Ran across this on a fairly prominent file-download site, found it extremely odd. It just linked to the dedicated servers petition, but you still have to consider that someone out there had to pay a decent sum of actual money to get this ad up where people would see it.
 
Anyways now that the game's out I'm sure everyone is busy playing it, but I thought it was interesting that the boycott people cared enough to do something like this.

Gay Tony is the best thing Rockstar has done with Grand Theft Auto IV, without question in my mind. Having beat it and done most of the side stuff, I feel like I can finally elucidate exactly why I enjoyed it so much.
 

1. 

    Luis doesn't care, man
   Luis Lopez is the most unapologetic protagonist yet. Where Niko stretched my limits when he would complain about killing right before he went on a murderous rampage, Luis simply doesn't care. Johnny suffered from the same sort of reluctant hero syndrome as Niko, although to a lesser degree. Luis, when being told he is sensitive, responds: "Not really bro, I like killing people for money". It's refreshing to have such honestly from a protagonist- Luis' views are more aligned with what the player wants to do.
2. No slogging through slow beginning parts before you get to the good stuff. I enjoyed GTA IV's slow burn at the beginning as much as anyone, but Gay Tony does itself a favor by excising that fat and cutting straight to the meat. Early on you'll steal a military-grade helicopter from an arms dealer's pleasure yacht, and things only get more intense from there.
3. It finds a unique niche within Liberty City. While obviously Gay Tony still deals with crime in the same way the other two Liberty City stories did, the focus on nightclubs and the downtown area really helps differentiate it. Partying in Tony's nightclubs is unlike anything else available in GTA IV.
4. 

    Yes, that's a gold helicopter
   The satire and the seriousness are more evenly balanced. GTA has always been an uneasy mixture between a satire of America (ignoring London) and a serious portrayal of the urban crime environment. GTA IV slid way down towards being much more serious, as the guys at Rockstar flexed their storytelling muscles. I wasn't a huge fan myself, but some others were. This episode gives a bit more of the satire and takes itself a little less seriously, and I think that makes it vastly more enjoyable. Simply by having to support gameplay, GTA will never be able to tell a serious, realistic criminal story like The Wire or The Godfather, simply because huge cop-killing rampages simply don't happen in real life. It's nice to see Rockstar not try and have a bit more fun.
5. The missions are simply more creative. A lot of GTA IV's missions simply boiled down to going to point A, shooting some guys, chasing a getaway car to point B, killing those dudes, then losing the cops. Gay Tony does this a few times, but they are the exception rather than the rule here. From train heists to torturing pesky bloggers, Gay Tony mixes things up in a good way. Plus, you know... Base Jumping.

I always enjoy my time with GTA IV, but Gay Tony was my favorite out of three stories. In addition to the things listed above, it was really cool to see all the places the stories crossed over in this final episode. Obviously all three of the stories come together at the diamond deal in the Libertonian, but they cross in other places, and that was really cool to see, especially as Gay Tony closes the only major hanging plot thread from Niko's story while also telling the neat compact tale of Gay Tony and Luis. Pretty much everything else is improved also- the weaponry is fantastic, the new vehicles are great, the side activities have been changed for the better, and you can now easily replay missions. Put simply: it was a great time, well worth my money and yours.

Friends, I am worried about Mass Effect 2. To understand why, we need to take a trip back in time, to the tender year of 2004. 
 
Actually wait we need to stop at 2003 first. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time releases to critical praise and mainstream success off of it's charming storybook atmosphere and tight platforming. A year later, we find ourselves with a sequel, Prince of Persia: Warrior Within. It is... different. Tragically different. The rougish charm of the Prince had been discarded for nausea-inducing baditude, the combat became brutal and almost too gory, and the background music became heavy metal- all as if to say: this game is fucking HARDCORE. Only problem: this was a complete tonal 180 from the previous game. No one liked it, and even though it did well enough to generate a sequel, Warrior Within is credited by many as the game that killed the goodwill built up by Sands of Time.
 
I am worried much the same may be happening with Mass Effect 2.
 
The first game was pretty universally loved. Despite being criminally short and possessing the blandest sidequests in the history of sidequests, the roleplaying was pretty solid and it was clear that Bioware had laid the foundations for a great trilogy. It was a good blend of action shooting and interacting with NPCs. The shooting perhaps left a bit to be desired, but aside from that the game was pretty enjoyable. From the get-go we know this is the first in a trilogy, so obviously there's room for improvement.
 
Enter Mass Effect 2. What we've seen pre-release is quite worrying and seems to indicate the same sort of tonal shift that sunk Warrior Within. The first time live gameplay was shown it was an entirely combat-oriented demo. Bioware showcased the ability to blow off enemy limbs and new, more brutal guns. First warning sign. Blowing off enemy limbs isn't even necessary in a game like Mass Effect- it's gratuitous.
 
Next, plot info starts surfacing- talk of suicide missions, recruiting scum and villains from across the galaxy. At E3, the developers show off
Talk from Bioware of this being a darker game, darker times. Warning sign two. Not that darker tones are necessarily bad- Empire Strikes Back would like a word if you think they do- but the talk, compared with what's been shown so far, again points to a WW-like shift in direction.
 
Most recently, I direct your attention to this trailer.
 
 
 Warning bells should be going off all over the place. I don't think this really needs any explanation.
 
