The overlooked joy of being pulled in

Nothing wrong with in game distractions

I love games of course. Even though for the most part I love games for their mechanics... how deep things are, what you can customize and change, and what effects the way you play and how it reacts to certain game scripting, its really not all there is to a game. By contrast there is the current more popular side of things where things are about a cinematic experience. Big budget story and thrills, scripted sequences flowing with small interactive bits, and interesting characters that try to tell a story in between your interactions. A lot of times games will go for one approach or the other, like serious sam giving you lots to play with, change, and shoot up, and most of the hours logged into that game will be full of your own actions in gunning and your prograss after learning and mastering the game's design... yet the story, characters, and scripting are bare to the point where its just an excuse to give you more gaming. By contrast the new Tomb raider giving you a lot of story, prompted actions for you to follow that trigger events for you to be impressed with, and it all leads to bigger planned climaxes until ultimately you reach the end of the story and finished the main game. Gameplay is pretty limited and minimal with the exception of some optional tomb puzzles, but even then its pretty set for you and easy to get in an out of without having a say that the developers didn't already give. Of course there are more radical and different forms of these styles being done like comparing mario to heavy rain, but at the end of the day the point I want to talk about is actually something in between these and very unique to gaming for the way it does it so differently than anything else: Atmosphere and immersion through the subtle touches that pull you into the game. Get you distracted into finer details, and pondering things.

This is where games like Skyrim, Metro, The original Spyro trilogy, Dishonored, and killzone 2 can all meet and relate in some weird way even if they all are totally different. These are all games that give you a world big or interactive enough to goof off in, or immersive you in something richer than what you're used to in the typical games. Skyrim is probably one of the best at it. I love going into white run, walking up to that big castle having people stop and chat with me, and then making my way up to the lovely designed tree center with the preacher shouting blessings of talos and rebellion against the law. I love the children asking you to join in on their problem. I love how you can go in and read each book in the castle. I love how you can spend your time playing with physics, putting baskets on people's heads, and just playing around with your powers at the risk of trouble. And that's not counting the rest of the world beyond white run. All of this goes on while amazing music plays, time progresses, and events that may unfold further shaping the world. Meanwhile even in something as straight forward as Killzone 2 or Spyro, you still get that extra sense of belonging to the world just because of what you can stop and do. In spyro, the skyboxes are wonderfully designed to stop and admire, the roll button combined with the obvious hill at the very start sets loose that childish desire to just roll off and climb back up to do it again, legdes are everywhere and your power to glide through levels encourages none get left behind, and these sort of lands and designs just wrap you in the joy of escapism.

Excited for the gameplay, or excited for the gameplay AND adventure?

Now even without the childish joys of goofing around with the world and just interacting for the sake of interacting, there is also just the value of immersion this can bring. In killzone 2 the death animations from your foes, kicking their loose helmets around, seeing the wind blow sand and curve fire around, and having the gorgeous graphics introduce 3D-ish dent decals from bullet shots all adds to this feeling that your actually in a gritty fierce war... and yet its fun because its still a believable and interesting game serving us a proper dose of escapism. It all feels so much better than some generic fade or brick heavy corpse in a lot of past and sadly some currently shooters, and it feels more real and gives you a quirky laughter the first time your visible feet kick a detached helmet across the field. Its just fantastic little touches like this adding up throughout the experience making it more powerful of a game.

There are so many other ways games capture this sort of thing... and honestly I could hardly name them all. There's those moments of eaves dropping on people, running around messing with NPCs, Other ways of meddling with physics, simply reading in game books, activating trivial objects, just looking at wall designs (things like posters, following blood decals to figure out what happened in an area), etc. Certain things will depend on a personal level to some degree. Maybe some found FarCry3 to have this flow with its wide open world, animals to hunt, fire effects, and chaotic paradise atmosphere... but to me it was just a good open world game, and while I paused to admire or look into details of something world gripping... it would never amount to anything seriously impacting me. Similarly, I can see someone likely passing by all those things I listed about spyro without getting the same feeling I did. But overall it is without a doubt that some games, such as both I just mentioned, go above the average and make that effort to impress and grip someone. Compare something like Call of duty to Dishonored and you can see what a difference the effort to make an immersive and gripping world can have, even if that doesn't automatically make either game superior overall. Some games just try more in building up their world and trying to get the player into it, and I feel like this amazing work can be an under-appreciated subtle effect while cinematic games get all the rage now these days and mechanical games hold a strong legacy. But that is not to say its a crooked fate or anything, atmosphere and immersion will stay with us and last and it still puts smiles and joy on people even if they don't consciously know it. And if a game chooses not to go for that route, that is fine to... Call of duty is still fun without it, and so is vanquish, Timesplitters, and others that kind of skip on big world enhancers. No worries, this article is all just to say a big thank you to the games that do try though, and it will probably be one of the continuing things that make me love a game even more than for the game itself sometimes. After all, its this aspect of Spyro that I think hooked me and made me play the rest... and from that game I felt happy like never before in a form of entertainment that quickly adapted to becoming my dominant hobby to this day. So thank you for all the shouting Skyrim preachers, thanks for the slow paced playful world spyro, and thanks to all the interesting interactions within a steampunk world Dishonored. I hope these interactions and world gripping moments continue and subtly enhance the gaming world for the fans who slowly pace themselves to get the full experience of their games.

Don't cut the party short, there was so much to see an do before that!

Are games too easy today?

So I'm going to ask the thing many people have been saying for some time now, even for over a console generation: Are games too easy now? Well to be a bit blunt about the answer: No, you can turn just about anything up to max and get stupid calculations against you. However that isn't quite the full answer... they have gotten more convenient and have less depth making them less of a "true" challenge. Some of the convenience is nice, but some changes in popular gaming have cost it a lot of it's depth as well and that's not exactly desirable by all.

Before I really get into the problem though, I've got to talk about where I come into a disagreement with the series as well. Some of the guys who have been complaining about "easier" games are trying to bring gaming into a comparison of much older styles and execution. People who will tell you about how mario and contra were tougher than Knack and Call of duty. Well they're right, but maybe not for the right reasons. Back in the NES era you had a quite some challenge from the inferior designs. You didn't have saves, you didn't have much for checkpoints, lives were done just to throw you back to a game over screen and frustrate you into spending hours over again, and lets face it: it was too simple to control your fate but so well under how pressure. If you wanted a game with shooting enemies, it was probably on a 2D plane. It probably had some space ship, or laser gun scrolling along the side of the screen firing little laser balls at you. This can be done simple, and pretty easily, but what happens when you expect the game to get more difficult. Faster gunning? You can only do that but so much before your screen is just a bunch of fireworks and you made it into a bullet hell, and that's not "difficult" as much as it is an annoyance and just trying your patience. Especially if your options to fight this lie within moving, A, B, and select. It was mostly do or die, fast paced moving or death out of not dancing the right tune. You can't outsmart it, you can't train yourself against it, you remember its shooting pattern or find the only safe zone on the screen and get there as fast as you can. It's a fast paced memorization, or even just an outright reflex contest.... kind of like a certain casual multiplayer shooter that's popular now that is criticized for being for kids. Ok fine that's a bit of a stretch to make, but you can't deny some similarities between the difficulties here. In call of duty's multiplayer you can die because someone pulled the trigger first on you, in old games with certain ranged attack enemies you can die by the same exact principle of shooting speed. But to be fair, that's also the same thrill of it that people like. Speed masters, memorizing and doing that perfect run, and that joy of just not being shot on your one and only chance. Criticizing the defficulty, or lack of "true" difficulty, in call of duty or battletoads wont really change the fact that both games thrill players when they hit that perfect adrenaline and get a nuke killstreak or to the end of the stage.

Memorizing and reflex is all you can do to avoid the walls. How is that much of a challenge?

