This is in reponse to Carolyn Petit's article Heroes Who Look Like Us: A Call for Diversity In Games. 

Obviously, the issue is deeper than what's just on the skin.  Carolyn isn't talking about characters that resemble average looking people.  She's primarily talking about seeing more female characters, and nudges in seeing more characters of different ethnic backgrounds.  There's no question that we can benefit from seeing more diversity in games, but I hardly feel it's something that's plaguing our industry, and far from such a problematic issue to be referred to by both Cliffy B and Carolyn Petit as a "cancer".  Surely, you both could have used a better euphamism.  :/  Diversity is wanted, but let's not be that demanding about it, ok?

With all these isms - feminism, racism, sexism, etc., - I choose realism.  I consider myself to be a realist.  In my opinion, it's the best way of looking at something, because you aren't relying on a skewed point of view as you aren't taking sides.  You are seeing something the way it is, cutting straight to the truth, and the truth is something that's hard for some people to see.  The truth is, a company should market to its target audience first and foremost, because that's what keeps the company afloat.  If the majority of gamers are white males, that gets reflected in the games we play, if they continue to sell, continue to make them.  Does that mean racism?  Heavens no.  Does that mean the market will always stay the same?  Absolutely not.  But here's what I see happening if people like Carolyn Petit continue to be as overally vocal as they are now.  

Companies will begin to make characters that don't make sense.  They're going to see a quota that needs to be filled, and they'll start putting in more diverse characters and simply not focus on the real task at hand: developing quality character development and great stories that revolve around them.  This has always been an issue with our games, and it won't improve with different faces.  But it also doesn't mean that diversity isn't happening now.  It just cannot be an overnight process like Petit wants it to be.  Remember, Assassin's Creed not only introduced its first female character, with Assassin's Creed III: Liberation, but she was also half-black.  And what did we see happen?  A completely wasted opportunity to flesh out a potentially interesting character. 

Instead of demanding that the industry make more diverse characters now, I think a better alternative is pushing a demand for more character creation.  I'm an uninteresting 33 year old white male.  Yet, when I make my characters in my video games, they hardly look anything like me.  I usually give them darker skin tones, hairstyles that I will never attempt in public, and jawlines that will make a rampaging rhino back down.  I make my characters look as far different from myself as possible, yet character creation allows for the exact opposite as well.  Technology already exists that lets you map your face onto the face of your character, and even if you don't want to spend the time customizing your character, a lot of games come equipped with a multitude of presets.  

And it is far better to ask for character creation versus making more female and ethnic characters, because it means you won't have to risk selling games to people who don't want to play as whatever mandatory character your game stars.  I know it sounds lazy, and interesting storylines will suffer as a result, but it allows companies who are scared of alienating particular demographics a way to appeal to everyone; it really is the only feasible thing to do at this moment.  This also would be a way to see just what kind of characters the gamers themselves choose to play as, something that is far more beneficial than a simple random market survey.  

There's a part in Tom Abernathy's argument where he lists sources that state adult women make up 30 percent of the gaming audience, but if you look at one of those sources, it's PopCap games, makers of extremely casual games.  Is this a credible way to reflect exactly what kind of games these adult women are playing?  Not at all.  For all we know, the majority of these women gamers play Facebook games, not saying they do, though.  So, it really is understandable why publishers are relunctant to release games with female leads.  

The more imporant way to correct this is if you want to see more games with female characters, BUY THEM.  This is going to require some sacrifice on your part, because  you'll have to pick up these titles knowing they may not be everything you want in a game, but at least you're adding a +1 to their sales and thus creating a market.  You're going to need to do more than just ask - or demand - publishers to make games with more diversity; you're going to need to support them when they do.  And, I want to see that happen.  Quite honestly, I love playing female characters, because I think it's awesome when females kick ass.  

Since I'm on the subject of females kicking ass, here's something I've yet to see any female gamer ask for: more female enemies to kill.  I think this would be a great way to equalize things.  Sure, Lara Croft is a strong female character, but all she's doing is killing men.  What is this telling us?  Are males the only gender that are capable of commiting evil?  Is the Lackey Club exclusive to only men?  Why can't women get shot too?  I honestly want to see more female enemies, and not just boss characters, but actual run of the mill thugs that you beat up just as often as you do men.  

