First, let’s start off what it exactly means to be on either side.

Casual:

•    Irregular; occasional
•    Accidental
•    By game industry terms, a game that can be quickly played.
•    Lasting no longer than thirty minutes.
•    Able to jump in and jump out of the game.

Hardcore:

•    Committed; uncompromising; dedicated
•    By game industry terms, a game that can be played over a long period of time.
•    Lasting longer than thirty minutes.
•    Must spend several hours to complete.

Now that we got that out of the way, I am assured that some of you can agree with these definitions. Combination of Webster’s dictionary and actual insight from the industry itself. So what does all this mean? The games we call “casual” and “hardcore” may not actually fit the description exactly or that they may actually fit both descriptions.

Tetris, as you all may know, is the definition of a casual game. It’s simple, fun, and can be enjoyed by all. There’s no need to dedicate hours of your life to fully enjoy this game. As you also may know this game as been around for over two decades and yet here we are, the industry is large and still growing. I guess this casual game hasn’t killed the industry. In fact, for those who like to put on your rose-tinted glasses can obviously see that many games from the eight bit era and the sixteen bit era fit the full the description of a “casual” game and yet no one ever complained that those games were killing the industry.

Now let’s look at Deus Ex, a first person shooter/role playing game. Well hell, it’s a combination of two “hardcore” genres, so that must mean it’s super hardcore. But anyways, Deus Ex is the definition of the “hardcore” game. The player must invest many hours to complete, it’s hard to just jump in and play for mere minutes to get satisfaction, a large open world to be explored, people to talk to, it has an in-depth storyline that is on par to any movie or book, etc. Indeed this is a great “hardcore” game that no mere casual can enjoy. Regarded by many as a great game, fun was had by all and the thirst for something truly fulfilling has been quenched. But wait, this game was pure awesome and in no way hurt the industry. It didn’t tell people to “Piss off, I’m so hardcore you should stay away from this hobby”. No, rather, the casuals didn’t care. So why should you, the super hardcore elitist video game player, should care about casual games? Some of you people act like casual games raped your dog and killed your mom.

Neither of these games had a negative effect on the industry and yet the consumers (or trolls) think that one side is obliterating the industry in one way or another. People believe casual games just mean shovelware and hardcore games mean less profit for the developers. The truth is, there must be balance between the two sides, because neither side is bad nor are they killing the industry. But if one side prevails over the other, then the market will be flooded games the community as whole will not want. On the other hand, it may just be the people complaining blindly about what exactly is killing the industry.

Quake III Arena is a perfect example of both definitions. By the casual definition, it is a game that one can quickly play, just like Tetris; and yet it has a dedicated community that play this game for hours on end for competitive play to point where it’s has its own convention. Quake III Arena is very successful as it can appeal to a very wide audience, so successful in fact, Quake Live is coming out in the future and it relies completely on ad revenue which means it must have a very large player base. No one ever complains that this “casual” game is killing the industry or the fact that this “hardcore” game isn’t out casting a gaming niche. There are other games that can fall into this category, Halo for example is another; the single-player can be considered hardcore while the online multiplayer is easily accessible and can be enjoyed for a good ten minutes of play.

The whole point is that we shouldn’t get rid of casual game or hardcore games as they both serve a purpose to satisfy the public. Quit being elitist pricks and thinking that video games are only meant for you, the hardcore video game player. Video games can be enjoyed by all and should be enjoyed by all. Like movies, like books, like music; video games are open to all the public and for that to be possible we need both casual games and hardcore games. So don’t stick on one side of the wall, tear it down, and shake hands with the other side as they too, enjoy video games.

Let’s take a step back and talk of the trends of the past, as there was one in every generation. There was a time where every platformer and side scroller was the same, like copying off the success that was The Super Mario Bros. But back then, it was so bad, gaming was just starting off and the technology was not so great – so the developers were limited on what they could do. It was also a time when Nintendo didn’t exactly rehash their own stuff and fun was had by all.

The next step was a small era where the rise of the First Person Shooter happened, where they were called FPSes, but Doom clones. That’s right you younguns, everything for a while that came after Doom was called a Doom clone, not a FPS. Again, this was not so bad it may seem because the FPS had to start off somewhere, even knowing it was just copying off Doom. Of course there was a few that stood out from the rest, my personal favorite of onslaught of Doom clones was Blood.

