LA NOIRE IS BREAKING MY BALLS

Everyone else is saving this topic for last, but it’s not what I actually want to talk about, so fuck it. Yes, I’m really enjoying LA Noire. I’ve just reached the Vice desk and completed my first case there.   I’ve also learned recently while playing that the names of the four desks are not spoilers, as you can actually see them in your notebook from the start of the game.

I don’t say it’s breaking my balls because of the actual game. Rather, it’s making it scary to discuss video games on the Internet right now. I’m afraid of entering any thread in fear of seeing something I’m not supposed to see. It took five hours of gameplay before I willed myself to read Brad’s review. Now I’ve got multiple people on my feed discussing their thoughts on the game, but with the exception of “Initial Impressions”, I know there’s a good chance I’m going to get some serious spoilers, which would be really, really disappointing,

I will probably post a thoughtful, spoiler-y review in the coming days, with the intention and full disclosure of it being a spoiler-y review because people should just play it anyways.

HAVING YOUR MOBILE CAKE AND EATING IT TOO

So, for those who haven’t noticed, I’ve been thinking about IOS games a lot; in fact, I’ve written two reviews already about them, and I’ve got a few more in mind for the weeks to come. But I’ve also gotten to have a lot of good discussion about the state of portable gaming as a result, and I feel like there are still people looking at things from a conflicted mindset.

I’ve observed that the press is starting to turn on standard portable gaming devices such as the 3DS and the NGP. Providing console-like experiences on a portable doesn’t seem desirable anymore; as has been said multiple times on the Bombcast in reference to games such as Uncharted NGP, “I’d rather be playing it on a home console.” In response, the press often then brings up the growth of gaming on IOS and Droid devices growing faster and faster.

However, the press and consumers alike both seem to regard actual games on those devices with a bit of incredulity. When I bring up mobile games on my podcast, Nerf’d (which I’ll be talking about in a bit,) my co-host always reacts with a hint of vitriol for my iPhone. The same goes for most consumers; they don’t want to consider mobile gaming as a serious venue for games.

And yet, here we are as a community, dissing the 3DS and NGP for being too little too late, not having software that embraces portability, not having software people would want to play all the same, and being another device that nobody wants to carry. I know it’s scary, everyone, but Nintendo doesn’t have to be the only company we respect for portable gaming anymore.

NERF’D 2: LIVE AND RELOADED

So, hey, in case you didn’t know, I run a podcast called Nerf’d and have been doing so since the end of January. However, my co-host Jake (GiantBomb username commisar123) and I are now finally back living near each other again and are planning to room together next year at college, so we’ll be recording all our episodes in a live format from now on. As a result, we’ve decided to refer to all episodes before this point as “Season 1,” and any from here to the rest of the year as “Season 2.” I’m so sorry this week’s episode is three hours long; I blame it on figuring out logistics of recording from home, and also on having two guests.

I’ve learned a lot about editing and hosting over the last few months of recording a podcast, and learned a lot about myself as a gamer. For one, I’ve learned how to temper myself when I don’t like a game other people are enjoying. I’ve also learned how angry I can get if I really let myself get worked up over things that bother me about a game, and while it might be entertaining, it’s not a good life strategy. I also expected getting onto iTunes to be a more difficult process after the initial rejection of the NDX, but it happened very easily for us.

Though we haven’t paid for tracking services on our podcast host (Hipcast), we receive a graph showing that we get a little over a hundred downloads per day and have been for about two months now. We definitely hit a dip the day the world found out we didn’t like Portal 2, but we seem to have bounced back since then.

Before I wrap up talking about this, I’d like to state how vital it is to be free when you talk about games. If you don’t like a game people like, be free to say so, and just be understanding of the other side, and the same goes the other way around. Rarely is there zero logical argument for why someone dislikes a game, and even if there is zero logical argument, then it’s the inescapables that make someone not like it. But not talking at all will be what makes you give up on video games when you’re “too busy and stressed out to have a hobby” in the future.

