still there in its entirety, completely available to everyone who purchases it. Honestly. You can still craft the weapons and upgrades you need in Dead Space 3 without paying for extra tungsten, and you can still unlock every character and every gun in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer without paying a dime for a booster pack.

 These microtransactions are, essentially,  glorified cheat codes. Remember cheat codes? Those things that were really popular up until this generation? Did anybody else notice that, even in single-player games, cheat codes seem to have fallen off the map? Game Informer used to have a "CHEATS" section, but that was removed a few years back because there were simply no cheats to publish. G4 (may it rest in peace) used to have an entire television program dedicated to cheat codes called, you guessed it, Cheat! Now, one could argue that the rise of multiplayer made cheat codes obsolete (they would destroy game balance entirely), but even in most single-player games and campaigns they just up and disappeared.  

Now, let me ask you a question. If a game had cheat codes, were you a frequent user of them? If not, then what's bothering you about microtransactions? Just like you opted out of cheat codes, you're opting out of paying for bonuses. You still have your full-featured game. You can still play it and beat it however many times you want. You can still sell it second-hand (unless you bought it digitally). Really, these microtransactions have no effect on your game if you don't choose to use them.

If you were a frequent user of cheat codes, I still don't see the complaints of the prospects of maybe having to pay for them now. They've been largely absent from games over the past generation, and that doesn't seem to have stopped anyone from playing. They're back now in their cheating glory, but, guess what, now you'll have to pay some money to cheat.

And before you tell me that I'm an EA apologist and blah, blah, blah, I'm not. I'm just a rational thinker here. I absolutely hate what they did to Bioware and the ending of Mass Effect 3 and I don't like that they have a reactive business model, rather than a proactive one. I would like to see EA dissolve and release all of the developers under their umbrella, but until that happens we're going to have to put up with their money-grabbing.

Some of you will claim that the eventual result of EA's use of microtransactions will be full-fledged, AAA $60 games will have systems like those of Mafia Wars and Farmville. We'll only be able to play 2 levels of a game in 24 hours, and in order to play more we'll have to buy an energy pack for $.99.

Except that won't happen. As soulless as EA is, it's aware that gamers will react extremely negatively to a $60 that employed such a model and would sell a miniscule number of copies. The microtransactions they currently employ are small little boosts that effect your game, and your game only. What's the issue?

And, let's be honest, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who cry out against the microtransactions have used them at least once or twice. That's why EA will keep using them, gamers are purchasing them. Really, it's nobody's fault but ours that EA will keep this up. I admit, I have paid a grand total of $5 into Mass Effect 3's microtransaction system because I wanted to see if I could get a rare character without having to play 3 matches first. Does my getting a rare character hurt other players? No, the multiplayer is co-op, so, in fact, it almost helps my teammates if I get a rare character.

So, yeah, I don't see what the big deal is. Until a game like World of Warcraft offers legendary items for money, microtransactions can exist and I still won't give a single sh*t.