Over time as games got more complex, they got easier out of just giving you more freedom and responsibility. For simply opening up another dimension to move in, you've made it harder for the player to die by just ranged attacks, or heck even if you put the enemy right up in someone's face you have more space to distance yourself, more buttons to tie attacks and defenses to, and more dynamic levels and bits of it that might help the player. However this complexity is a new opportunity for difficulty as well. Now if you want enemies with guns, you can go make a first or third person shooter with a full list of enemy AIs, quite a few gun types, there are a variety of health systems you can choose from with their own pros and cons, and your own character might be able to just do more to interact with the world and their enemy. For example, maybe it was "harder" to go down a strict hallway, but it is more advanced and entertaining to blow a hole in the wall and your enemy at the same time in some games with destruction. Maybe it was harder without cover, but now if you can take cover that's a better player option to add more options and thus keep the player from repeating gun fights with less options. This doesn't stop the challenge though, for everything you make you can do something to counter it. Have cover? How about AI that throws grenades. Have a large pool of health for the player? Well make it a static number that relies on resupplying at health packs that are distantly spaced, or placed in risky optional pieces. This is how you properly keep challenge through deeper gaming. You no longer have to go relying on a dumbed down binary difficulty that means you have to be perfect or die, and have that on a repeat until you get the player frustrated out of the game or gasping with relief at the finish line that everything is over with. Letting the player discover tactics, using them to overcome their obstacles, and letting them figure out pieces of how to achieve their victor and work successfully or fail and rethink their plans is far more rewarding than overcoming outright frustrating difficulty for many people. Don't get me wrong, you still have those guys out there that love time consuming rage inducing challenging arcadey simple games. You also have games meeting a very strange middle ground now, often in the form of rogue likes where they're built to kill you and put you back in the start of the game... yet also built to give you interesting new toys and features that open up player discovery and interactions. But for the most part, challenge through depth has came out of gaming since the older days. We went 3D, and it might not be as "hard" as a bullet hell shooter but it doesn't have to be.


However since then we still see gaming getting a bit easier. That cover mechanic for example is a bit abused in 3rd person shooters and now it's basically mandatory for the player as you have small regenerating health making it the obvious winner in any fire fight, and you also have waist high walls conveniently placed all over any battlefield for you. This takes an opportunity for tactics, intelligence, and knowing the battlefield... and dumbs it down into a very binary experience of running to any of the obvious cover spots #1-5, taking and receiving pot shots, hiding long enough for your health to go back up, and moving to the next room. Or your other option (used loosely) was sit in the open watching the color of your screen drain (as a health indicator) and die until you use the other plan. A pretty dumb experience there honestly, and unlike the older games full of cheap deaths and poor reaction times this style is often too easy and too telegraphed. What good is it to have depth if your going to drive it into a corner and make the player use all those things rather than giving them a real freedom with it and letting them figure out how to overcome the enemy? Even something as simple as making an old 100 point health system would make it much better, meaning you could only pop out of cover if you were SURE you wouldn't lose your health, only able to take risks if it was high enough or you knew a health pack was near. But... no, no game really has used that old system in a while, especially a 3rd person cover shooter (I can't name a single one right now honestly). Now don't get me wrong, I'm going to say that these games can still be entertaining. Uncharted is pretty big on this mentioned easy cover style, and it goes beyond that. Like the platforming that is basically down to just mashing the jump button to the next obvious climbing piece. Or melee combat which is mashing square unless the triangle "block" function pops up. Yet the series is still fantastic amounts of fun, and is an amazing example for the best and worst of triple A gaming yet it seems like the good is way more noticeable than the worst. Also a lot of these easy problems are solved in the competitive online world, where people are more unpredictable and cover and climbing has more strategy to it.

Hiding and shooting wont be quite as easy online

Honestly I think I've pretty much covered all I wanted to say. The comparisons could continue quite a bit really, but it doesn't change much from my main point. I love difficulty by depth, and I think that's where games are losing it a bit and the "golden" age never honestly had much of it either as much as some want to say. I wish games would stop going in the route of making things "easier" by removing the depth. Health regen isn't exactly deep, nor is making your character glass on elite difficulty a better challenge. It's just annoying. You get a real challenge out of the need to learn your weapons or tools, your enemies, and having mechanics that work with or against you based on how you use them. Sometimes this may not lead to the most tough games... Serious sam is a good game for depth yet it isn't exactly as tough as battletoads, or ghosts and goblins, and honestly I think putting Call of duty or battlefield 3's campaigns up on the highest difficulty would be tougher than Serious sam's easier difficulties. Yet people who want a true challenge, or get their head working towards thought for risk and reward success would probably prefer it more. Instead of giving you low health that forces you into hiding or a very quick death, it gives you a lot of health but asks that you stay in charge of it and look out for refills. The game wont do that for you. Serious sam gives you a full set of guns, but if you go firing off your rocket launcher all the time you wont have ammo when it really counts. I could go on. Honestly even games that do strip mechanics and depth can also give it back in surprising areas. Take the original bad company for example. It has one main gun slot, infinite resupply of health, and can rip apart the battlefield at your will. But the one gun rule makes you think hard about how you'll be fighting. If you are doing good at close quarters, shotguns will be great and yet when you need a ranged gun it's your own fault and an honest mistake that adds to the challenge. You may also find that assault rifles are all around amazing guns, but when it forces you to choose a grenade launcher over throwing them you'll find that one really irritating enemy that you know could be fixed by a grenade toss you don't have. That infinite health bit is a recharging tool you have, and in order to use it you need to stop your own fight, get to a safe zone, put down your gun and inject yourself with health. This means you'll have to think about your recoveries or if you can risk holding onto your gun for the fight a bit longer. Destruction is a powerful tool, but the enemy can use it to and you can end up destroying too much and finding yourself lacking cover. I feel like uncharted multiplayer also follows a similar idea of giving you usual dumbed down rules, and then turning them on their head in a weird way that keeps the player conscious and on edge over their decisions on how they use them. Games like this that cleverly change up the pace from the usual deep game choices, or very simple and dumb ones, are quite interesting and are worth playing for their own weird little way of being difficult.

This isn't as simple and dumb as it looks

Games like Serious sam, Dragon's dogma, Duke nukem, Space marines, Dishonored, and a few others are quite interesting as a challenge, not because they're a dark souls or battle toads game that stresses you with constant deaths, but because they are deep and allow you to stay on top of your choices for the big victory. I don't think this style is exactly dying, but it is sad whenever I hear people cheer on a multiplayer shooter with low reflex health, or an action title that is filled with button mashing themed gameplay and these are becoming quite common to see. But we still have games with depth, and games that try to turn the usual easy bits on their heads in weird ways that get us thinking. We're also always going to have some form of the old school style of difficulty, rage quite inducing platformers and simplistic games that make you do it their way or die. They're simple to make, simple to pick up, and yet have a bizare unique drive that gives it an audience. So I can't say difficulty in any form is going to go dying, so no matter how you find your challenge... don't worry. But I do think the mass marketing and simplistic easy depth lacking games are becoming a little too common for some people to be comfortable.

My top map designs list

I love shooters. Mostly older kinds, but in all honesty there will always be that urge to just play any shooter and get some fun out of it. Part of the fun that almost can't be taken away no matter what a shooter wants to do with it's mechanics, is mapping. Maps are key to a shooter more so than just about any other genre. RPGs can be randomly generated for all people care, it's the monsters and loot and other such mechanics relating to them that make up those games. RTS and strategy rely on the exact mechanics and the players ability to use them right, maps can vary on importance but at the end of the day you don't enjoy the games for their maps, you enjoy them for how you can plan or outsmart the opponents. Puzzles rely on a strict set of rules to sell the whole experience. Meanwhile with shooters and platformers, the designs and levels make or break lots of things. Yet this isn't about platformers, so lets stick with the shooters. You need great levels, and man do they always deliver. Even in games that are absolute crap, it can be entertaining to look at the level. Sometimes you just get to really soak up the atmosphere and immersion, other times you enjoy the strategic implications of each map with the use of chokepoints, jumpads, pick-up placements, hiding spots, traps, locations good for your own traps, etc. Shooters are one of those genres you can really put yourself into, and thus the map makes a huge deal of the experience.

So in this list I wanted to bring together a lot of fantastic map ideas I've seen over time. I'll admit since there's a lot, there might be some ties within games that just love making awesome maps. I'll admit right off the bat I'm a sucker for well placed narrow spaces and chokepoint-like areas, it's just in my nature to love the corridor shooter style and no game can be complete without adding some narrow spaces into it's map design. Even monster size open maps like you'd find battlefield and Starhawk had to submit to some small spaces in some manner or another. Now without further intro, here is my humble and flawed but fun to make list of awesome maps.


#5) Blood Gulch (Halo series)

I don't play halo since I'm not an Xbox guy, but I still know this was a fantastic map. Well that and I was addicted to the demo which lets you play multiplayer on blood gulch. This was just brilliance through simplicity. You had two copy and pasted bases, a wide open canyon, a cave, vehicles, and the perfect weapon loadout and it all ripped into a fun blast of a multiplayer. It was also set up just right to naturally discourage camping, as who the hell would camp anywhere except right inside the base. Anywhere else useful to camp would just get you shot too fast. Overall it was just a really fun map, and honestly I should consider grabbing the halo PC demo again because that was a lot of fun to play and I'm sure there's still people gaming on it.