ADIÓS, MUCHACHOS

That’s gonna do it for this week’s blog. As I said, I’d like to write about LA Noire by the end of this week, but I’m hoping I’ll also have played more Terraria by the end of the week so I can write about that. If I finish Noire this week, I’ll probably also start up Outland, and I may follow up my other IOS reviews with a third this week; Angry Birds or Unpleasant Horse.

PSN IS BACK ONLINE AND I'M NOT SURE HOW TO FEEL ABOUT IT

             Back in December, my friend Jake (GB username commisar123) and I decided to host a Game of the Year podcast. We played nearly every meaningful game released in 2010, blasting through an army of games, and we finally came to the deliberations in January.

            Unfortunately, the audio quality on the recording was unbelievably bad. Something was wrong with our connection, and almost a half an hour of the recording was completely dropped, while the rest of the show had terrible voice quality for me. At four and a half hours, we decided that we could probably just tell you Mass Effect 2 was our Game of the Year, with Deadly Premonition as our runner-up.

            But the initial recording showed us a lot about how we talk about games, and we decided to soldier on. For four weeks now, Jake and I have been recording and uploading episodes of Nerf’d, our new gaming podcast. About a week ago, Jake confirmed that our podcast was accepted by iTunes, and all four episodes are currently available there.

            I’m not asking you to listen to all four episodes, or any, for that matter. There are episode descriptions on every episode, so it hopefully shouldn’t be too hard to find an episode that remotely interests you. Mostly, I’m advertising our presence; even if you don’t listen to podcasts, I wanted everybody to know that we’re around. For anyone who does end up listening, you can email us at nerfdcast@yahoo.com and we’ll read any emails that promote discussion on the air.

            If you don’t feel like listening to us on iTunes, then you can find us at http://nerfd.hipcast.com/rss/nerfd.xml and subscribe to our RSS feed. However, given the choice, I’d prefer you listen on iTunes; the versions they’ve ended up publishing seem slightly better mixed, and (of course) we don’t actually trend higher for RSS feed subscriptions.

         Hopefully, you’ll find something you’ll enjoy on here, and if not, maybe send us an email letting us know what you would enjoy. We’re also on the hunt for something unique, so if there’s something the gaming community at large doesn’t offer that you’re looking for, please send it to us and we’ll see if we can find a way to make that happen. We look forward to hearing from you.

Earlier this week, an article about a study run by the NIH surfaced on GameSpot saying that violent images reduce "reactions" to violent imagery in teenagers. The title of the article was a bit misleading to me (I believed it meant "emotional responses" in regards to ALL social interaction,) but it garnered a lot of attention on the site and raises some interesting points. For that full article, check it out here.

Violent images 'blunt' emotional responses in teens

NOTE: THIS ARTICLE WILL CONTAIN DESCRIPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AND IS NOT INTENDED FOR THE SQUEAMISH. HOWEVER, ALL VIOLENCE DESCRIBED IS PURELY PRESENT FOR EDUCATIONAL OR ELABORATIVE PURPOSES.

Oh my goodness, who turned off safesearch on my computer? DO NOT type "teens playing violent video games" into Google images. Unless you're into that sort of thing, of course.

Now, there are three issues I'd like to raise with this test.

1) No "extremely" violent images were displayed.

2) No context was given for the violent imagery other than that it was "real."

3) The study was actually about violent media in general, not just video games.

Now, there's a whole lot to say about each of these issues, so let's take them all one at a time.

1) No "extremely" violent images were displayed.

Unfortunately, violence is not rated upon a scale. While violence is measurable to other violence (say, a broken nose versus being drawn and quartered,) it's not as if one act of violence can be rated, say, a 7.5 out of 10.They had previously defined "extremely violent" movies as including "I Know What You Did Last Summer", "Scream II", and "Die Hard." Only one section of Die Hard bothers me, really, and it's not one where violence is commited; it's one where John McClane's trying to recover.