But let’s get to the point where it starts to get bad, where technology was getting better, innovation could be achieved and now the industry was on the rise. Now there was a point in time where there was a World War II shooter that came out every month or so. Thanks to that onslaught of those WWII games, I can’t filter out the good ones from the all the rest and just refuse to play them all together. Who thought it was a good idea to keep making these generic games? Same setting, same weapons, same thing and of course all these games were made by American companies.

Then came about the hack n’ slashes, simple minded, button mashing crap. I swear it was started by Dynasty Warriors which the epitome of what I am talking about. Some stood out like Devil May Cry but it was a time where every single one of them seems the same, like all the Dynasty Warriors. The whole series seem the same to me as it was mash X to win.

One of the worst trends ever was the Grand Theft Auto clones. With the success of GTA3, every other company out there copies its formula to try to become successful themselves. Sandlot plus violence was where it’s at. Instead of trying to improve upon the formula or trying something new, these companies just made the same cocktail with a twist of their own juice.

Now the new trend is the shovelware we see on the Wii. Don’t get me wrong as I know there was plenty for PS2 and DS as well but I think it has become more of a problem on the Wii. Because of the shovelware, real games tend to be shadowed and forgotten on the console that supports a different play style to its users. Like all trends of the past, companies are just going through with the fad so they can fill their pockets. It doesn’t take effort to stamp a game and call it done and because of all this it hard for the industry as a whole to move forward.

There are many companies to blame for slowing down the industry for starting and following these trends. EA or specifically EA Sports is one of them, as each year their sport games like Madden don’t seem to change anything and yet rake in the cash. Nintendo as of late is also guilty of this, I mean, do we really need all those Mario Party games? Not only some companies are copying others, they’re just copying themselves, or rather, rehashing. There are many more companies that do this as well and because of these companies, other no name companies are going to try to copy these formulas and just create their own games in hopes to reap the rewards. Do we really need a Hollywood version of the video game industry? Resort to copying each other and other mediums of entertainment just to make money?

Soon the trends of shovelware titles will be gone, to be only replaced by a new trend – probably worst than the last. I wish the developers would try to think of something different, to actually spend time on a game rather than to eat the last trendy game to just crap it back out. I want to see some change on the industry, where I can spend my money on a game or several games a month rather than just buying a select few a year. Lately, I’ve been somewhat starved for games and I don’t enjoy playing the same thing over and over again. Do you enjoy eating the exact same thing for every meal? It’s the same thing with games so you game makers out there, think outside of the assembly line. Stop the rehashing, stop the copying, and get creative.

As the consumers, spread the word, stop buying rehashes and copycats to show the developers we don’t want the same thing over and over again.

What am I getting at is the term “Gamer”. Does the culture as a whole really accept to call themselves “Gamers” and not “one who plays video games?”. I truly and always have hated the term “gamer” (and don’t bother pointing out that this place use to be called gamerblag). There are many reason why I might hate the term or maybe I just hate the people who use it.

With people calling each other gamers nowadays, the word has grown some connotative meanings. Some act they are the shit when they call themselves gamer, like the person they’re talking to has to kneel before them because they chose such a hobby – and trust me, I met people like this. Of course the other side of it, how gamer could be a demeaning term such as nerd or geek – of course I don’t know why people would go around calling themselves such these days. Back when I was a kid, these terms were insulting, nowadays they’re badges to put on your wall. So which is it? A glorifying way to call oneself or a insult? I guess it really depends on who are you talking to.

Of course I don’t know how the hell all of this happened, I mean, the term gamer used to mean tabletop players – which I do indulge in. I play with some older men with a couple of younger one and the term gamer has a different meaning between the two generations. And, at this point, do you really want to call yourself a gamer and gloat about it? Because like all stereotypes, my group isn’t far from it.

Which brings to another point, the term gamer has begun to develop stereotypes of that culture. Now back on track to video games, the most obvious stereotypes would be that they are all fat, smelly, man-children who live with their moms. They are nothing but a bunch of worthless bags of meat that will never do anything to further themselves in society and will stay forever a virgin not knowing the touch of a loving women (or man) – of course this can apply to some, but not all. Do you really want to keep priding yourselves on the term gamer even after that?