Yes, I honestly want to see more diversity in video games, but I want to see it come naturally.  I don't want it to be a rushed job, because publishers always rush their games anyway.  I'm reminded of affirmative action, because companies tend to ignore the best possible candidate for the job just to increase diversity among the staff.   Diversity needs to be tackled with sensitivity, not an obligatory check list.  Yes, there are publishers hesitant to offer different characters, but there are also others that continue to break new ground.  If you're passionate about seeing more diversity, you need to seek those ones out and help them be successful and prove to the hesitant companies that the markets for these games are indeed growing.  This doesn't start NOW, with the companies.  It starts NOW with you, the consumer, and it has always BEEN with you, the consumer.  Ms. Petit ends her article with, "You don't coddle cancer."  Jesus Christ, Carolyn. Let me end mine by saying you don't cut out the cancer without knowing what impact it will have on the body.  

This is a blog I've been trying to write for a while but too many times when I was drafting it, it went off into different tangents but everyone knows I'm a big advocate of the industry at least trying to put forth effort when it comes to games geared at kids instead of going by the lazy ass mindset of "who cares if it's crappy, kids are stupid and buy anything." Yeah kids are less discerning when it comes to entertainment but I agree with the Nostalgia Critic in that just because it's made for kids is not an excuse not to try. And I also agree with the Nostalgia Chick's comments on the fact that entertainment is the one thing parents will look at and say "who cares if it's crappy, it's just for my kids." Seriously parents, you wouldn't say that about a car seat, or food, or their bed.

And all too often I find comments regarding the consoles and see comments along the lines of "Well I got the Wii for my kids so they could play it while I'm playing Call of Duty." And part of me wants to just go over and say "you know instead of using a game console as a babysitter, why don't you go down and PLAY something like Mario Kart with your kids and you know BE A F***ing parent" or that's what I'd say if I was an angry person.

But even with video games removed from the equation, this is all too common in today's society. Familes who don't spend time together when they're at home. I mean how many of you come home, eat dinner, do homework and spend the evening on the computer or playing games, your mom is downstairs surfing the web on her Ipad, Dad's watching the game on TV, your sibling is in their room doing their own thing. It's kind of sad. Then we wonder why there are so many troubled teens, or kids going on crazy school shootings, or whatever and instead of blaming violent media maybe parents should actually take time out of their day to do stuff with their kids including play video games.

This past Thanksgiving I went to visit my nephews. I have 2 young ones (the oldest one is working in Montana now). The youngest one is 6 and with some of my influence is a big fan of Mario, Zelda, Sonic and more recenlty Kirby. But he rarely has anyone who will play with him. After dinner most nights, his dad will go up to the bedroom and hold up in there the rest of the night watching TV and posting his strong right wing views all over Facebook because slapping his poltical beliefs all over FB is clearly more important to him than spending time with his kid. My sister in law isn't much better. She has a PS3 in her room so she's either on that or her laptop looking at stuff on Pinterest. My youngest nephew was so happy I was visiting because he knew I'd play Smash Bros. and Mario Party 9 and whatever else with him.

Now some nasty naysayer will call me out saying "well yeah you're a Nintendo fan so you'd play that stuff anyway!" And you're right. All too often I'm playing a lot of Nintendo games on my own, but I will say that at least during this particular holiday weekend both the 13 year old nephew and my husband also played with us. The 13 year old is a great kid. Sure he has his own stuff in his room like his 360 and his Kindle and while he's getting older and gravitating to stuff like Metal Gear Solid. (interestinly enough he was introduced to Snake though Smash Bros. Brawl) he will still take time and play with his younger brother. Often helping him get through some part he stuck on. And my husband who isn't a Nintendo fan also sat downstairs and played a couple rounds of Mario Party 9. Why? Because it was more important to him to spend time with his nephews.

And I'm sure I'll get yelled at by someone who will point out that I don't have kids and I don't understand. And yes I don't have children of my own. I'm trying to but it hasn't been easy for me. And yes I do look forward to sharing my love of Nintendo characters with my kids someday just as parents who loved old Disney/Pixar movies share them with their kids. But I'm sorry if the idea of taking time away from teabagging in Call of Duty or blogging on Gamespot to spend time with your children playing some "silly kids game" is a huge inconvience for you, then you suck as a parent. No one's making you give up your big boy games to play with your kids but being a parent is about sacrifice. Video game consoles should not be babysitters.

And I'll leave you with this immortal words from Bender B. Rodriegez.

Have you ever just thought about turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids...and hitting them?" But we're so busy! "Well make time!!"