#4) 2Fort, and MountainLab (TeamFortress 2)

2Fort- Ok last "simple CTF" maps, I wont make that a theme. But it's usually where the fun really is, and TF2 masters their own form with 2fort. 2Fort has a great layout of putting CTF points or "intel" in small little underground pieces under big barn-like forts complete with 3 floors, a balcony, a sewer system, and the two bases are only seperated by a bridge. This map is a perfect exercise in all classes completed with great ways to build and counter each of them. Without a doubt this map is popular for a reason. Personally I love taking the sewers, getting underneath all the sniping, bombs, and avoiding those hiding pyros all in one swoop and I usually get away with it as most people still ignore the path even if it is kind of like that open secret area. As a spy it's the perfect planning and stealth route, engineers can build nests in the enemies base undisturbed, and anybody else decent for going in can just raise a surprise attack from within the base. Genius!
MountainLab- It's just a very entertaining Control point map. If it wasn't for how strong the defense can be on the 3rd point, I'd say it's just perfect. It's got alternate routes good for both sides, it's great with all classes, and it's just a very fun and replayable experience. Again there is a problem with the 3rd point being absolutely torture for the attackers, but it's still a great map with a nice look and even has a reskined Halloween haunted mansion version if you wanted something darker.

#3) Office (counter-strike)

Counter strike is a much under appreciated game these days. However one thing that does often show up when it's mentioned is the office map, and what a great map it is. I love the feeling of getting ready to go in for a big shoot out, whether it's in the garage, stairways, out the windows, or through the halls on my way to locating the hostages. I think it's the suspense that sells this map more than anything else, you just never know the enemies plans, you know your death will put you out for the round, and yet you know somebody has to go in to fight and take the hostages... and if you're on the terrorist side the suspense is still there. Where will the CT guys come in? What guns are they packing? Will one pop around the corner and blast you with a shotgun, or are you expecting to loyally gaurd the window and catch a few or get knifed from behind? It's just a very suspenseful map but in a fun way, and even when you're so sure of everything the gameplay within it is fun and well thought out. Also as a little bonus you could just throw the map on this list for how many destructive small bits can be shot up, and the goofy online gaming motivational posters hanging up on the walls.

#2) Nelson Bay and White pass (Bad company 2)

One of the main complaints I had with Battlefield 3 was the lack of snow maps... or the general lack of any good maps. Snow maps made bad company 2 triple in awesomeness for some reason, I don't know why they had a charm the normal maps didn't but I just found each of the snow maps to be so much fun. Most notable...

White pass- Best played on squad deathmatch, because that put you in the area that gave this map the most purpose: It's neighborhood. Row upon row of straight up houses looking into each other. Thow in good core mechanics, a closely knit group of players, and house leveling destruction, plus a power-up like tank, AND an additional hill and set of trees if house hoping gets boring and you just have an absolutely amazing combination. When I first played squad deathmatch here my respect for this game nearly doubled, I just love this map. But again it should be done on squad deathmatch, the other modes can make it a bit if-ish.

Nelson Bay- Best on rush mode, but generally just a great map anyways this map was great. You start off running through forests trying to break into houses, move up into more military territory surroundings with hills, bridges, and generally more open terrain yet more closed objective points, and ended the match shortly after. It was just a lot of fun attacking and defending, and the team with the best classes always won. You had to have a balanced use of it all or it simply didn't work. It was also one of the few maps that allowed me to enjoy the sniper a bit more.

#1) Beachhead, Blood Gracht, Bilgarsk boulevard, Junk Yard, and Radec Academy (Mother****kin' Killzone!)

What did you expect, Homefront? I adore Killzone as a shooter series, and there are many reasons behind favoring but one of them I don't talk much about is excellent maps. The only time I ever really find myself complaining about a map is by a basis of comparison, but for the most part the games have had amazing maps at every corner. So to keep some mild order in this blitzkrieg monster tie I've decided to name one from each game, pick a best DLC map, and then the community favorite which is obvious to any Killzone 2 fan as you've seen it take over the server list in 24 hour Deathmatch servers. Also since there's so many, I'm providing a picture for each.

Beachhead-

 KZ1 classic. You got two bases and a long stretching beach with guns, trenches, and a well mashed up amount of both friends and foes. A great map for older gameplay, porting it over to the much more organized and team focused Killzone 2 didn't work out quite as well but it was still a fantastic map.

Blood Gracht-

 Did I mention how I love corridor shooters? This is basically a level design from the Killzone 2 campaign's most in your face emphasis on corridor shooting sewn together and tossed into Multiplayer. Tight spaces, many routes, many places to choke people up, and the map manages to feel huge while being very compact and in reality pretty small. This also got a remake that was rather faithful and looked nice, though I prefer the darker bluer tones of the original in Killzone 2. Also yes I note it shares a similar name with another map on this list, not sure if that was some intentional reference but the two maps are really nothing alike and are practically polar opposites.

Bilgarsk Boulevard-

 I think this was Blood Gracht's cousin that showed up in 3. It's kind of like a combination of that, and white pass because of the big focus the game will have in some buildings when the right objectives ring. It's got tight alley way corners that catch fire fast, balconies armed with machine guns, buildings great for stationing plans in or defending objectives, and lots of wreckage in the main road that makes the general field a blast to fight in. I love holding up behind rubble as a cloaked sniper, or dashing into the crate pit saving someone as a medic and then holding up there wiping out or getting pinned by enemy forced. Amazing map. Oh yeah and it's the only one with the grain filter that was in past killzone titles, I love that effect for some reason and so it's a bit of nostalgic joy.

Radec Academy-

Also pictured as the head of the killzone choice

 Community pick here, and it is a brilliant map in all honesty. It's a small square-like map that focuses on a connected building that surrounds a courtyard. A big balcony sits up on all main sides of the building with door ways filled with rooms weaving in and out all over the place, it truly is a small school turned into a battlefield. Killzone 3 does a lot of changes, but manages to keep the basic shape and love of the map that everyone overused in Killzone 2. Only issue is that it was spawn campable, and in Killzone 2 spawn grenades caused a mess on mission objectives.

Junkyard-

 Damn does Killzone have some great DLC maps. Bullet train giving you running trains to wage war on and jump across, a desert map unleashing hell with a flame thrower pick-up, a smashed ISA ship, a locked up steampunk style factory map with a minigun, a nice frosty revisit to tharsis depot with jetpacks, and who can forget lente's missile base which is an absolute amazing map. But best of all would have to be junkyard. It's the sole reason I kept returning to Guerrilla warfare. Jetpacks meets mechs, and the infantry are treated to an amazing network of tunnels and surfaces. Even though I'm sure at the end of the day the map was one big circle, you had so many paths, shortcuts, halls, open spaces, and all vehicles, and the suspense of everyone else having that choice as well was just brilliant. Plus I just loved the art design so much. The rainy atmosphere, the crushed up junk metal in flooded watery creeks and mountains of scraps, and some of the areas look like someone was outright living there making for an interesting scene to look at. Overall I just adored this map, and it's a damn shame they couldn't make it available to bots over the silly idea that "they can't fly, so it's not fair. -_-


Well that about wraps up my list. Does that make these the best maps? No. Are they really my favorite? Can't actually say that for sure either. Despite what the title and intro seem to say, I can't say with certainty what the best I've played is or my favorites. I tried mostly sticking to more current games here, who knows what i might be leaving out. I know I adored coruscant from Star wars battlefront 2, and bespin in the 1st, and then there's quite a few good ones from timesplitters, and then there are games I haven't even played. Honestly at the end of the day this list was about awesome maps I know I loved more recently, and ones I can go back and jump into on my usual hardware. So I picked some awesome maps off of my head, and justified why there's pretty awesome. I think this makes for a fun list at the end of the day.

My opinion on DRM and used games

Well it's been a hot topic that just wont die down. Ever since the invention of DRM in PC gaming, people have had some reason to realize they can't just pick up any copy of a game and play it. It's one of those things to fear in a gaming world, and there's a pretty good reason for fearing it if you ask me.

I've looked into this chat before, and it can get quite interesting. I feel awful and sympathetic for so many people, because I have yet to see a solution that doesn't involve someone getting hurt or suffering (unless of course magic happens where retailers and devs work out a deal). If you live DRM free and allow your copies to exist everywhere, developers and publishers don't get their potential funding. If you protect them by killing the sales of used games, the customers are hurting and retailers that used a trading system are now hurting their own potential. If you make a game rely on extra purchases (inner game markets, pre-order overdose, or big DLC plans), your hurting the core design that could have been shipped in a more full and fun experience rather than having people shell out cash over and over again after they bought it to begin with.