Well then, let’s move on the most atrocious part of the term gamer, “The Girl Gamer”. I mean no offense to you ladies out there who enjoy video games, but I still think you know what I am talking about. We wouldn’t have these abominations if the term gamer didn’t exist in the first place. It’s like I said before, these people wish the world would kiss their ass because they are part of the “cool” clique, which was never “cool” in the first place. Girls, or people in general, who go around flaunting their ego because of a single simple term and thus cause much destruction to the point where steam just might come out of one’s ears, mostly to those other “gamers”. This has become quite a phenomenon because when a girl says “I play video games”, nothing goes around but as soon as she says “I’m a girl gamer”, not just “gamer” but the whole “girl gamer” then hell suddenly breaks through the ground beneath you and the raging flames of death rain down upon to anyone in earshot, or in most cases, the internet. This is all the because of the connotative meanings that have grown with the term “gamer”.

What’s up with this god damn label? Do we really need it? Are we still in high school and gather around in a circle in the middle of the courtyard because we’re all gamers? I thought when one becomes an adult, they forget the ways of stupid youth and move onward. The worst part is there are also different terms for “gamer”. The Hardcore Gamer, The Casual Gamer, The Tourny/Pro Gamer, etc. So what now? Are we drawing lines in our circle now? The fact of the matter is, we all play video games and we do it as a hobby, for entertainment, to enjoy oneself; not to create a blemish on the culture – so break the damn circle.

Why do some of you call yourselves gamers? Been around the internet for long enough to know, that most of you hate when other people call themselves gamers, and yet you call yourself a gamer – which I know applies to a lot of you. As soon as that madden playing fratboy says “I’m a gamer” that holocaust siren goes off, the moment the bejeweled playing soccer mom says “I’m a gamer” the Earth shatters, so on and so forth. The term gamer causes so much anguish and yet we continue to use the term. I don’t remember this term being used over a decade ago where my graphics only came in eight bits so why is it that today we use it so much? If you’re any self respecting person who enjoys playing video games then just say that “I play video games” instead of the “I’m a gamer” tripe, it’ll give us all a better name.

Let’s take a look at the Dual-shock 3, shall we? While the dual-shock two had four shoulder buttons that were very operational and easy to command, the dual shock three has two that are operational and two that are complete wastes of space. If you happen to own a Playstation 3, you know exactly which two buttons I am speaking of. The R2 and L2 buttons on the Dualshock 3 are perhaps the worst buttons in the world. No, I’m not using hyperbole, I’m not making stuff up. I literally think you could scavenge the world three times over and not come up with buttons as miserable as the Playstation 3’s R2 and L2 buttons.

What exactly makes these buttons so bad? Well, first, they are triggers. The trigger button trend on consoles started primarily with the N64. The trigger on that system was fine and dandy. It was placed on the very back of your controller and if you needed to shoot something, you knew where it was. It didn’t get in the way, it was just there and ready to help! The Gamecube controller did away with said trigger button, but another system decided to dance with it. The X-Box. As we all know, the X-Box cast aside traditional console controls and decided that they would not have shoulders, but triggers. The popularity of console shooters such as Golden Eye and Perfect Dark helped usher this idea in.

I knew Halo would find a new and innovative way to make me suffer.

These were functional triggers at least. I kind of struggle to find a reason as to why one genre needs to have several controllers fashioned after it, but they worked fine. Obviously, the X-Box 360 would continue the trigger trend, but on that system they also decided to throw in regular shoulder buttons. These buttons, nubs as they refer to them, are pretty ho-hum. They aren’t horrible buttons but they don’t get the job done, especially when compared to the Playstation’s L1 and R1 buttons.

Now, back to the Dualshock 3. Console first person shooters, as mentioned, were already popular at the time the Playstation 2 released. In my opinion, and this is not based on fact or something I’ve heard, the Playstation 3’s controller was altered due to the heightened popularity of shooters in America, specifically Halo. Some proof to this claim would point at the otherwise mediocre Resistance being one of the Playstation 3’s launch titles. So, because of the success of the X-Box, trigger buttons needed to be placed there. Shooter fans needed to be pleased.

Here’s the problem though: they’re absolutely garbage. When you try to press them down, they only seem to work about 75% of the time. I know Sony offers a service to “fix” this issue, but it doesn’t fix responsiveness, it just fixes grip issues. Some people apparently suffer the horrible tragedy of their fingers sliding off the buttons and that needs to be rectified right away. Those of us who jam away on the buttons and can’t get a move to activate? We’re screwed.