And to those of you gamer parents who do take time out of your hectic day and play games with your kids. Good for you and I'm sure you learned that the "non working controller" trick only works for a short time. lol

French director Jacques Audiard (A Prophet) counters a disjointed script with fascinating conceptual details, beautiful images and intense moments of raw acting. Rust and Bone is equally mesmerising as it is clumsy, but that it is ever touching is a result of some skillful albeit undisciplined filmmaking. 

The film's story belongs to Ali (Matthias Schoenaerts), a hardened man looking for a place to stay with his young son Sam (Armand Verdure). With little money, they house together in the home of Ali's sister Anna (Corinne Masiero). Finding work as a bouncer at a nightclub, Ali breaks up a fight and escorts Stephanie (Marion Cotillard) home.

Stephanie is an orca whale trainer at Marineworld but after a freak accident at a show she is hospitalised and wakes up to find that both her legs have been amputated. Depressed and broken, she calls Ali for assistance and comes to realise that with the rest of her body intact she is still capable of living. Meanwhile, to make money Ali participates in sweaty, unofficial kickboxing matches.

As with Audiard's previous film A Prophet, a gritty prison crime drama, the director contrasts agonising moments of pain and violence with images that are brimming with meaning and beauty. The tone is consistent but there are bumps in the script, written by the director and Thomas Bidegain. The book they've adapted, "Rust and Bone", is by Canadian author Craig Davidson, and is comprised of a number of short stories.

The idea from these stories have been borrowed and developed for a whole new story and the two central characters were also written anew for the screen. Some of the theories of physicality are smart, but the pastiche format of the book is too evident at times. The story structure feels episodic, which leaves powerful images, like Stephanie's reunion with the whale, as singular, isolated moments.

The trajectory of the narrative is often stifled as we wait for new plot points to gain punctuality. An underdeveloped subplot surrounding Ali's security employment for example hinges on a sizeable coincidence to drive the story into its final act.

The film is better as a critique of the way people fail to appreciate their own bodies, until they reach catastrophic event that makes them rethink their physicality.

The tight framing of the characters from the waist up removes any consciousness of the rest of their bodies. This reflects the lack of self-worth in their lives as they are only concerned by primal instincts of survival, like relying on other people to mentally or physically carry them (a pertinent image), or scavenging for food in this downtrodden economic period.

The disunity between belief and the primal thought is shown in two juxtaposing moments. Stephanie is filmed through a long lens, standing alone as the mould for her prosthetic limbs sets. The shot seems isolating but the visibility of her own being reminds her that is she still alive and capable.

The film then cuts to shot Ali sitting down at a computer, with only half his body visible, watching brawls on the internet. It shows the immaturity of his self-preservation in using his body for money and what he calls "fun". In this instance, the combination of theme and content is startlingly articulate.  

Audiard is less confident with romantic sentimentalism. Both characters begin to inspire each other's belief in their own physical capabilities but it's an uneven theme. Ali convinces Stephanie to sleep with him to see if her body is still functional. We know that he is promiscuous so is he just using her? The question lingers.

Less convincing is when Ali claws back into the match when he sees Stephanie walking towards the fighting pitch or when she is hired to become a money handler for the fights, despite seeing the brutality and juvenility. It softens the opportunity for more explosive conflict between the leads.

The actors, as naturalistic as they are, are a little reminiscent of the film. There are flashes of brilliance, including scenes of unprecedented emotional strain. But then there are stretches where Cotillard's reserved performance makes you long for more perpetuated tension and drama. It's an affecting and sometimes beautiful film but you will have to wait for its best moments. 

"YOU ARE GOING TO PUT ELLIE ON THAT DAMN COVER!"

Well here we go with this topic again. A narrative designer by the name of Tom Abernathy has made a bold declaration: Women are the new core audience in gaming. Shortly after, Gamespots own Carolyn Petit posted an article backing the guy up and adding her own two cents. They both make a very good point, and there is a lot of truth in their words. But there's one thing I think they're both missing here. Or to be fair, one thing they don't emphasize as much as "Women are the new core"

Abernathy claims that women are the new core and that we should be making a more diverse range of games that appeal to this new core. But women are just one part of that new core. Thinking ONLY about women ignores the wide variety of other groups that are also a part of gaming, yet are seen as equally unimportant or even nonexistent. The groups hardly get any games that specifically speak to them because those types of games "aren't profitable." These groups are a wide variety of races, backgrounds, ages, and can be of either gender. They also have a wide variety of things they want more of in gaming, including but not limited to: more complex and diverse gameplay, more interesting tones and worlds, and richer narratives.