Next problem I have with the situation is that it's such an odd gray area full of so many emotional opinions, questions, and arguments that people from all sides look like idiots. I'm not sure if I'll be any different, but one of the things I'd like to do in this article is reflect on why some arguments of both sides are flawed or hold less water than they'd like to admit. Lets start there, I'll start with the favored internet standpoint and point out some of the stranger anti-DRM arguments made and shine some light on the holes in their logic. Trust me, I'll be revealing the pro-DRM swiss cheese amount of holes soon enough as well.

Common Pro-Used Game Arguments

What's next, used cars are banned? What makes games so different?
Ugh, I hate this argument. I really do, and it's sadly one of the most popular ones. What makes games different? How about everything! This argument has got a point to it, but it's lost in how specific it is. Look, it isn't about cars. It never was. Used cars are a different thing altogether. Parts need changing or more worn, seats can be torn up, it's not going to be spotless, and there might be a funny smell or some weird choices tied to that car. Used games aren't nearly this... well used. And that's what countless anti-used guys will bring up, and it's becoming somewhat of a pinata smashing fest for them because of how easy this argument is to poke around with. The point that got lost is the concept of basic trade, and while it's awesome that this type of trade is done with cars it doesn't have to be the golden example because it simply isn't. Nothing is that I can think of. Any physical object or anything that really exists can have tradable value, so it's not as simple as saying "if cars can do it, then anything can". No. Just no. Go to something else while we're talking about digital entertainment on a disc, how about DVDs, Music CDs, or heck even a used vacuum cleaner would be a better comparison than a freakin' used car.

I can't afford to buy everything new, I'm too broke.
Right, so you want to protect your typical 5-10% discount discount on used games because your too poor to go to that "extreme" of paying $4 more for a new copy? Oh you poor thing (note the sarcasm). Used games can lead to cheaper prices, but not quite in this sense. The DRM crew is worried mostly about people like gamestop and those play 1 week, sell the next week type gamers. Used games will drive costs down, and I'll get to more on that in a minute, but it's not going to save starving children and broke families. Heck, even if that was the case, this is a video game we're talking about. If you're "too poor"to help your own industry, then go look for a new hobby because it's just not in your range. If you really want bargains or need them because your poor you can simply wait out the game. That, and now we're seeing a huge indie scene that welcomes great games for lower prices at the start. When you can get such outstanding triple A embarrassing games like Torchlight 2 for $20, $5 on sales, etc why are you trying to worry about protecting your $4 gamestop discount. It's ridiculous.

Ok so if I can't re-sell them, that kills the disc after I'm done with the game!
I thankfully haven't seen this statement much, but when I do it makes me cringe. Look buddy, if you bought the game willingly thinking it had limited value but then turn around to complain it had limited value, your kind of stuck in a strange loop you made. You're not guaranteed to re-sell that disc even without DRM, maybe nobody wants to buy it off you. Another thing is your re-sells are usually in the form of gamestop... and if this rings up as true then I'm sorry but that's just a stupid plan you had to begin with, and the disability to re-sell is doing you a favor. They'll often take multiple used games off your hand for some pocket change. But that's getting sidetracked into my biased hatred of those sell within a week gamers. Getting back to the subject, you simply can't use this as an argument for used games. It's not exactly holding any water or making people feel like they're entitled to let you sell your game. What you're doing is basically complaining you can't re-sell your coffee after you just drank it. If you bought something you'd know was expendable to you, dispose of it in your use, you aren't entitled to get that money back. Whether it's a cup of coffee, fired bullets (which can be expensive depending on the type), an empty box of pills, or now a digital device played from start to finish there was never any guarantee that you'd be happy with your device forever with some money back guaranteed at the end. I think you should be able to do what you want with your game now, even if it is stupidly trading it off for a couple of cents, but this complaint as it is wont hold water on the subject. Your better off talking about how it's better to have that free will and control over a product you own... which is basically putting this argument up with the car one, it's got a point buried within it but the point is made so sharply specific to something so silly it makes the argument dead on arrival.



Common Anti-Used Game Arguments

DRM is great because you support your developers!
Ok that's nice. I'd love to support developers for putting their hard work into making fantastic games. However you know what isn't fantastic within games? DRM. Yeah I'd like to support Diablo 3, but hey they want me to tie everything to my internet and their servers because I don't own their game, I'm just renting their servers. Fuck that, I'm not supporting their games until I see a turn of events... which means I'm waiting for PS3 Diablo 3 and will just have to stick with StarCraft 1. Hey, look Battlefield looks fun but you know who buys that? My dad who bought it in mind to share between the two of us, and do you know who can't play it because of their stupid online pass? Anybody except my father who had to tie the stupid code to his account. I'm out of that, and discouraged my father from supporting them again. Well... maybe I'll rent their future title and see if things work out better so that me and him might go for it again, OH WAIT no nevermind that DRM screws with your ability to rent something. Guess I'll continue putting the game on my blacklisted section because I can't do anything to figure if it's worth taking off that list. Oh hey, new game is coming out... darn it's by another one of those guys with an online pass, I'm sick of entering those codes. Yup, supporting your devs when they're punishing you for it. Awesome argument there DRM fans (Sarcasm strikes again!). Stop and think for a second, how is DRM putting more money into the pockets of developers? What, I give them $10 of an online pass to make up for the $60 I avoided giving them? I have to steal an activation code? Wake up for a second and think that outside of awareness, DRM is giving nothing of true value back to the developer. It is only hurting the gamer. When the developers or publishers are hurting the gamers, they have failed their job to deliver fun. They have failed and do not deserve my support.

Ok throwing that bit aside, lets just say the argument was just about getting people to support your devs. That's nice, but this was supposed to be gaming. It's about having fun, not money. Even as a developer, you should be putting fun first and letting the money evaluate how well you did in that, not seeing how many ways you can get money off of people by teasing fun. Used sales are into more than gaming. It's not cheap to make cars, guns, a full album of music, and movies but those can be traded off without a dime going to the maker and yet these industries are well and alive. Gaming isn't a charity, it's not about giving off money to people you like, it's about getting entertainment you value. It's a hobby and fun based industry, it will last that way with or without re-sells and it's a lot more fun without obstacles so lets hope you get the ability to have full ownership, ok. Gaming has survived for plenty of years without DRM and it's done fine, it's just that control and need for "moar money" has gotten developers and publishers thinking that anything that can be done to get more money and see every penny should be done. This is evident not only by DRM, but by the cutting corners, by the lousy priorities, by the rushed releases and milked franchises, by the political nature that gaming is becoming. It's no longer just about that child-like sense of fun that thrived before DRM, it's got to be about "the industry" and making sure people get cash. That's not exactly something I can agree with. I will happily support a worthy developer, and I agree that it's the right thing to do, but don't shove that in my face or punish me when I prioritize fun in a fun industry over it. The only duty I have as a gamer is to be a passionate player, I don't need EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Crytek, Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Quantum Dream, Epic, Blizzard, Capcom, Square enix, Bethesda, etc telling me how I should be giving them more money. That's not what gaming is about, and that's not what it should come down to.... ever! Especially from publishers, they're far more responsible for the problems we have now than anything else factoring into this.

Screw gamestop, those rich bastards can rot while DRM takes over.
Yeah, contradicting a bit much? Something that baffles me a bit more than most things is this idea that Gamestop and other "rich" guys can go take a hike because our poor rich devs need more money. Look, last I checked Gamestop aren't exactly the bad guys here either. They are successfully selling used games because of the consumer. They are successfully rich because they offer a service people like. They are the big game seller that you go to if you like your games to be a physical thing of joy instead of slapping random and high amounts of data and memory onto your limited console and PC machines. Yet apparently they're evil because they're rich. I'm sorry, but these "99%" rejects can go take a hike while the big boys resume a real debate. These guys aren't doing any more harm than a casual yard sale. They're just a lot more rich and successful because it's a whole business doing it, that's not exactly evil at all.

A Digital only future without re-sales will be a victory for everyone!