You might be wondering why this would affect me. After all, I’m not the biggest shooter guy and, technically speaking, if all you do is hold down the button and hold a machine gun (or something), the controller will work fine. Here’s the deal though: while I dislike shooters I have an absolute fetish for fighters. Some people dig the Spanish Fly, some dig the human horn, me…nothing gets me going like a good fighter.

Now, for those of you who played Street Fighter on the original Playstation, you will note where the default strong-kick button was. The RIGHT shoulder, the R2 button. If you wanted someone to feel the wrath of your heavy kick, by God they would feel it. So, I buy Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix on my Playstation 3 expecting a decent controlling experience. After all, the whole reason I got it on the PS3 and NOT the 360 is because I vastly prefer the PS3’s joy-pad. What I got was nothing short of a horrifying experience. You could say it was akin to waking up in a world where the Sega Genesis Sonic the Hedgehogs played like Sonic 2006.

Well hey, the R1 button still works well!

I would choose Ken and have the audacity to try to heavy kick someone. First, for those who didn’t know, I had to alter the controls to get R2 to be heavy kick. I wanted the same experience I had on the PS1. Now, when I would try the move, it would work most of the time, but this one time I was on the ground trying to trip someone. I notice that Ken is just sitting there with a smug look on his face. He knows darn well that he is screwing me over. He may also know that he is about to get walloped. Naturally, I go on to lose the fight due to this momentary lapse in concentration.

Here’s the thing, this R2 button not registering can be a thing that severely hampers you in an on-line battle. Imagine your opponent was very darn near defeat and for whatever reason instead of pulling out the way faster light punch or kick, you decide to rock the heavy kick. YOU FINISH IN STYLE! Well, when it doesn’t register, you’ll look confused and by the time you realize what happens, your opponent is mopping up the floor with your fallen blood.

I thought maybe it was just Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix. After all, it was a “newer” game, so maybe I was just going crazy and this problem didn’t really exist. I then try to play Street Fighter Alpha 3 on the controller and find to my horror that things haven’t changed at all! The PS3’s trigger buttons just freaking suck! It was sad that I had to turn off my super expensive monolith of a system in order to play my long deceased Playstation 1.

Oh man, this is going to hurt SF IV too, isn’t it?

Sony really needs to release a new sort of PS3 controller for those of us who don’t shoot all the time. Releasing a controller specialized to one genre is stupid (well, I mean, except fighters. People buy fighting pads and only play fighters with them, so why not?) and they really need to consider their non-shooting fans. There could be a really great game in the future that demands the use of the R2 or L2 button and someone could go out to use it and they’d be right out of luck. Oh, too bad, how dare you try and play the game.

I also wouldn’t hate an official USB adaptor so I can use my still very damn good Playstation 2 controller on my PS3. That’s another thing I don’t get, wireless stuff. Are wired controllers really that big of a dilemma? When I got done playing my SNES I would simply wrap up my cables and put them away. It never really got in the way of my experience. I guess there are a lot of people with OCD out there who just can’t handle the wires…that’s gotta be it. I’m probably the only person I know who vastly prefers to use the wired 360 controller (AT LEAST THEY OFFER ONE!). Maybe I’m just being dragged kicking and screaming into this generation.

Whatever the case, I’m off subject now, so allow me to cut it short. Sony: Release a new Playstation 3 controller with non-ridiculous shoulder buttons. Those of us who don’t play shooters all the time are desperately begging you!

There's the save point!

Save points have existed for a while in jRPGs, but what is their real purpose? I know it’s something we don’t see nowadays so much but there was a time where save points were existent many video games. Personally I though save points were one of the worst ideas ever, and now that we are able to save anywhere in most games, I’m not sure why some games decide to use them. There is something to be said about the level of suspense and success feeling when you come upon a save point but there’s more wrong with the idea, then there is right with the idea. The pros have already been stated: easier to code, adds some level of suspense, and surprise, but let’s weigh down the cons to it.

• Ruins the surprise of a big event

You know what I mean. You’re fighting your way through a massive dungeon and suddenly you see a savepoint, you know that something funky is about to go down. Either you know that you’re going to be facing some kind of boss, of you’re half way through the dungeon, which can be kind of depressing if the dungeon is fun. Though save points ensure you save before possibly getting your ass kicked, it ruins the surprise.