Now, there are two reasons why this subject gets people angry and up in arms. One: they think this is secretly a "men vs. women," or "whites vs. minorities issue." Two: They think anyone who dares to suggest that maybe games can be a little better is a nut who wants to get rid of wildly popular games like Call of Duty and God of War. Because "Ew David Cage, I dont want all games to be interactive movies" or "Ew female game designer, I don't want to play girly games." The point of this blog is to debunk both of those beliefs. That, and point to what the real issue is here. And the real issue has nothing to do with race or gender. And the real solution doesn't mean the death of AAA games aimed at teenage boys and young adult men.

It's no secret that games are primarily geared toward 15-25 year old males. Or at least, that's mainly how publishers see it when deciding which kind of games they want to throw their money at. And these publishers are intent on catering to this crowd in the most stereotypical way possible: with big guns, extreme violence, blood, and carnage, all done by the big burly male main character. Oh and breasts. Can't forget the breasts.

The problem isn't that these games exist. After all, movies and literature that contain the exact same content exist. And people love it. They eat it up. But movies and TV shows allow for more than just adrenaline pumping action flicks. They cover a wider variety of themes and genres. That's not to say that video games don't have variety. They do. But no matter how you paint it, the variety in gaming is quite limited when compared to movies, television shows, and literature. Those other mediums cater to wider variety of people of all demographics. And they're rolling in money while doing it.  

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not out to demonize men and make it seem like games are idiotic and childish because of them. As I stated above, people tend to get all heated about this subject due to gender factoring into the discussions. But here's what I think is the real problem here. And guess what?  It has nothing to do with this whole Men vs. Women gender debate:

By pandering to one demographic, you're severely limiting the variety of entertainment that you can put out there. You're stifling potentially creative and innovative new ideas by rejecting anything that doesn't cater to that demographic. You're alienating large groups of people and their piles of cash. This isn't really worrisome if its just a few games. After all, not every game needs to appeal to everyone. But its a problem when it spans across most of an industry. So you see the problem isn't gender. I'd still be making this blog even if I was in a parallel universe where video games catered to mostly 15-25 year old women, or mostly 65 year old grandparents, or mostly 10 year old kids.

Creativity cannot flourish and new ideas cannot spring about when developers are told that they cannot do something that doesn't please this one group of people. Nor can it flourish when they are expected to resort to stereotypes and common tropes to please said group of people. They cannot even gain confidence in their ideas if publishers are going to laugh in their face and say that "You can't do that! No dude wants to see that!"

Also, a lot of people tend to get all bent out of shape when this subject arises because they think people want to get rid of any game that caters to the 15-25 year old male demographic. But really the solution is not to get rid of AAA games like Call of Duty, God of War, Gears of War, or Assassins Creed. And anyone who says that that is the solution is delusional. New and creative games that don't cater to the same demographic can coexist peacefully alongside these games. Why should we need to compromise either? There is room for both. "Variety is the spice of life" after all.

Its just a matter of convincing publishers of this fact. Crap like this should not be happening. Creative new IPs should not be refused just because they don't cater to the same demographic that a million other games are. Creative new games should not be given less advertising than generic and formulaic games that don't do anything new. Of course, businesses are businesses after all. Its hard to ignore that fact.

Even still, it feels as if theres a shift in attitudes coming along in gaming. Sure there are some companies, publishers, and developers intent on churning out the same old boring tripe. But some others are speaking out. They're saying that maybe, just maybe, games could be much more than they are. They're going against the archaic attitudes of the publishers. Which is why when articles like this or this pop up, I feel like the developers aren't even saying that to us gamers (since the collective "DURRR" that always ends up in the comments implies that gamers already know that). I feel like they're saying it to the publishers who rejected them and told them to "take the lady off the cover."

And thankfully, when they decide to branch out to bigger and better things, they have alternatives like steam/psn/xbl and kickstarter to back them up when no publisher wants to. For all peoples talk of nothing new happening in the coming gen, I'm seeing a lot of potential for change. It seems we're witnessing a complete shift in attitudes that's in its very early stages.

Look at this issue from another perspective as well. How long are we going to stereotype every single male as someone who will automatically drool with pleasure over anything that has violence, blood, and breasts? Who's to say that male gamers don't want more variety too? What if a 40 year old male gamer, who's been gaming since he was at the wee age of 10, is also getting just a little bit tired of the same old story of an emotionless man with a gun, devoid of any personality, who's only goal is to mow down aliens or other people? What if there are several male gamers who are about 30 and up and want a game that doesn't have juvenile humor and dialogue that sounds like it was written by someone half his age?