Violence is HIGHLY subjective to begin with and reactions to violence are part of the individual psychosis. For example, I find it far more violent to be stabbed than one of my friends, who would argue that the most violent act you could do to her is pluck her eyes out. As a result, I don't respond well to people holding knives, while she doesn't respond well to anyone putting anything near her face. The latter doesn't bother me at all, however. This is an example of the subjectiveness of violence, and what images are considered extreme to what people.

This image from The Ring may be extremely grotesque and bothersome to many people, but I found nothing in the film to be violently disturbing.

Because of the number of violent images within the test (114, each about four seconds long), it is really unnecessary (and would be in bad taste) to list all of the images they showed during the test. However, they did include a few examples, including "Street brawls, fist fights, and stadium violence" (see 'Stimuli' in the full text of the experiment.) To me, this would be bothersome in real life, but I don't thing anyone is bothered by seeing a fist fight on television. It's unfortunate, of course, but unless there's something more behind it, it's really nothing very disturbing. Which brings me to my next point.

2) No context was given for the violent imagery other than that it was "real."

Violence, in and of itself, is not that disturbing. When the driving emotional force behind an act of violence is not given, it makes a statement about human nature, but not one that is otherworldly; animals, of course, commit acts of violence regularly out of dominance, survival instinct, and instinctive distaste for each other. However, an act of violence with meaning behind it can give us a lot more. Violence stemming from racism can be as minor as a rubber ball being thrown at someone; any act of racist violence (or even verbal racist violence) incites a large emotional response out of people, as does violence from war, from discrimination, from lust, and from profit.

Without any context, this image of impending violence (taken from "The Wall") loses a lot of its power. (Though observant onlookers can find some context within the image itself, I figure.)

I would even go so far to say that "real" violent imagery without any context, or violent images that occur out of drunken anger, are less real to me than some of the violence that does occur in video games. For example, the terrorist level in "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" was very real to me; it pulled me out a bit once I realized the terrorists I was pretending to have joined wouldn't turn on me if I didn't fire upon civilians, but up until that point, the emotional context was there, and as it was for many players, it was jarring and effective. The Metal Gear Solid series puts profit and jealousy out at the forefront of violence, making the battles between characters emotionally gripping. They give context to violence that makes it more than just anger.

Context is what gives violence its power; without context, you might as well be watching the UFC. Of course, violence, even without personal emotions, can be very real as well. While an image of random people fighting over which team they support is disappointing, a scene like the opening of "Saving Private Ryan" is instantly effective. War films have an instantly recognizable representation; wars are fought over disagreements in beliefs, profit, and paranoia. This scene, in particular, uses extreme violence and our instant emotional with the "good guys" of World War II to set up an emotionally powerful scene of Hollywood violence, garnering a reaction that even much real violence does not elicit. This scene also uses our emotional connection with the good guys to make us feel a betrayal near the end of this scene, where two soldiers kill Germans who have surrendered after taunting them. Speaking of movies…

3) The study was about violent media in general, not just video games.

What the hell? Wait, but the article said…

" We conclude that aggressive media activates an emotion–attention network that has the capability to blunt emotional responses through reduced attention with repeated viewing of aggressive media contents, which may restrict the linking of the consequences of aggression with an emotional response, and therefore potentially promotes aggressive attitudes and behavior." – Abstract, " Fronto-parietal regulation of media violence exposure in adolescents: a multi-method study"

GameSpot…why are we egging this behavior on? No, really, this needs to stop. How do you think we wind up with lawyers like Jack Thompson in the first place?

"It's the video games, I tells ya!"

This study really isn't even our fight to begin with; it's an extension of multiple studies taken over the last ten years that have indicated consequences (or not) of increased exposure to violent media. If we choose to make every statement about violent media about video games instead, this is NOT going to help win over those against violent video games (such as the Australian C. Board, sorry I can't include the full name) or support gaming against those legislators who would censor it.