Nice wishful thinking there. Ok I may have to explain this one a bit... You see there is a theory out there, growing thanks to the help of some PC fans that feel spectacular over being able to tolerate this DRM crap longer than everyone else. The theory is everything will be better when everything transitions into a steam-like situation. Steam has no way of getting used copies, so steam sales happen because developers can afford it to happen, steam has amazing daily deals, steam doesn't feel like DRM so you can happily play your games, etc. You should be able to follow the main message now, basically digital only is supposed to be a liberating feature where devs get every penny sold and gamers get cheaper games. In theory, it's not such a bad idea and being very hypothetical it's hard to argue with. But in my attempt to do so, I'd like to point out some W40K games that are still $30 despite being $20 and under elsewhere. I'd like to point at how I got quake wars and the special edition rage (new) for $5 and could for over a year while steam wont touch quake and only had rage match that price for 8 hours on a special event sale before reverting back to $20.  I'd like to point out how steam is one of the few areas doing these price drops when they do happen, though it's competing with a few other PC sites. Meanwhile PSN and XBLA refuses to do such and wont ever match their retail prices. "Oh, but that's because people can buy them used" you say, well if the devs were worried about that they would beat them with the digital price to begin with and see more money in direct sales instead of letting the used and normal retail sales directly beat them while new sales on the digital store stay at day 1 prices for the first half of the year. Then I'll also bring up that I got Prey 1, Quake 4, and some mythology RTS game for $5 and under as well at small little mom n pop shops. Steam would love to charge me quadrupedal... or at least for one game, they don't even bother to have the others. Used games end up offering more benefits... actually heck it's not even about used games, it's about physical copies. If you let loose 5000 copies of Sims 3 I can gaurantee you they wont stay a solid price forever. Meanwhile if you check up on Journey or Demon souls in PSN, Dawn of war 2 retribution on steam, and the virtual games on nintendo's market they are the same price as they entered that store. Digital games don't have to go down, physical copies do unless they're in a suffocated market. That's just a fact, and we can see this in practice now even while steam and PSN have competitors. Likewise you actually get ownership over physical copies , or at least if DRM hasn't leashed you to the internet with a big middle finger to the consumer. That's something your digital paradise world wouldn't ever see thanks to possible lawsuits if something were to happen to these services. And you know what, while I'm at it I would like to point your attention to this: http://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/1/828937979095845728/ Oh yeah online DRM. It may not be always on, and it may not be a problem for everyone even when they lose a connection briefly but it's one of many issues that do exist with offline mode and as a whole you can't expect gamers to universally accept steams conditions.

There's a big reason why steam is a great little world, but not exactly the monopoly: it simply shouldn't be. It has it's flaws, it has it's limits, and it doesn't have what console gamers have been loving for years. They love renting, trading, borrowing, loading a game up and playing it FROM A DISC, and just enjoying the feeling of a dedicated gaming machine that was marketed, crafted, and made with support from a company that had gaming on it's mind when it made that machine. *cough* *cough* not microsoft *cough* *cough*. It's why there is PC and there is consoles, even if PC is the "superior" choice it's not a final solution and a monopoly and it should never try to be so. Let console gamers keep their abilities and PC keep their side. Keep things open for choice and fun because when it comes down to it this is about gaming!


In Conclusion:
Wait, is this my first time actually using the font size tool like I should? Anyways I kind of summed up things throughout these points, especially the last one. I don't think consoles would really be around with a crap ton of DRM, and likewise I think a lot of those gamers would disappear as well. However we're also seeing a backlash that's needed in the PC community as well, and quite frankly at the end of the day nobody likes DRM... unless the publishers are seriously delusional enough to think people are enjoying their online only restrictions, clients, stupid activation codes, and other such nonsense. Meanwhile used games can be more of a gray area when it's well known that they strip developers of their owed money. But then again at the end of the day, it's not just about them and really this shouldn't be a problem if we desire continue to enjoy the free market. Markets should work like this where we have the ability to sell things we own... and without a doubt why shouldn't we be capable of buying and owning our games? It would be a shame if the entire world just woke up to find flee markets gone, no yard sales, no auctions, people looking to black markets over key codes to everything, and the fact that every single thing you own is tied to you and dies with you. That's not the type of world I want to live in, and I don't see why game publishers and developers are trying to push that sort of thing on us and demand we feel bad because we don't live in that kind of world. Used games tie into our rights on owning the games as well, so as far as I'm concerned if you're going to say no to DRM it's not hard to find your side on used games as well.

 I grew up in at a time when these policies and politics in gaming simply weren't around, and I really wish that sort of thing would come back. Buying spyro without being forced to tie it to a console, account, or person was great and there wasn't anybody crying over it. Yeah it was pirated, and yes I'm sure someone bought it cheap off ebay. But guess what, insomniac is still around and despite doing some sucky stuff they still survive even in this costly age without shoving DRM on us. They even broke made an exception of EA, who later decided to scrap online passes because it didn't work. Because they don't use DRM, the fun that was had with spyro can still be had today on the original console because people can still buy it on Ebay, can still find it in rare stores that sell PS1 games, and still have a damn good time as long as they have something to run it... it'll stay that way to the end of time and at the end of the day fun prevails. I dare you to say the same dark spore, your falling apart with less age due to your stupid server reliability. The latest sims was falling apart since day 1 and still has been for people last I heard. That's not what gaming is about guys, try again. Steam can stick around, but let that be an option. Let retail copies free to fully own and use as the buyer pleases also roam on the same timeline. In the end that's the best way to reach the goal of fun and to let gamers enjoy their hobby the way they want. I personally want as little as possible getting in my way of entertaining myself on a game. Maybe every once in a while the only way I can do that is by buying off of Ebay, but if it's a serious hobby of mine (and it is) you bet I'll still support developers but it's a world without them crying for it that I came to love and support... not them begging for attention and asking me to donate to them like some charity and making my life miserable even if I was going to support them with DRM. That's not gaming.... gaming is fun, DRM is not fun. End of discussion.

What I'll remember....

Another generation of gaming is slipping away, and what a rough one it was. Despite problems and gaming getting its own share of politics, we still had some great games. Each time a generation passes, people carry experiences, adventures, and their favorite innovations with them boxed up in nostalgic memories. We also tend to remember some awful things, like ET of atari days, blowing cartridges, etc, however for once this is a subject generally nostalgic for the better. The weird thing to is that everyone kind of has it in their own sense, sure half-life 2, metal gear solid, and mario bros are universally held to high regards in their times, but most of the true favorites and nostalgic bias comes in our very own opinions likely shared with a small fan cult. I know that most people will look back and think highly of bioshock, meanwhile that's kind of sinking into the background for me already despite how amazing it was. I've moved back into games that wont die with me... like dragon's dogma, and Space marines which wont likely be mentioned much as on par with bioshock. Well here is what I will remember when looking back on this generation in no real order:




The 3 major  sony shooters:

Honestly I go on a rant quite often about what's wrong in the shooter industry. Such a decline has caused me to be extremely fond of the few shooters that break the horrible mainstream grounds, and honestly every time I go looking for example 3 of the same shooters keep popping up representing different types of shooters done right. I then feel like a fanboy desperately looking for something else because it's a huge coincidence that they were all under the same publisher and exclusive to the same system. However, Honestly even without the bad industry, these shooters made memories in my head and I'll bet I will still be remembering them well into the future. Those shooters are starhawk, Resistance 3, and Killzone 2. Killzone 2 was an amazing milestone in the series, despite leaving behind some things. It brought forth an amazing multiplayer feeling to me, a great campaign that I kept on replaying into 30 hours of clocked time, jaw dropping graphics (I remember staring at a bullet hole decal so long thinking "Holy crap, it's a 3D dent!") backed with equally great physics and gritty war tones, and honestly the story was good enough. ...and that ending... Visari and his intros always appeal to me in some hypnotic way, and the ending on Killzone 2 did as well. Starhawk was a purely multiplayer example of an amazing shooter, mashing in the perfect amount of chaos, order, and balanced mechanics without the help of mainstream gimmicks. Not to mention the art style was pretty cool to. Resistance 3 is the style of shooter I grew up with, brought back to show me a real next gen FPS that is up to par with the amazing shooters that kept me into the genre. I loved fighting against the menacing aliens, with crazy weapons and health bars, and unlockable cheat codes, and the good story is an extra plus. Each of these shooters sticks to my mind pretty well, and I can't get myself to stop replaying them from time to time.