Anyway, that's really what it boils down too. This isn't about sexism, racism, gender roles, or being politically correct, even though people try to make it out to be like it is. Its about a medium we all love growing and maturing into something bigger and better. A medium that expands beyond pandering to the stereotypes of only one demographic. A medium that can satisfy the wide variety of people it attracts. Women aren't the only new core. It's also the wide range of both men and women who don't fall into the "15-25 year old male who won't touch anything that has no explosions, violence, and guns" demographic. They're the ones who want something more from the medium than only blood, violence, gratuitous profanity, and inappropriately placed sex scenes. We are all the new core.

And it'll be interesting to see what kind of games we'll get once this realization finally takes root in all of the industry.

Before I dive into what I'm sure will probably end up in a barrage of flames, I need to say that I am in no way defending game publishers, I am just pointing out something I have noticed, and it bothers me.

Three weeks ago SimCity was released, unless you just returned from a month long dive in the Mariana Trench, then you know the launch did not go well. Many gamers, including myself, experienced multiple issues with the horrid, evil, always on DRM and game bugs. The ensuing uproar, and shouts of "down with EA" could be heard through the vacuum of space.

Lets be honest, we have all bought SOMETHING in the past that either did not work the way it was supposed to, or just did not meet our expectations. We have all had to return something, or exchange a item for one that worked, or for one of a equal value. I am willing to bet that in 99.99% of those situations, you did not also keep the item/product that you originally bought.

So, what I'm asking is.... why do gamers demand, and EXPECT a publisher to not only FIX the game that was released with bugs (as they should), but also then ask for something "free" in return for all the pain, suffering and mental anguish that they were subjected to? Why should you get more in return? If you bought a shirt, and when you got home you noticed a small tear in it, do you return to where you bought it demanding a replacement shirt, plus another shirt? Do you go after the people that made the shirt, or just the place where you bought it from?

If you go see a movie, and you walk out afterwards disapointed, do you go see the manager asking for ticket to a different move, along with a refund of the money you already paid? Do you then also contact the studio that made the movie, demanding a ticket to a current, or future release?

Why does it seem to me that game studios and publishers are unfairly singeld out when situations like this happen? I understand that things like this should not happen, but at the same time I don't feel that I am owed "more" than a working product once the issues have been pointed out.

I know the argument is "Well if we don't complain, and don't demand, then we will continue to get poor quality products". I'm sure there is some truth to that, I just don't know if demanding more than our initial investment is the right way to go about it.

So recently I got into playing this title I downloaded on my 3DS:

This is a title that often gets overlooked in the Zelda series and it's a shame because honestly this is one of the best ones I've played, up there with the criminally underated Minish Cap.

So for those who don't know the story. According the official Nintendo Zelda timeline this occurs in the "Defeated Link" timeline where he lost to Ganon in Ocarina of Time. Originally it was the direct sequel to A Link to the Past but actually now follows the 2 Oracle games (which as of now are the only 2 Zelda games I haven't played. Hoping to change that.) Fearful that Ganon might rise to power again, Link sets off to sea on a sort of spirtual quest to prepare himself for future battles. He gets caught in a storm, and gets shipwrecked on an island where he learns that if he wants to leave he has to collect 8 magic instruments to wake a magic whale who sleeps in a giant egg on a mountain top. Makes perfect sense.

Actually the story does make Link to the Past somewhat unique much like Majora's Mask. There's no Zelda, no Ganon and no Triforce and unlike MM there isn't even some looming threat of total annihlation. At one point the game hints that "if the Wind Fish sleeps too long, the hero's life is gone" but no giant threat of someone destroying the world.

Probably even more interesting about this game is the number of Mario cameos almost making this a Zelda/Mario crossover. Tarin most notably, a mustachioed man who's hunting mushrooms but several Mario baddies lurk in dungeons as well as Wart, the main baddie of SMB2 makes an appearance as the Frog King. Even Kirby and Dr. Wright from the SNES Sim City come along. Also early in the game you can get a Yoshi doll to trade later on.

Even more interesting about Link's Awakening is a lot of elements here would later show up for the next game Ocarina of Time. Such as the Ocarina itself. Now of course the original game had the magic whistle that warped you around the map but here, Link gets an ocarina and then has to seek out characters to teach him 3 different songs. One of which is taught by old Wart here.