If gaming is going to become an art form and be accepted in the public eye, we need to stop egging on studies that tell us we're emotionless killing machines who celebrate a medium of no artistic merit. I understand GameSpot's duty as journalists is to report and not necessarily to be active in the defense of games, but I still don't understand why we would willingly take all the blame for the fight against violent media.

The study still makes an interesting point, however; video games are still a form of media, and apparently exposure to violent media dulls our responses to some of the world's real violence. As I said above, I'm not so sure this is an inherently bad thing. Older cultures such as the Sumerians, the Spartans, the Persians, the Romans, and so on have carried much more violence in their political systems than we do today to the level of public executions (then much more violent than today), and society hasn't been lost yet. I understand the fear behind this study, however; overexposure to violence in the media could, hypothetically, desensitize us to real-world violence of a more significant kind.

But I believe so long as violent media gives us context behind the violence and saves the extreme violence for truly powerful moments, there's nothing to fear, and senseless violence will eventually fade out of the artistic medium, having lost much of its power.

For some reason, fellow Gamespotter GabuEx always seems to inspire a response in me with his blog posts. And by "a response," I mean that I really intend to have the normal-sized comment in the box below, and wind up with over double the length allotted, causing me to make a full blog post of my own. Honestly, if the man had a podcast, I'd probably dissect every episode '^.^ 
 
If you're not a GameSpot member and haven't seen his posts (he's in the Soapbox over there all the time,) you can check out the link to his most recent article, "The moon is disappointing when we expect the stars." http://www.gamespot.com/users/GabuEx/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25871937 
 

Most of the time, as a game is being announced, I collect as much information about it as possible. In this way, I can formulate an idea for what I might expect the game to be like (very general, not what I'd WANT it to be but what it will be based on similar previous titles) and plan my purchasing dollar. I mean, when thirty great games come out in a year, and five or more of them support brand-new peripherals such as Dance Central's Kinect, the upcoming Zelda's requirement of WiiMotion Plus, or Rock Band 3's keyboard, there's only so many games you can purchase per year. When I heard about Medal of Honor, I found out what I could around its announcement, and I then knew that I didn't need another modern action-shooter like the Call of Duty games.

However, once a game is approaching release (such as a game I highly anticipate, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood,) I completely stop looking up previews, gameplay videos, and developer commentaries. At that point, I'm just looking forward to the game. Once I have an idea as to whether or not I want to purchase a game, I ignore the press; I don't need their help at a certain point. Reviews really don't decide my predetermined purchases, either; even if Guitar Hero Metallica gets a 7.5, I'm still picking it up.

Of course, there is one case where game reviews do affect my purchases; if the game is WELL under expectations (such as Dante's Inferno, Lost Planet 2 or even Final Fantasy XIV) I'm probably going to change my mind. Even the scathing reviews of Metroid: Other M haven't changed my mind about the game; I played a demo of the game at Chicago Comic-Con in August, roughly the first hour of the game, and the game was fun. If the cutscenes do become more scarce and shorter as the game goes on (as I've heard from a few critics,) I'd even go so far as to say the critics have set up their expectations in a way very similar to the one you've described above. I personally saw ahead of time that many people would find the controls wonky and I knew the story would be horrendous (mostly because after having played four different Team Ninja games, the voice acting and writing have not gotten any better), but even I was pleasantly surprised to find that the controls weren't as bad as I had expected.

In this light, there's a reason I'm not looking up any press releases for Portal 2 or BioShock Infinite. Honestly, I wish I'd never found out that Portal 2 even had co-op; however, that article was on the front page of GiantBomb, so what can you do? I'm intending to buy those games simply because of what they are; sequels to the greatest games of the last few years by the people who created the originals. 