• Pressured to find a save point when playing for a while

This point is also a no-brainer, you’ve been playing for an hour or so and you’ve gotten far, the first thing you want to do is save your progress. Well what happens if you’re cut low on time? If for some reason you have to go somewhere and you don’t have time to find a save point? What then? Then you have to force yourself to continue playing or start again another time.

• Some save points disable the ability to backtrack

Now I never saw the appeal of doing this. Why would a developer not want you to backtrack to explore the game more? It’s like asking someone into your home then restraining them to the backyard, you have no good reason to do it unless you hate your consumer.

Dynamic saving (saving wherever you like) is the best option, it’s not baby-ing your consumer. It’s giving them the ability to save for themselves, so they can take the responsibility to save wherever needed. If you didn’t save for an hour and then you lose a boss fight, then too bad, it teaches you to save more frequently, and personally I like a game a lot better when I’m given as much freedom as possible.

Seriously, what the hell happened when people where nice to each other after a friendly game? Now days, when I lose match, I get called a cuntface douchenozzle faggot, not just by the other team, but my own team as well. Recently with the release of Left 4 Dead, this has become very apparent to me. I get insulted by both my team and the other team. Not just Left 4 Dead, other modern FPSes on the PC have players with similiar attitudes – except Quake III, never really saw bad sportsmanship on there. The rage, anger, and bigotry are so strong in that cyber air that it’s enough to give one a stroke after a good single breath. Of course this has been around for quite a while, specifically around Xbox Live.

Now I’m not exactly blaming the community as a whole or am I trying to insult any Xbox players – but the travesty that is the hate-filled ignorance which is Xbox live is hard to ignore. Simply playing around a few games on Xbox live, I will be insulted by every single profane word that is in the English dictionary, and maybe a few other languages as well. I can simple say, “Nice round man” and I get replied with “You sound like a butthurt cunt, you know I’m the best there is”. Is this any way for players to treat each other in, what I thought was, a friendly game?

After all that malarkey, a few days ago I decided I want to take it old school and play some Starcraft on battle dot net. Of course there isn’t much a player base, but I was able to join a few games here and there. Most of which were Top vs. Bottom so I had to be in a team. The one thing that I noticed is that, it’s the exact god damn thing. I get bashed by my teammate who got killed quickly and blames their team. The other team was, of course, talking smack throughout the game. And out of all those games, guess what’s the one thing I never saw in the chat? “gg” or “good game” That’s right. No one said “good game” after a match, the equivalent of shaking hands with the other team in sports, the “gg” I thought was a courteous thing to do after a game. I would be saying “gg” and all I get is “lol i pwn u fgt”.

Where did all the friendly players go? I don’t remember this many assholes in the 90s and even early 2000 when I use to play on battle dot net. Sometimes I wish I was back in the 90s, with my dial-up modem, my piece of paper with quake hubs, and where everyone was actually mature, even knowing that I was still a prepubescent kid. What is the cause of all this hostility in internet games? Is world getting angrier? Is our youth becoming corrupted? Or just because now that you’re grown up, you can talk like sailors? Is this an American thing or is it worldwide?  What is the exact cause?

Now I know there is people out there that still act friendly on the internet and I would love to shake your hand, but nowadays, the unfriendly players outweigh the friendly ones. I can understand the gloat that people do, but it’s no longer gloating if you’re trying to demean the other players. It’s becoming harder and harder to actually enjoy online multiplayer games if this keeps up, so I ask every single one of you – say “gg” after that good game you just had.

I am sure everyone knows what the tutorial level is and I am also sure that some of you readers can agree with me that they are one of the most annoying things about video games today and within the past decade. For those who don’t know what I’m talking about, the tutorial level is a level in a game that teaches you the basic mechanics of the game. Why is this so bad that I’m raging about it? It’s the fact every developer out there deems it necessary to have this level mandatory to complete in order to learn how jump and then double-jump. This makes the notion that these developers are targeting their games toward the “casual” crowd, non-gamers, or even your grandmother. Because, hell, everyone is a brand new player into the world of video games but let’s get back on track.