Another element of this is the Trading Sequence. Everyone knows of the long tedious quest to get the Biggoron Sword in OoT but LA has it's own rather long series of trading items for something else eventually getting you the boomerang which in this title is insanely powerful so it's actually worth it. You also have the shell collecting where 20 shells upgrades your sword which isn't nearly as tedious as the Golden Skulltulas. The DX version has a "Color Dungeon" which was an optional bonus area where completing it allowed you to upgrade attack or defense.

If I had any complaints with this Zelda title it's that bosses are a bit easy. I fought a giant angler fish boss and killed him in a matter of seconds before he even really attacked as well as the boss of the face shrine can be killed easily with bombs. Also there's a fair amount of backtracking and though Kolohint Island is smaller than other Zelda worlds, it's not the easiest to navigate.

I'll save the rest for my review but this could end up being one of my all time favorite Zelda games.

Kevin VanOrd has just reviewed Bioshock: Infinite and gave a 9.0.   You would think that everyone should be happy with that score, but surprisingly (ok, not that surprisingly), a few people are still upset.  They wanted a 9.5, and I even saw one demanding a 10.  Kevin raves and raves about the game, describing its deep and challenging narratives and fantastic gameplay.  He only mentions a couple of negatives, including a few glitches that impact the game, but it doesn't seem to warrant a drop of a full point to some.  

Carolyn Petit reviewed Luigi's Mansion last week and gave it a 6.5.  This caught a lot of people off guard as reviews started coming in from the Four Corners of the Internet and they were mostly positive with lots of 8s and even some 9+s.  It seemed overly harsh for GameSpot to give the game a 6.5.  I, like many others, were a bit baffled because the review text clearly didn't match the score.  Carolyn's major complaint was a lack of midlevel checkpoints and some overly difficult moments.  Dark Souls is both brutally hard and contains no checkpoints, yet Carolyn gave the Prepare to Die Edition a 9.5.

Tom McShea reviews The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword and gives it a 7.5.  He has instaneously earned more ire and hate from the Nintendo community than Jeff Gerstmann did when he gave Twilight Princess an 8.8.  Tom had valid complaints which were instantly dismissed because he had the "audacity to give a Zelda game lower than a 9.0".  Also, the Metacritic was going against him, which I'll get into that later.  Yes, it was assumed that Tom McShea hates Nintendo, which is ironic as the very same reviewer gave Super Mario Galaxy 2 a 10.  And you know what's funny?  People STILL complained about the score, saying it was too high.  (And then there's Gerstmann's own 10 for Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3.)

Jane Douglass gives Trine 2 an 8.5, but a year later Carolyn Petit gives Trine 2: Director's Cut on the Wii U a 6.5.  Even though the Wii U version contained free DLC and introduced no new flaws with the game's transition to the Wii U, it was scored two points lower.  Carolyn simply didn't like the game as well as Jane did, which caused a problem I'll get into later.  

Chris Watters gives Gears of War Judgement a 7.5 and Mark Walton gives God of War: Ascension an 8.0.  Both of these games are the fourth installment in their respective console franchises, of which they have scored nothing short of a 9.  Yet, some people blew gaskets when they saw these scores, as there was no possible way either GoW could have scored less than a 9.  They chose to remain ignorant of the games' flaws, and continued to dismiss the reviewers' opinions.  

And this is why you should never trust reviews.  They are inherently opinions.  GameSpot tries to review their games as objectively as they can, and they might do so more than user reviews do, but at the end of the day, it is still one opinion.  The reason why a review cannot be trusted is because an opinion does not equal a fact.  Even when a reviewer claims he is being objective about a game's features, he is indirectly making an assertion based on his tolerances.  Everyone has tolerances when it comes to not just games, but everything else.  It's our how tastes are defined.  

GameSpot reviewers do their best to explain their positions, but when they submit their score, it no longer becomes their score; it's GameSpot's score.  Every reviewer in that San Francisco office does not review using a hive mind, which is clearly evident with the inconsistency of Trine 2's reviews.  People can't be expected to learn every single reviewer's like and dislikes, because that would take too much time.  So to them, they don't see Kevin giving Bioshock a 9, Carolyn giving Luigi's Mansion a 6.5, Chris giving Gears of War a 7.5, Mark's God of War an 8.0.  It's "GameSpot gave this and this and this a 9, a 6.5, a 7.5, etc."  