Anyways, as with any form of art, you should approach games with a clean slate; evaluate the media on its own merit, not on what you've heard others say about it. Decide for yourself what parts work and what parts don't; perhaps some mechanics hold up and others don't. That way, you'll not only find that you have a more unique set of taste, but you'll also find that you might be able to challenge the critics as to what is "the best" or "the worst."

On Saturday evening, my real-life friend firelordozaie (in case you've seen his screenname around) declared me a total gaming puss. This is in response to the fact that I'm still only on mission 14 of normal mode for Fire Emblem (Blazing Sword), I haven't beat Fallout 3, Alan Wake, Fable II, a single Mario & Luigi RPG, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Halo 3 ODST, a single game I've ever owned for the Wii, Kingdom Hearts, Okami, and the list goes on and on. 
 
So he's holding me to a new rule; I need to either A-) Beat a game a week or B-) Advance at least one mission in Fire Emblem. In the case of B-), that means if I decide at any point to start the game over, "advancing a mission" means getting to the next farthest mission I've hit. So, for example, if I was to start over at mission 14 because I needed to relevel my characters (not gonna happen) I would need to get to mission 15 in order to meet the creed. 
 
I'm thinking of starting with Fallout 3, Alan Wake, or Fable II. Any suggestions based on what I had written above?

In case you've missed the article on the front page of many websites, gaming didn't sell very well in April 2010. In fact, it apparently "tumbled 26 percent" from last year's April sales, leaving game analysts to call it a fluke. Onlookers have noted a few major sources of the problem. The first that must be noted is that, in reality, of the platform-sellers, only Nintendo has "tumbled"; comparing year-to-year statistics, both Sony and Microsoft increased in their profit margins for the month of April. However, Nintendo is carrying such a large portion of the market share that this can be overlooked slightly.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1323823420100513

The second reason many people have given for weak sales in April is the lack of titles for purchase. Certainly, there have been far more triple-A titles per month in the first quarter of the year; in a quarter where the "slow" month contains BioShock 2, the underwhelming-yet-hyped Dante's Inferno, and Heavy Rain, it may seem to be a "slow" month where the only major title is Splinter Cell: Conviction, especially considering the fact that Splinter Cell is exclusive to the Xbox 360. But last year, in April 2009, the largest-scale release was probably Guitar Hero: Metallica, with NO triple-A titles standing out. In fact, the most apparently well-received new title of the month was Rhythm Heaven, a game when, compared to Splinter Cell, received no hype and was a sleeper hit. This reason, therefore, seems invalid because comparing the two years reveals neither had strong releases in that month.

You know you bought this, clearly. :roll:

A third, more potent reason, however, is the reasoning of consumer fatigue. After a marathon of triple-A releases in Q1, gamers are settling down to finally play all their new games. They've picked up Mass Effect 2, Final Fantasy XIII, God of War III, Bayonetta, DarkSiders, and many other titles, and they don't have a desire to go buy even more games. This reason, while hard to measure without taking a large-scale survey, is sensible. This is the first year in the current generation that we've seen a massive Q1 release schedule, and so after a super-powered Q1 and the (as usual) strong Q4, consumers are likely to not really WANT to go buy more video games and just play the ones they have. This consumer fatigue is liable to last through the summer, as outdoor activities are appealing in this warmer season, game releases usually run dry in the summer, and everyone who wants to play video games probably already has a wealth of them that they haven't finished thanks to the two-quarter gauntlet.

You done with us yet? Yeah, we thought not.

Don't be surprised if May is low as well. Only a few major titles this May (with Super Mario Galaxy 2, Red Dead Redemption, and perhaps ModNation Racers being the only titles to live up to their original hype; Alan Wake turned out slightly underwhelming for all the press it got, and Lost Planet 2 unfortunately was a stinker) and a lot of bad gaming press (the negative reactions to the Activision-Bungie agreement, EA's horrid one-time-activation online announcement, and, of course, this) will lead to a lack of consumer confidence and, frankly, desire to play. All three successful major titles will be released in the last week of the month, and the Halo Reach Beta is probably the most popular new title of the month, and it's completely free for anyone who's playing it.