My RPG escapism:

I've never been glued to one genre. I play general shooters mostly, but if you think of that as a restriction you're kidding yourself. However I've never been too big on RPGs. My first memorable experience was some FinalFantasy demo on a PS2 disc, which I just found to be nothing more than run around and bump into turn based battle monsters. It felt too linear, and too boring despite the crazy and interesting monsters. I played it all the way through, but never touched it again. I tried enjoying some other games, but the turn based JRPG wasn't my thing, and when I discovered other Western RPGs they basically consisted of nice ideas with too much "combat" that wasn't any real combat. It was all about mashing a button until someone's health count hit zero, something arcade fighters do much better. My young dragon obsessed self really wanted to enjoy some of these amazing fantasy worlds, but dark messiah was the closest thing to ever make the combat any fun in an RPG, so I kind of avoided these games for some time. Then in this generation I realized the current market just wasn't cutting it. Shooters were on the decline, platformers didn't seem to exist unless they had nintendo's name on it, worms sucked, and I sucked at RTS too much to keep that up by itself for long. So what now? Well I kept up my wishful thinking, that's what. I saw Dragon's age, and was trapped in inspiration by some videos and lore. Meanwhile when I bought it the entire game was overran by shorter humans, combat that seemed like it was trying to be an overgeneralized satire of RPGs, and a quest that was getting nowhere. With some nitpicks in mind, I still managed to stomach it enough to get some value out of character development, some of the plot padding was good, and I was obviously being pretty tolerable about it. But I wouldn't make the same mistake again, right? Yeah I would. Two worlds 2 caught my eye, and I just knew it had to make combat improvements... well not quite. I got it, and loved the game, but the combat was still 1 button mashing just with a better interface. I marched through the glitch infestation and adored the adventure, the leveling and skill trees, loved the world and crazy enemies, loved all the plot distractions, loved the customization, damn this was great even if the combat still sucked. Then skyrim sent me deeper into the desire to adventure, and with combat that was tolerable if you had a one handed combo going with weapon changes in between shouts, and item tricks. Nice. Then kingdoms of amalar came along and despite not being so great for the reasons skyrim and TW2 were, its combat was the best giving me a serious feeling of wielding great weaponry. I enjoyed the art style as well. I even ended up buying and enjoying Guild wars 2, an MMO that allowed me to pace myself and enjoy the questing, lore, and a tolerable combat system. Not to mention Torchlight 2, what a wonderful throwback to being the absolute definition of "fun". I even came around and ended up playing some golden sun on the DS, and managed to enjoy that as well. Overall RPGs became a way to escape from that lacking feeling in other games. I ended up loving two worlds 2, I return to skyrim and torchlight 2 at least once a month, and I can't help but get that urge to go back into guild wars 2 if it weren't for the massive updated I've missed out on. Yet... there is something I'm not mentioning here. What could it be.....


Dragon's Dogma:

This is the game that inspired this list. I kept telling myself how this game was a dream come true. For as long as I could understand how to hold a gaming controller, I've always  wanted a big imaginative fantasy world you could interact in, and actually be a hero in control. Done to a generic point huh? Well yes, if you consider mashing a single button until someone's health runs out, or being a pro hot-key user as heroic. That's been my experience with most RPGs, and I've been waiting for one to put me in control of actual sword swings. Let me be capable of slashing vertical, horizontal, a jump, a thrust, special shield commands,etc. Not just mashing a button and letting numbers do my fighting. Dragon's dogma understands me, and it was even a "dream" of the director to make as it was mine to play. An open world that puts you in charge of real combat, while still keeping RPG tones. It goes out of the way to do more things than I'd expect of it. A nice party system, a big dragon plot, climbing on monsters, perfect learning curve, monster > dwarves and other less imaginative types taking up the lore's time. The adventure really pays off in the end with one of the most epic and cinematic fights I've seen in a game. Ultimately it executes 90% of everything it hopes pretty well, and more than passed my expectation and ideal game. I will not be forgetting this one anytime soon.

Hoard (and another handful of indie games):

I'm not a very big indie gamer. I respect what they try to do, but they often result in super linear or NES retro style games. Some of the few that get my attention go in the opposite direction, and even end up being either too expensive, too flashy, or too dependent on multiplayer. What is Limbo good for outside of that one play? Why would I play that airships game online when everyone has left and there isn't anything ready for solo play? How does Super meatboy appeal to someone like me? Many of these indie games, especially the usual popular ones just aren't for me. However some will hit a sweet spot though, and they make a huge impact on me. I can't think of any exception right now. If it was a major indie game I enjoyed, I LOVED it and nothing short of that. Hoard being a big example. You simply fly a dragon and have it control a bit like a twin stick shooter. But it gets to be so much more with smaller details. Towns build up, wagons carry gold back and forth, princesses ride around with knights ready to come to their rescue based on their outpost's strength, giants will go on rampages, crops produce goods, and you as a dragon get to choose what you'll dominate for some earnings and to rank up. You can make the people fear you for a tribute, ransom princesses, destroy taverns and rid of theives or just put the whole damn town in flames. You're usually competing with another or 3 other dragon's to. The game gets very addictive while remaining simple and arcadey, what's not to love? Then there is the amazing experience of Journey, The incredible 2D sandbox worlds of war in cortex command, or exploration of Terraria, and finally how could I ever forget Torchlight 2 and Serious Sam 3? While it may sadly depend on the online, I also have to bring up Chivalry... simply an amazing game that also hits home with swordplay like dark messiah and Dragon's Dogma. All of these games have earned some memory. Castle Storm stands a good chance of being the next one.

Warhammer 40K: Space Marines

Ah, yes this is tied with two great things. The game itself, and the opening to the universe of W40K that I now adore. The game was a fun demo at first, and as I was playing it I was slowly reminded that it had a ton of smaller old details older games I loved had. Cheesy british enemies, check (Killzone). Dusty war torn world with making for a dull war focused setting, check (turok). Massive ammounts of violence and gothic themes, check (turok, again?). Fast and violent corridor shooter gameplay, check (many games, including the two just mentioned). Might be worth investigating sometime. So some time afterwards I asked for space marines around Christmas, and had trouble putting it down. It later featured more enemy types, demons, a surprisingly interesting plot, and more of the fun the demo had offered. Oh and the campaign was quite lengthy and the multiplayer has my favorite co-op survival to this day. I keep picking this game up from time to time, and after becoming a big fan/nerd of the universe it takes place in I kind of need to keep coming back if I want to combine my favorite sci-fi universe to one of my favorite genres (shooters) As it's the only one right now... I'm really hoping for a sequel.

My stance on violent video games: Playing them, why they're made, and stating the obvious.

So yesterday there was an interesting article on IGN about game developers finally running up against the common claims that violent games make violent people. The best comment at the time was basically saying "duh" but then went on to ask why violent video games are so... everywhere now. It's all over the place, the days of super colorful platformers has moved on and they are in the background, and I can understand some get sick of seeing the market so full of more violent products. Mostly COD clone shooters. But then you have the arcade fighters, the war waging RTS games, the god of war type action games, and those open world action packed games that have you stabbing, stealing, and hitting people with rubber body parts that aren't decent for the public viewing. It's a pretty violent market right now. Why? Well.... I seen something that tried to answer this well. And it broke down to this:

1) You play and enjoy games mostly for amazing interaction

2) People like interacting with other people, usually with some strategy involved, tactics, and competition. People also love seeing who they can support, or how long they can earn their survival, thus why we probably get a lot of games with horde mode.

3) Shooting games in particular have a very good set up for all sorts of interactions, and online play. Probably the next best thing would be strategy, or MMOs and MMOs are often violent as well, but for strategy usually those are more player limited and have a smaller fanbase while shooters are more marketable. Oh and some of those strategy games are violent to, just not all the time.

With that being said this is just some interesting thoughts on the topic, it can be argued with of course. Personally I agree a bit and I do find myself usually liking the more open action packed games, especially certain FPSs. I think they usually have a good amount of control and freedom to them while still feeling personal enough to be immersive. I recently bought chivalry on it's weekend steam sale, and I love it for it's deep melee combat, it gets intense in a way I can't find or feel in mario or sims, it gets personal and immersive in a way I can't find in tetris or plants vs zombies, and I love it for feeling more open than something like a puzzler or racing game. Not that I'm bashing any of them, I've played all of the mentioned games and enjoyed them, but a game like chivalry clicks with me and I get hooked big time and find myself enjoying other games like Killzone, TF2, starhawk, and W40K: space marine in the same way. And of course with the online I enjoy chatting, making friends, supporting guys, and hunting down certain guys that might be getting in my way. It adds an interesting human level to it that I haven't found in something like chess or co-op mario. I think that's why a lot of violent games get made a lot. 

Basically chivalry can look like this:

Or this....

Yet still what matters more is things like...

Behold the strategy! You learn each of their roles through virtually living small lives within them, battling other live people, challenging them, making friends with them, and even challenging yourself within it. There is no other game type quite like it, and yet it covers so much grounds on what the human mind wants. Yes it might be a little violent, but really have you ever heard anyone love a game just because of that reason alone? No. They love points, they love working with other people, competition, the thrill of learning and immersion combined, the feeling of accomplishing something, and as a bonus they can walk away feeling like some kind of barbarian warrior without having anything to be guilty over if that is their thing. This is also why the media is so wrong to accuse these games of training criminals. It's about sportsmanship, immersion, and doing tactics a certain way more than it ever was about psychopathic simulators. It doesn't make people violent, it doesn't make criminals, it is a form of entertainment... plain and simple.