Now, Bioware's marketing department isn't exactly renowned for their accuracy. As I'm sure we all know, Dragon Age is not exactly the new shit. However, it is worrying to see both the developers (in dev diaries and press interviews) and the marketing department (in trailers) sync up to deliver this message of a darker, more bad-ass game. It's terrifying corporate cohesion that I don't think would be happening if there wasn't some underlying truth.
 
I really want to like Mass Effect 2. I want it to deliver so hard. I'm quite worried about what we've seen so far though, as it seems to be heading down the tragic road of Warrior Within. I don't want to play an RPG with a tone like WW, nor do I want that sort of bad-ass attitude to pervade the product, but my hopes are significantly lower now than they were when we knew nothing about the game.
 
Also: Grunt <<<<<<<<< Wrex

Back for the third installment in our continuing series I bring you today's Daily Camera headline. Keep in mind today's date.
 

In addition to the great cover story about BRACELETS, I love the secondary headline "College Republicans mark 9/11". Because you know, those dirty democrats aren't going to acknowledge it.
 
I do actually recommend the full story, as it's pretty funny.

Epic

  It's a common word in videogame circles. Whether it's: "That was a fukkin epic boss battle", or "Bioware is looking to tell an epic story of good vs evil in Dragon Age: Origins", or any of the other myriad of uses, it's clearly a powerful term in the industry. Hell, there's even a company named after it. Unfortunately, it seems epic as a buzzword has gained a little too much cache nowadays, especially in regards to storytelling. Developers have no restraint to their ambitions-- whole franchises are created around a game before it even launches. Comic book tie-ins, animated movies, online ARGs, it goes on. All because the developer wants to whet your appetite for the "epic" story their game will allegedly tell (They also enjoy your cash monies). You have things as ludicrous as Bioware announcing the entire Mass Effect Trilogy at once. Developers feel obligated to tell a huge epic story, almost as a way of justifying themselves to gamers. Only problem?
 
They're not very good at it, and we have too many of them. Very few people can pull off a Star Wars or a Lord of the Rings. Those things are great when they're done right: fresh, grand, and entertaining. However, if it's not done just right, your story feels flat and boring.
 
There's nothing inherently wrong with an epic story, don't get me wrong. It's just not the only kind of story you can tell, something the videogame industry seems to have forgotten. Novels, movies, TV shows, plays, and all other forms of popular media vary wildly in theme, tone, scope, and focus. Games are a much narrower spectrum. Partially this is due to having to construct gameplay around your story-- the videogame equivalent of a romantic comedy is a long ways off, because no one has figured out how to make that fun to play. However, gameplay can't be entirely blamed for the death of unique and creative stories in games. There's plenty that can be done with the existing tools that simply isn't done.
 
One of my favorite games in recent memory, Hotel Dusk: Room 215, takes place entirely within a two-floor hotel, dealing with a very small cast of characters. The story isn't very epic, and it's told very conservatively- no sweeping orchestral score, there's no voice acting, and the character portraits are only lightly animated (they are nicely stylized though). Hotel Dusk succeeds because it went for a smaller, more contained story as opposed to what seems to be the status quo nowadays of epic, galaxy changing chronologies. It builds an interesting and layered cast of characters, puts a gameplay mechanic around them, and simply tells a small, personal story about this hotel in a satisfying way. It's fantastic. I wouldn't trade Hotel Dusk for twenty Halo's.
 
Small stories are great. Often, I find them more enjoyable than the sweeping epics. Mad Men, a show I've been making my way through recently, is about 60's advertising executives. Sounds boring as hell at first glance, but it's actually really very interesting in terms of characters and as a period piece. There's nothing (or very, very little) equivalent in videogames. When people lament the lack of creativity in videogame stories, they want more diversity, not more scale. Developers become caught up in the idea of players only liking epic stories (because that's what sells, or that's what metacritic says, or whatever their rationale), and then they become convinced they have to make an epic story themselves. If their game succeeds, the cycle perpetuates.
 
The problem is that companies see story in games as a binary choice: little to no story, or a grand epic. "Epic or bust". Really, this is a losing deal for both us and them. As gamers we get very little diversity, and a ton of poorly-told epics. For developers, they have to put much more money and effort into their stories by hiring big-name writers and having to script cinematics, and then risk the game failing and not recouping investment. Smaller scale means more profit, as long as you can attract much of the same audience. It also allows for a tighter, more focused experience, and possibly a higher level of quality.
 
While epic or bust is indeed still the prevailing attitude in the industry, there is some hope. Bungie actually, who were on the forefront of this movement with the Halo trilogy, looks to be setting an interesting example with Halo 3: ODST. Built off of the existing Halo 3 engine by a small team, ODST looks to cut back on the grand space opera and focus instead on a more human experience. As The Rookie, your only objective is to find out what happened to your squadmates while you were knocked out. Bungie has described the game as a film-noirish tale with smaller stakes than previous games. That's fantastic to hear, a big studio doing a smaller story-- of course, Bungie is also doing Halo: Reach, which looks to be seven kinds of epic, so they're clearly hedging their bets. Still though, it's an encouraging example in a market filled with far too little of little stories.
 
If videogames ever want to be taken seriously as a method for storytelling, they will need to diversify. This obsession with "epic" is a juvenile phase that will need to pass. Obviously, there are hurdles associated with changing the status quo, but nothing good comes without effort. Braid last year was a great example of a successful story that felt no need to be epic, or even easily approachable. Unfortunately though, such games are few and far between. Chances are, if a game's had much effort at all put into story, the developer is shooting for an epic. And put quite simply: there's more to storytelling than being epic. And games need to understand that.