A bunch of you were probably playing this all month.

Yeah, all that definitely doesn't sound like an encouraging sales report for May.We'll have some decent games to look back on (Mario, Red Dead, ModNation, 3D Dot Heroes and Alan Wake come to mind), but the industry probably won't see any sales for those titles until at least next month (if ever for 3D Dot or Alan Wake.)

Something tells me this will slip under the radar.

June likely will be a bit better because it'll be the month most people actually get their hands on Red Dead Redemption, Super Mario Galaxy 2, and ModNation Racers, and it'll also feature Green Day: Rock Band (possibly one of the last marketable music games) and Toy Story 3, a licensed game that will probably sell pretty well regardless of quality. There's also potential sales for Obsidian's new title, Alpha Protocol, as well as Naughty Bear, but like Alan Wake and 3D Dot Heroes, I see them slipping mostly under the radar until the holiday season.

I bought Pokémon Heart Gold the day after it came out, and I've logged under 4 hours on it. I have yet to play my copy of Arkham Asylum, and there's an army of great games I haven't finished.
 
Meanwhile, I must've logged twenty in Solitaire XL on my computer.  I think it's a casual gaming addiction, and I want to break it. 
Help?

Last night, I was looking for something to play, and so I started a file on Knights of the Old Republic. I've played some of the game before, but never finished it, and Taris is a joy every time through, so I decided to give it another shot. 
 
When I played previously, I was a scoundrel, but this time I went with a soldier named Thresh Karr (epic random name generator FTW). Taris is very difficult for a scoundrel character, but later in the game, it pays off pretty well. Oh well, doesn't really matter. I made a backstory for my character just so I would have some grounding for the roleplaying decisions (he joined the war effort to defend the Republic, and so his alignment mostly follows what he thinks is best to protect it) and set on my way. 
 
KOTOR is definitely not a Star Wars game; it's a BioWare game wearing a Star Wars hoodie. That's not a bad thing, of course; BioWare games tend towards excellence (excluding the middling Mass Effect and the awful Jade Empire) and Star Wars has a lucky system for morality. Helping people=Light Side, hurting others to help yourself=Dark Side is usually not enough to determine morality, but because of the way the Force works, it's a decent system. 
 
Of course, the game really starts once you get off Taris and become a Jedi, so maybe it'll feel more Star Wars-y when I leave this planet. Everything certainly looks like Star Wars and sounds like Star Wars, but it doesn't evoke the same feelings in the player. Any fans of the original movies will know what I'm talking about, and I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I don't think a game will really EVER be able to capture what Star Wars was really about. Hell, Lucas couldn't even capture it himself fifteen years after Return of the Jedi. 
 
So far, I've fought a good deal in the dueling ring (I'm on Marl now,) and my character is not exactly a fan of Davik. Also, I'm wondering why I never played Pazaak when I played before; that game is freaking addictive, and is an excellent diversion when you feel like a short break from the main game or need some more credits. I'm obviously specced out for melee combat, and I'm going with being a duelist rather than dual-wielding. Right now, I'm set to either go find the Hidden Beks, try to get into the Undercity or go finish exploring the Lower City, in whatever order makes the most sense. I can't remember this section that well, so it'll be fun to see what's in store for me. That said, I'm dreading the Undercity; Rakghouls are NOT something I find entertaining to fight. 
 
Also, whenever I get Mission, she's going into my party just because I need a scoundrel. Maybe when I get T3-M4, he'll replace her, but for now, three soldiers just isn't cutting it. However, so far, I haven't seen anything I wasn't able to get because I needed skills, so hopefully that shifts a little bit before I get Mission because otherwise, the Scoundrel is just a mistake of a class.