If you're left wanting more peaceful games, fair enough I see your concern. However there is a lot out there to still enjoy. Quit complaining and get back to LBP, mario, wii sports, pure chess, PvZ, etc. There is a ton out there. Yes it sucks that people don't often pay much attention to it, but that's how mainstream stuff works and I'm in the same boat on that. Why IGN will cover every single tiny detail on Call of duty but pushes a review of chivalry out and forgets about it is beyond me or my control, but that does't stop the game from being awesome. Likewise they may not talk much about your addictive flower game, puzzler, or artsy experience, but its still out there for your enjoyment more so than some other things are right now (*points at shooter rants, where different types of FPSs are not actually being stressed enough*).

New to shooters?

I was playing Medal of honor warfighter tonight while suddenly pondering where I would tell a new gamer to start in action games. COD, the big hit that everybody is either playing or hating? Battlefield the "real man's" shooter? A gripping story and immersive ride like Bioshock infinite? Something indie, because indie is the future? Doom, where it started (kind of a dumb idea since shooters aren't anything like that anymore so it wouldn't be a good representative)? Or some kind of indoctrination into whatever I want and only what I like? Honestly there are so many paths, and the argument itself is kind of dumb because people will naturally get into whatever catches there eye and they'll go from there. There is a chance someone might pick up a rejected mess like Haze or quantum theory and hold it up to a high standard simply because they don't know any better, there is nothing to compare it to. However I will try to map this out anyways and start picking out 5 games to avoid, and 5 that may be nice to start with. And because I want to end on a positive note, lets begin with the avoidable ones.

5) Battlefield 3
Err... hard to explain this one so early, but there are much better deals of what you're looking for. BF3 comes with a really insultingly bad campaign, and the multiplayer has been dumbed down compared to some of its earlier games. Really when you break it all down, BF3 as it is now (and from what we know of 4) is just a tactical version of COD, giving you more options, a bigger map, and some interesting variables to change all trapped within a very stale formula, and the tactical fun and intense fighting has been done better elsewhere. No matter what the "hardcore" Dice fanboys want to tell you, avoid this. The only thing it truly has over Bad company 2 is server lists, and you could probably get those on the PC version.

4) Crysis 3
I thought about this briefly. Crysis 2 and 3 are under-appreciated games of this generation. They get some good hype on each release, only to have people criticize its gameplay without any real constructive criticism. I don't find the games bad personally, they're fun and actually a bit different from the average shooter. However here is the problem: They are a very weird subgenre of their own where it's a bunch of open areas in a linear form. Crysis 2 has a great length, and an interesting balance that makes it an ok game for new guys, but then 3... very short, pretty challenging at some points, and its a game that I feel would need more experience to go into. Also the Multiplayer is a bit silly, essentially being COD with a fancy suit. Your better off playing COD instead... oh wait, but not for your first shooter game because honestly...


3) Call of duty
Call me a hipster, a hater, or whatever but the fact is I simply think playing the current COD first would be like raising a baby off of junk food. In both cases you don't want them to get used to the low quality industrial sludge that has already gripped an army of sheep-like followers causing an interesting collapse in its own way. I get the appeal of COD, and why it has already brought in flocks of completely new FPS players. It's a very well crafted casual form of the shooter experience. Everybody can be a winner, play through a block buster style campaign, Side gimmicks to reinforce your idea that you get a lot of stuff in one package, and you get points for doing almost anything. Not to mention the easy access to many modes, mild personalization, split screen support, and the added peer pressure of everybody and their grandma playing it. It's a party game, block buster experience, and E-sport shooter all in one disc. The bad side? Honestly have you seen the state of our shooter industry? COD is just one game, but I'm willing to say that it inspired all of that. The same generation that came with COD, continued to stay and hang out with normal gamers giving it a try as well making COD a massive seller. Developers with other games joined in on the trend, and things start to get a little too familiar. The market has shrunk, and developers are getting away with making easy over-scripted 6 hour campaigns, forced matchmaking with bad hosting, low quality reflex gunplay and a gimmicky rank up system, etc. Everything is done super light and easy, and there is no high grade quality or serious depth to it. Even the "hardcore mode" is just blindfolding the experience and shipping you out with more fragile health, hardly anything worth bragging about yet just "challenging" enough to demote the entertainment for many. As the red orchestra developer mentioned while making their own game, their focus groups now want COD styled everything to be in every freakin' shooter. COD is raising people to crave cheap junk food experiences, and hand holding playthroughs so that they can enjoy their bike without removing the training wheels. As long as the industry only emphasizes those training wheels, it's acceptable to live your life with them on. There is a damn good reason why the older gamers are upset about this, we know better that there is a superior way to game out in this world. We know that level design used to be better, that enemies were actually interesting at one time, and that health didn't always mean hiding behind the wall a couple of seconds after a fight. I beg people to join the fight for better quality, instead of being another "me to!" guy with the guilty pleasure of insisting that everything is good as long as it caters to "everyone" on one disc. COD has its value, and I would recommend every FPS fan buy at least one of the games (black ops 1 is my favorite), but as a starting title it's a bad idea to get used to lower standards. Eh, I could be wrong, and who knows maybe it's wrong to set yourself on such a high standard as well knowing that the rest of the genre will have many that wont live up to that start of yours. Of course it's also gaming, so just worry about having fun.

I believe this image explains it some.

2) Fallout 3/Borderlands
These games are great, but they're aiming in the RPG bias a little too much. Borderlands has a lot more in common with Diablo than any shooter I've enjoyed. Great enemy types, crazy shooting, and the perspective are all it has in common with shooters. The looting, leveling, the way the world works and grows around your character, and generally anything else is related to Action RPGing. Borderlands is an amazing game that deserves its attention and fanbase, but it's not a great starting place if you're looking to get into serious shooter. Fallout 3 is a very different RPG combination, with normal RPG leveling and questing, world development, paths, looting for stats at a calmer rate, and of it has its own innovative systems like the pausing combat bits. However this is for the hardcore crowd exclusively, making you repair your weapons, and watching out for every little survivor detail, checking your inventory and clearing space quite a good bit. It's a challenging and frustrating game for some, and it's different enough from the average shooter game to still not recommend as a true shooter experience. I'd really ask that people come back to these some other time in their life, same for crysis.

1) Duke Nukem Forever
Just plain avoid it. If you're new, you wont respect the little nostalgic value it has in its level designs, aliens, and weapons. Everything else in this game is garbage, and an insult to gamers. Duke nukem forever combines a few of the bad things with older games, with many of the issues new games have, offering the best of nothing. Multiplayer had potential, but guess what? it's dead because the game sucked so bad. Not even the dirt price tag is a value here to new comers, that would just be an easy way to make someone want to stay away from shooters. Apply this to a few other games to, like Haze, Aliens colonial marines, and Declassified.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now for the games that you should look into if you're new:

5) Rage
What a weird way to kick off the recommendations, right? I'll admit I haven't even completed the game, but when I was replaying the beginning for the 4th time (it's a long story, don't ask) I put the game in a new perspective and imagined some underage shooting gamer playing it with those 8 year old on christmas eyes glaring with inspiration and fun... kind of like back when I played turok 2. The game wasn't received well basically because it messed up in some strange areas, and was kind of humiliating for it to be pushed out as this major hyped title from the founders of the genre after their last release so long ago. It completely missed the point of open world, and generally was a bit confused about what game it wanted to be. However the game itself was never actually bad enough for the bargain bin, and I'm pretty sure I remember the reviews being around a 7-8 range so... don't look into the lack of enthusiasm so much. Besides, this is just #5. This game gives you a decent world, great guns, great enemies, great physics, and just a good taste of a form of shooter you don't see much anymore. Monsters, mutants, and big guns litter the scenery and while the game is more linear than it claims, it is certainly no overscripted military shooter junk food most of the market is into. This is a pretty good starting point, and a fairly interesting shooter that you can find for $5-$10. ;) If you want an even better example of some similar, and even more faithfully classic shooter gameplay, check out Resistance 1 or 3 (avoid 2). It's got less length, but it's the arguably better game with the same feeling in mind.