I've also read - and partially agree - that GameSpot should adopt a multiple reviewer format, like the old days of Electronic Gaming Montly.  This would give more perspective into the game, but at the same time, it would cause the reader more confusion when the scores are all over the place.  I remember one review of EGM's that went from a 9.5 all the way down to a 4.  I was like, "What the hell am I supposed to do now?"  It would be nice, but I think it's more beneficial to just read reviews from other sources altogether.  

Then there's Metacritic.  People continuously say "Don't trust GameSpot.  Look at Metacritic."  So, instead of not trusting one reviewer, you're going to trust a cumulative score of many other reviewers?  I bet you probably wouldn't click on a single one of those reviews on Metacritic.  Even then, I heard it's not the professional Metacritic score you should be trusting, it's the user scores that matter.  That can actually be worse.  

User scores are easily influenced.  If there's shady politics regarding the business decisions of that publisher, users will attack them through user scores, as can clearly be seen by the Kane and Lynch fiasco, where the user score on GS has been dropped to a 4.1 (although I know it was much lower when the circus began).  You'll also have fans of a series or a license that will give games a much higher score than reviewers, because being critical of a game doesn't matter to them. They can love games unconditionally.  

"Reviewers don't love games."  This is one thing I've heard a few times, and I've even been told before that I hate video games, which is absurd. Although, there is something to be said about reviewers being able to enjoy certain games less than other gamers.  It has to do with our hobbies becoming work.  Every so often, reviewers end up suffering from burnout, having to pull all-nighters during crunch time to get that review out by the deadline, and then it's on to the next game immediately.  I'm not saying this afflicts all reviewers, or even a good number of them, but it's not impossible to say it doesn't affect some on a subconcious level from time to time.  Unable to take a break from a frustrating game can have an adverse affect on the reviewer's frame of mind, and negatives will carry more weight when the reviewer begins to write up the review.  

It's expected for reviewers to finish their games, but some readers feel that a game should be finished 100 percent before a proper verdict can be given.  This is why you might see some readers arguing over reviews because the reviewer didn't fully explore the game.  That's a bit unfair, because there are other games that need reviewing, and we simply don't have the time for it.  This might give off the appearance of reviewers being jaded, but we just don't have the same luxury of time as you do.  Always keep that in mind.  

I'm writing this as a reviewer myself.  I have been reviewing games since as far back as 1998, being an Editor-in-Chief of a small hobby site called MediaFuzion, having a small stint with PSXExtreme.com, writing well over a hundred user reviews for this site, and I'm currently writing for DefaultPrime.com.  So, it seems weird that, as a reviewer, I'm saying don't trust reviews.  Yes, don't even trust mine.  Reviewers aren't mind readers, and we certainly don't write to placate to you.  We'll say what we think about a game to give you an idea of what the game is like.  We'd hate to know that we're responsible for you buying a game that you ended up hating based on our recommendation, and we surely don't want to bear the brunt of your wrath when we "crap all over" a game you absolutely love.  Reviews as meant to be used as buyer's guides, with the emphasis on the plural.  This means that burden of research lies on you, the consumer.  

On, and one last thing. QUIT BASING YOUR PURCHASES OFF SCORES!  Actually read the text!  They are far more important than any qualitive number.  For all you know, God of War: Ascension got an 8.0 simply because there weren't enough boobs... 

Hi, I am Dan, I am 31 with a full time job in IT support and a wife. I also do not have what is known as a 'Pile of Shame'. For those who don't know what I am talking about, the Pile of Shame is a collection of games/movies/books/albums that are considered classics or must haves that you know you should play/watch/read/listen to but simply haven't and that brings about a shame you apparently cannot escape. 

Well you know what? You can escape it, and very easily. All you have to do it forget the concept of the pile of shame altogether and realise an inscrutable fact: There simply isnt enough time. Great works come out on a nearly daily basis - games, books, albums, movies - there is already a ton of these this year that will be great things that should be enjoyed, but you do not have the time to consume them all and that is no bad thing at all. 

Life is a complex thing where everything is competeing for your time and attention. The things I have already mentioned, plus wifes/girlfriends/boyfriends, regular friends, family are all wanting to grab some of your attention, eating away at available time in any given day. How you deal with life relies your ability to juggle all these attention seekers and carve out your own way of dealing with each. 