I know neither that all games do not have a tutorial level nor that all games have it mandatory – but I’m not talking about all games. I am talking about the games within this generation and those in last generation where the majority of games had the tutorial level. I am sick of playing a level where it does nothing to teach me, does nothing to advance the story, and most importantly, it does nothing to entertain me. Press A to jump, press square to shoot, swing your controller to awkwardly attack – it’s just plain annoying, especially when the game offers nothing complex to the already copy-and-paste game play of its genre.

I remember back in my day, we would actually read the game manual to know what the hell to do it and I got to admit I find it more entertaining because the manual was there to help get familiar with the game and sometimes double as an art book. It takes mere minutes to completely understand the game when reading the manual which is far greater than listening, waiting, doing, and repeating those same things within the game for good half an hour just to get into the game. Hell, I remember when games didn’t even have tutorial levels at all and that was great because if I rented a game which most likely won’t include a manual, it will require me to think and actually figure it out – to me that was fun.

I want to name a few memorable horrific tutorial levels or tutorial-esque levels to show how horrible that they really are. Let’s start with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time which I’m sure a lot of people have played. This game made it feel like the whole beginning of it was a tutorial level thanks to the nagging little fairy that won’t ever shut up or even that stupid owl that kept blabbing on and on, forcing you to smash the A button until you realize you just made him repeat the same explanation all over again because the developers thought it would be funny if they made “No” or rather “No, I do not understand please waste more of my time” the default choice after the long winded explanation.

If anyone is a fan of the Thief series, knows that the third one had a bad tutorial level as well. I know very well the first two had a “Training level” but guess what? They didn’t force it down your throat; so why make the third in the series any different? It might be the fact to dumb it down for the console playing faggots to tell them that moving slowly equaled sneaking or to try to make the fact that light made it so people can see you. What’s worse is that the tutorial level forced you do it the exact way they wanted. What the hell is this? I did whatever the hell I wanted to complete my mission and that choice of freedom is what made me like the games so much. This just proves the trend that developers are following, to dumb it down for the ADD ridden kids of today or for your mother – thus the “casual” problem that we see today. The first two Thief games,

I think the worst of the worst though is Kingdom Hearts 2. What the hell were the developers thinking to make the first 2 hours a tutorial level? Yeah, 2 hours. That whole entire 2 hours of tutorial and “story” could have been summed up in five minutes, or if you like it easy, a few seconds – press triangle to win. I enjoyed the first Kingdom Hearts fully and its tutorial level was nowhere as bad as its successor. The only entire first two hours of this game felt like a real chore to get to the actual game, it’s like eating broccoli to get that piece of unfulfilling candy – all because of the tutorial level.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand that some players out there love the tutorial level to get a grip on the game and that’s fine and dandy. It’s just seems like developers out there forget that, there are people who hate tutorial levels as well as the people who like the tutorial levels. Thus the simple solution to this is that making the tutorial level skippable or even out of the whole story completely. Having that extra option at the main menu of game dedicated to the tutorial level might be a good way to go. Another simple way is having the tutorial level non-intrusive to the game, like a little float saying what button does what and that’s it; not stopping the action completely and waiting for you, the player, to repeat what they just said. I hope the trend of bad, forced tutorial levels will end soon and the developers remember who the original video gaming audience is, because we have not forgotten how to play video games.

I borrowed a friends Xbox 360 for a weekend, because he suggested I play Fable II. Fair enough, it had interested me. But this isn’t a Fable II review. This is what I discovered on my short journey through the world of the Xbox Live community.

All I had attempted to do, was play some Fable II co-op. I just wanted to go and slay some guards with my fellow heroes of Albion, simple I presumed. Not quite the case. Every time I managed to find a slaying partner, all they were concerned about doing was banging out some more achievements, and they come from the most trivial tasks. I wasn’t interested in killing 5 enemies at once with one magic spell, I wasn’t interested at farting at the same time as him, and I definitely wasn’t interested in the 101 meaningless other bollocks tasks he and the next 6 people I played with proposed that we do for that stupid little popup at the bottom of the screen.

You see, there are 2 main flaws with the achievement system.