 This is a repost from a thread earlier today: I just thought I wrote a particularly adamant response, and so I decided to post it as a blog. I read the quote in the italics, and it just set me off for some reason.
 

             " Gamestop is a cancer to the brick and mortar game business. How can you defend against downloadable games when you have Gamestop being the posterboy for the physical game industry? "

Now, even though this first sentence is a bit harsh, I still see physical copies as an absolute necessity. Why? 

Because without physical copies of games, there's no way to protect against hard-drive errors, you can't lend games to friends, no option for rental, and no resale ability.This would not only negatively affect consumer decisions, but also game designs.

Imagine a world where we can't rent and we can't resell our games. We'd have all made the mistake of buying Brütal Legend, especially considering the lie that was the demo. Providing a good demo will become more important in a game's debut than even  good marketing and press.

Now, this wouldn't be quite SO bad if you could then easily lend games to friends, but that wouldn't be an option either. There's no way I can buy all the games that are coming out this year. Heck, in the first quarter of this year alone, I'd like to spend upwards of $400 on games alone, and that's disregarding the games I missed last year. So instead, I plan to borrow games from my friends and we'll all collectively pick up the majority of the quality titles this first quarter, and rent the ones that aren't high priorities to us.But if lending comes down to giving someone your entire hard drive (and, effectively, your ability to play,) then I'd be stuck never playing Bayonetta or many of the other good games that are starting to come out at an increasing rate.

Meanwhile, electronic memory in general still isn't something I trust enough to make important purchases to. Computers crash, downloads fail, Xbox Live forgets that you downloaded a map pack...these are all problems that I've experienced. Worst of all has to be my current issue with most of my downloaded tracks on Rock Band 2: nothing works unless it was released for download in 2009. Other tracks I've downloaded in that year don't work, and the reason is completely unbeknownst to me. Switching the disc for a Rock Band 1 disc hasn't solved the problem, however, and I've tried re-downloading the tracks and that didn't work, so it appears to be a hard drive issue, further complicating the "downloadable games" issue.

But the biggest problem with downloadable titles is the inability to garner a refund, or at least SOME compensation being returned to you. The nice thing about reselling games at a place like GameStop (although everywhere else in the country seems to have the worst GameStop and EB employees I could imagine; my area has great clerks all the time who seem not only knowledgeable about but actually interested in games,) is that if a game runs dry quickly, you'll even get more value based on how recently the game was released. Resale value makes taking risks more profitable for gamers, as does a used game's price; eventually, nobody will take a risk on a game like Demon's Souls or Psychonauts. Meanwhile, I'd be furious if I had downloaded Scribblenauts to my DS and couldn't get my money back for it in some way.Hell, I'd be miffed if I couldn't sell Assassin's Creed II eventually, and that was my pick for Game of the Year; but there's simply a point where there's no more content in it.

This problem of an eventual "wall" of content would lead to some foolish game design choices. Game designers would look for ways to give their game infinite replay value due to cost of simply letting their game "end", or extend their game far beyond its intended length in order to meet these needs. Remember the completely unnecessary version of multiplayer in Star Wars: Republic Commando? The unnecessary addition of deathmatch, capture the flag and landgrab modes to many, many games waters down the experience overall, but would likely become a staple as opposed to genuinely well-made multiplayer experiences. Meanwhile, linearity would decline due to the need for replayability, leading (at least in the short run) to more morality sliders (Fable), arbitrary "game-changing" decisions (BioShock), and multiple-play-through achievements (Eternal Sonata, inFamous, Mass Effect).

The only things that seem to be controversial in my post just by looking at are the trustworthiness of technology (maybe I've just had a bad run, but I promise you it's all 100% true), the quality of service at retail localities, and the price point on games (weekly deals could probably help with this, but not enough for there to not be at least some backlash in risk-taking IMO), but let me know if I've completely misjudged something else about the gaming community.