4) Team Fortress 2
Valve has made some good games, but one of my personal favorites from them just so happens to be an awesome place to start gunning online. Team fortress 2 will benefit you if you want to get in on the online strategy shooters, picking your classes carefully and learning to use them right in proper situations. The core gameplay is pretty fun to, giving your proper health, good shooting, and a flexible community with content to last you until the apocalypse takes out your internet. Not to mention you will be in on some good comedy, able to understand all the jokes in countless TF2 focused parody videos and cartoons. This is one of those games so popular and with just the right tools that the community has basically turned it into an unorganized cartoon series. The game itself is actually pretty humorous as well. Oh, and did I mention it's free with a genius F2P model that doesn't get in your way? Though if TF2 doesn't work, give brink a quick try. It's an alternate and very cheap delivery of the same concept of shooter, just done with more parkour, more mix of killzone, and a new set of classes and objectives. It's not a great game on its own thanks to its lack of maps and modes, but it's got perfect tactical fast multiplayer FPS gameplay and thus not a bad start.

3) Bioshock infinite
Bioshock is getting a lot of attention now for a good reason. It's one of the best shooters in recent time, and easily one of the best games this entire year. This is the best starting point for you if you know you are into a pure single player catered experience, and want something deeper in story and character than what rage or R3 was offering. Bioshock gives you great FPS story elements with audiotapes to find, nice characters, great setting, and a good twist. Gameplay wise, the combat is rewarding with good weapons, enemy types, and unique to bioshock is the vigor powers. You can shoot lightning, fire, and water out of your hands as well as some other crazy stuff. Despite reaching "masterpiece" praise and a string of 10s everyone is sending out a couple spiteful comments. There is a boss scene that became infamous in the first week, the weapon slot limit has hit some love/hate reactions, and some of the enemy types are getting criticism (especially handyman who was supposed to come out on top as a good icon). However the problems can still be overlooked and the game is enjoyable with an ending that shocks people to the core, and the game is still just receiving large amounts of praise. The only issue I'd have recommending it is that it's pretty much a one way trip. You play it, you finish it after 12-16 hours, and you can go back some ways and figure out tiny details you missed but overall the game itself wont change or add in anything special or customizable. If you're a multiplayer guy, give this a rent but it's not going to be aimed at you. If you are a collector, story fan, and a fan of great single player shooters purchase this now. Handy alternatives would be singularity, wolfenstien, other bioshock games, and if you go back even further: the entire Half-life series.

2) Starhawk
Yeah it would be a bit strange to not have at least one third person shooter on here. Anyways, this is another good multiplayer one, but unlike TF2 it's not class based. It's chaotic team work riding on a transformer jet while having your trigger happy jetpack friend dive in and shoot up the turret defense system so you can land on an enemy and steal that shiny flag for points after you exit the enemy base leaving only ashes from an overpowered clusterbomb. Yeah you probably don't understand a word I just said, but it was still awesome in your mind and now you know it's one of those games. Starhawk is a perfect sense of organized chaos, giving you tons of vehicles, crazy guns, and tactics all in an open battlefield filled with 30 other players running around doing the same thing. The sense of balance in this game is amazing (though a little strange at first), coupled with a nice art style, personal freedom, and deep gameplay this game is simply amazing in every way except for the campaign. Not to mention it handles mainstream gimmicks well, completely removing load outs for pick up and play simple but deadly weapons, and ranking gets reduced to costumes while perks are put off to the backburner but still unlock interesting abilities and actually make you achieve something. This game deserved a way better fate than it got. Seriously if you're going to be a multiplayer heavy person, go and get this alongside Teamfortress 2. These games are simply brilliant.

1) Killzone 2
Alright, yeah it's a little biased. There is a good reason I talk about this game all the time. This is a well balanced game in every regard, the campaign may be a bit short and the story wont amaze you, but it's solid and the gameplay within it is a blast made to be replayed over and over again. The multiplayer is a bit of a combination of the two awesome ones mentioned above, giving you class focused tactical team gameplay with a very chaotic yet somehow organized pacing. You have freedom in server lists, a good community, fun trophy hunting, and the core gameplay is overall deep and very immersive. You have a heavy weight system, class tactics, objective strategies, mapping, and guns to all learn as well as a ranking system that actually makes you earn through things unlocking more than just assault rifle #8. You unlock classes, their guns, do special tasks to unlock their specials, get to mix and match specials to form your own hybrid classes, and despite how tough all of this sounds it's actually pretty simple to pick up on if you have the patience to properly enjoy something. Plus there is bots, and the game is generally customizable. It's depth done right, and all about what an actual hardcore shooter is while still being a game capable for someone to start out on. This is a game that you can really sink your teeth into, enjoying the cast and story, a fun campaign, amazing multiplayer, and the general mechanics are fantastic. Actually just go for the trilogy, it's very affordable, and comes with 1 and 3 as well which offer their own advantages. The community got pretty split with the 3rd game, as it did some mainstreaming and had a less friendly interface that still makes it more difficult for me to want to replay it. However it's pretty solid, and despite all the scripting in the campaign the gunplay itself is improved with the new slot advancement, fun melee, and the varied landscapes and more effort on the plot. Generally this is just an amazing series to get started into. Oh, and as a bonus the visuals and physics are some of the best you can get on console right now. Even Killzone HD looks pretty amazing considering it's just a polished PS2 port. I also personally just enjoy the brutal style of it all to, its coloring and blood shed really depict a war torn world with suffering and destruction. Overall a priceless package if you ask me, and a great place to kick off the genre.

Well... taken from 3, but I did end up saying just get the trilogy.

_________________________________________________________________________________
In conclusion, I'm not saying these are the best shooters out there, and there are certainly some better shooter in other generations that aren't on the list. This list isn't saying that bioshock isn't as good as killzone, or that half-life is bad new guys, it's keeping with more recent games you can easily find on shelves and games that would be great for guys who want a really great shooter to get started with. I'm not the type to recomend a game for baby steps, so I'm leaving super casual stuff out and I'm not afraid to give out something a bit hardcore (though again, nothing too difficult and punishing in its own nature) so that you have something deep to master and enjoy when you try out these games. Honestly the casual stuff wasn't even around until COD, so obviously a lot of true shooter fans came from somewhere with deep elements in it. And above all, I know that people need to be themselves and figure out what will work for them. I'm sure someone who wants to jump into the genre will just walk out into the market and pick up something based on little facts and evaluation. Like "well everyone talks nice about this game, it must be a classic" or "this is a cool cover" or something like that. And it actually works sometimes. Ok so for some side commentary, here are some honorable mentions that wouldn't be too bad to start with either but have their own faults.

Honorable mentions that didn't quite make the list:

FarCry 3: Great open world game, but honestly it also hits some weird very casual spots that kind of devalue it and take the control away from the player at times, and the story deserves more criticism than it gets as well as the game can be generally a bit wacky. Also it's got that touch that Crysis has where you feel like you need to bring in some sneaky experience and good thought that beginners might not have to maximize the fun in this game.

W40K spacemarines: It's a great game, but it doesn't do much for shooters. It's got a great health system, and perspective of 3rd person hack and slash mixed in with shooting with crazy weapons and battling awesome enemies in a very cheesy gothic machinery world. However you're missing out some if you don't know about warhammer40K (kind of "in crowd" deal here), and I found the gameplay to heavily lean on that melee bit with the gunplay getting sort of repetitive and leaving you a bit unrewarded if you don't use it right. Plus the multiplayer kind of sucks.

Section 8 prejudice: It's a really fun game, but the community has left it leaving you only with bots and everything on the list just felt like it really deserved more attention. Plus the game is a bit experimental on mechanics, without offering strong values to carry into other games so it would be an oddball to start with, and you'd probably enjoy it's quirks more after you understand the genre better.

Brink: Mentioned with TF2, but really the gameplay is amazing. Just a very small game map-wise and nothing but the same objectives per map, it only changes based on your team.

Bad company 2: BF3 downgraded itself, but bad company 2 was great. Better campaign with a sense of humor, multiplayer that gives you a sense of virtual war and tactics while being wildly fun and more to battlefield's nature than it's BF3 successor, and it's generally a great game. Downside is the fact that online may not be very well supported, whether EA decides to kick it offline a month or so from now or just the community has moved on.

Uncharted series: Uncharted came on my mind, and it's certainly a general game I'd recommend even if you're new to gaming as a whole. Big adventure, big dev support, big story, fun multiplayer, and a blockbuster experience. However my problem with it lies in the casual and overrated "platforming" and the fact that it just doesn't come to mind when I say "shooter". It's fun, it's got decent gunplay, and its one of the few real world shooters I've seen with enemy types, however in the end the shooting just doesn't feel powerful enough and it's more like 1 element mixed into a melting pot than an essential part of the game.