1. The achievements themselves are often shite. They should be rewarded to the player for significant milestones within a game, earning a certain amount of money, buying a certain amount of things. A few of them should remain fun but should be able to be found by ACCIDENT and should also remain secret until they have been completed.
2. The reward for achievements is an arbitrary number. If anyone has played Team Fortress 2 on the PC, Valve have nailed it. For those of you that haven’t, Valve periodically releases ‘packs’ of achievements. Every 1/3rd of them you do, you obtain a new unlock for that class. No stupid ridiculous achievements either, all of them can be earned through time just playing normally with a modicum of skill. As a result I believe the best way to make an achievement useful is to actually reward the player with something of relevance to the game. I don’t want 10 useless gamerpoints. Can I convert them into MS points? Can I turn them into pizza? Can I even turn them into a new armour set? Then why the fuck am I doing this bollocks?!

And as a result, the player base of each game becomes focused on these bloody achievements to up their gamerscore. I even had one player make the case to me about avatar clothing being unlocked with gamerscore. Seriously MS, you can do better than that.

Just a few changes into the achievement system would make the gaming experience better for everyone on the whole, because if I run into one more guy online ever that refuses to play the game for fun rather than to make his e-penis larger, I’m going to jump through the screen and end him.

If you’ve got a Sony Playstation 3, then chances are you’ve snapped up Naughty Dog’s platformer-slash-cover shooter, Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune. While it didn’t exactly wow over critics with its gameplay mechanics that had obviously been inspired from quite a number of other IPs, it definitely made waves with its stellar presentation, poloygon-crunching graphics and superb voice acting ( which made Nate and his associates quite the memorable crew). Now, we get wind of its sequel, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, via the cover of GameInformer’s upcoming issue.

In their website, GameInformer teases the reveal-all article by letting slip a few details about the sequel: the game will revolve around the exploits of Marco Polo this time around. The game will also feature a new free-climbing mechanic to set itself apart from its predecessor, as well as stealth sections that will probably have Drake sneaking around to avoid enemy encounters.

Stealth gameplay? Free CLIMBING? I’m sorry, Naughty Dog, but since when was blatant imitation and thoughtless copying part of the deal? And in this day and age of dry humor, witty one-liners and shooters that utilize cover effectively? You had a market with Crash Bandicoot, hell, you had a HUGE following, and that series of PlayStation One games have gone on to have legendary gameplay that rivals that of Mario and Sonic. The videogame world considered HIM as a viable rival for those two icons. You’ve got a market for people who want something different, and yet you churn out more of the same. Not just more of the same, but literally regurgitated and recycled material. We don’t blame you for trying something new, but if you just thought for a second about how Free Climbing was done already effectively by Assassin’s Creed and stealth gameplay is but one of gaming’s most tired (and most annoying) cliches, then you’d have thought twice about putting them in as key draws for your game. Your game of mishmash gameplay mechanics from other games that do them better and had done them BEFORE.

I’ve played the first Uncharted and I had fun with it, but even with graphics whore glasses on I still couldn’t shake the feeling that I’ve done it all before. Sure, you’ll say that other games do mimic other games’ key features but at the very least they tried damn well to be original.

Bring back Crash, you immensely unoriginal pollocks.

Why is it that anytime I look to see if a game is good, people always point to numbers? Not even the text of the review or the pros and cons of a game, just a number. How does a number tell me how great a game is or if I’ll like it? How does a number show me if a game is fun? If a number is all that makes a game good, how come I and countless others enjoy games that have a low rating? Is it because I just have a crap taste in games, and so does everyone else that enjoys it, or is it something more?

The answer is simple, numbers are all speculative, they are there to entertain those who do not have the patience to read a review, they are also there, on an unintentional level, so that people who are biased against a game can laugh about it receiving a “low-score”. Let’s say we have a game that scored a theoretical 8.8/10, you are going to find people that even though the theoretical 88% is above average, will say it sucks compared to <insert higher score here from a game probably not even in the same game genre>. Why does that happen? Because people like to be abusive and get under your skin when there is no threat of physical harm because they haven’t invented a device that allows you to punch someone in the face via the internet yet.

If you want to know about a game, read about it, don’t just take a number and say “Oh well it scored a 6/10, it must be horrible”. Read the review, decide if the game you’re looking at appeals to you. Decide if the cons outweigh the pros or if it’s worth your money. Numbers mean nothing without context, and if you really need to compare games, at least compare games that are in the same timeline or genre, because it really does not make sense to compare StarCraft to Halo just because THEY BOTH HAVE NUMBERS ATTACHED TO THEIR REVIEW!