I spend time with my wife cuddled up on the sofa watching various TV shows, current favourites are The Walking Dead, Dexter, Arrow, Hawaii Five-0, Glee, NCIS: Los Angles. Some great things in there, some total fluff, but those are what I am into at present. They all allow me to spend time with the wife while also consuming some TV, killing two birds with one stone. Are they the truly important TV shows on at the moment? Hell no. Well maybe one is, but I dont have time to consume those shows, and I haven't seen anything in recent memory that fits anyway. 

Those shows I miss out on would count towards my pile of shame. I haven't seen some of the truely great movies ever made: 2001, Apocalypse Now, Blazing Saddles, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Exorcist, The French Connection, again all adding to the pile. Movies I have seen include Space Balls, BASEketball, Die Hard 1-5 and hundreds of others including some of the big names. These are movies I can receit lines from off by heart but get no credit for, I just get crap thrown for not seeing the other ones. 

I haven't listen to Dark side of the Moon, The Saturday Night Fever Soundtrack, Achtung Baby, Off the wall - great albums that haven't graced my ears before due to either a lack of interest or, more likely, a lack of time. My musical tastes are probably not worth going into in much since I am fully aware my affinities are not to everyone's taste, but those albums would make the pile. 

I haven't played To the Moon, Psychonaughts, System Shock, Super Meat Boy, Katamari Damacy, Call of Duty 4, Nights Into Dreams and any Castlevania title. Do I still consider myself very knowledgable when it comes to games? yes I do. Looking down the list of 100 games to play before you die that I took the above examples from, there are just as many games I have played if not more, but because those are the cult classics, thats ones that people can trace most of moden game design back to they would go on the pile. 

However, I chose to not have a pile of shame. I have limited time, and if I am ever graced with kids, that time will go down even more. If my job, like the good folks here at Gamespot, were games journalist, then it wouldnt be so much of a problem and I would be able to see many more great games than I get to at present. My job isn't that and it isn't for lack of trying, but I just accept that some things slip through the net. 

These are things that will not radically change my life had I actually consumed them, and I can live happily in the knowledge that I have limited time and cannot see/hear/read/play everything I probably should. This because I consume enough for me, to make me happy and feel satisfied, and therefore I do not have a pile of shame. 

My hope, as idealistic and futile as it is, is that people reading this editorial will say "Ya know, that dude is right. I don't need this pile of shame I have in my head or even physically in my room. I just need to be happy in what I do consume". It is not going to happen, but I hope I have at least given you some food for thought. 

Having a decent gaming PC, I find myself often preferring my PS3 over my computer for games that are available for both. Even with first person shooters, the analogue controller plays more naturally for me than a mouse and keyboard. It could be that I've mainly gamed on consoles and never really had a relatively powerful alternative until a couple of years ago.

Having multiple distractions may be a big part of it. Consoles, even now, have the same function they did from the beginning: provide an alternate form of TV entertainment. Even with Netflix, Hulu, etc. as well as media stores, it's easier for me to sit on the couch with a controller in hand and play a game than it is to lay in bed, or even sit on the same couch, and play a game with mouse and keyboard. With the computer, there's Facebook, Twitter and Gamespot, in addition to Hulu and Netflix and other distracting sites. Not to mention the larger library of PC games, though that's not a complaint, but is a distraction.

Controls are a big part of it too. Having to stretch the pinky to the Shift or Control key while holding W to move forward requires more effort than manipulating two analog sticks and pushing a shoulder button. Sure, being more accurate when playing a FPS/ TPS gives the PC Route an advantage, but either way I find myself cursing and laughing just as much when playing a shooter on either.

Another big thing for me is having the physical copy of a game. Sure, digitally downloading games has its appeal, but having the case and disk in hand brings more of a sense of excitement. It's superficial, I know, but with PC gaming becoming more digital retailer dependant, that's more of an argument for me to play certain games on a console.

I'm not going to lie and say that graphics don't matter. They arguably help one get more absorbed into gameplay, story, etc. It's nice for me to play a game on PC and know that I have something that looks better than what I can play on my console. However, much like the quality of the graphics, size does matter. I can't play my PC game on my 36 flat screen TV in full stereo sound, but I can do that with my PS3. Both are always online too and my PS3 has better video feedback than my computer, despite it being a gaming rig.

I enjoy playing games on both, but much prefer the comfort of a controller in hand when given the choice. Playing with a mouse and keyboard just doesn't have the same feel, despite some arguably minor advantages with certain genres. I'm primarily a console gamer, and I like that about myself.