Just finished Assassin's Creed Revelations just a mere 20 minutes ago and as always that franchise is king in the area of "let's leave it on a cliffhanger". And it reminded me yet again of why I love that franchise, because I tend to forget that when one of the main reasons for this blog happens. So the game ended up on the back burner for a little while, mostly due to Battlefield 3 multiplayer and Skyrim. I am not entirely sure why but this time around I didn't click with the game right away and at a certain point right before the mentioned games took over I was overlooking the map of Constantine and I made a sigh of disbelief at how much crap was on that map. There were the main mission, Sofia mission, master assassin missions, contested dens, animus fragments, shops, etc. etc. If I zoomed out, I couldn't even see the city anymore. Got back in today and made a plan how to tackle this thing and made it through the game and focused on story (main, sofia, master assassin, animus fragments for Desmond's side stuff) and Ishak Pasha's memoir. Contested dens (read; Tower Defense) felt like a waste of time and I wasn't going to go crazy buying all the shops either. I realized that I was tired of micro/macro the Assassin's Creed world. But with further thinking, I've never liked too much crap in my open world games.

It was part of the reason I liked Mafia 2. I don't need an open world to be filled with crap just to "justify" the fact that they made a city, as long as the city is taken advantage of within the story, that's really all I need. And if they must put more things in there, make it things worth my time. Such as the Ishak Pasha memoir. All parts of that was good; small amount of stuff to collect, something new to see and a nice reward.

I can appreciate the idea behind the dens, and the master assassins babysitting them. But just as in San Andreas, I hated the gang warfare. Because I don't want to constantly have to interrupt enjoying the game just so I have to fight back the game itself. That's why I feel some open world games tend to get bloated in order to renew themselves. Instead of just practicing "less is more" and attributed some quality to that "less".

So, for future reference; make quality experiences and make everything you do in the game worth your time. If I wanted fetch quests with little to no payoff, I would play an MMO, there needs to be a balance between effort and reward. And when it comes to collecting things; same as before, less is better than more. And make it more worth the effort to find and collect those things. Otherwise, what's the point?

Alright, got that off my chest. Now on to something completely different.

Why does sports games these days have arbitrary limitations on what stats you can put on your created players? I remember when you could max out your dude and rule the game. What is gained from limiting my options? And before you say "how about online play?" let me just say this; in one of those Smackdown Vs Raw games you couldn't take your character online if you put on a custom tattoo. You could implement a similar system for other sports games as well. Have that arbitrary limiting number factor in, and let the player know when he's about to cross that line. And if he does, that character can't be used online.

But when it comes to me sitting by myself playing against the CPU, what does it matter? I'm only "ruining" my own enjoyment at that point, right? So why can't I be allowed to make a super human MMA figher with 99 in everything? More so than that though is the underlying question; when did limiting player options ever amount to more enjoyment?

Another year down the drain and out into the abyss of lost dreams and shattered plans. But let's face facts here; 2011 was not all bad. It may go down in history as the year of the [insert concept] fatigue, but there was still a handful of really rewarding experiences, surprising outcomes and some major downers. But let's stop and get to the point, my personal top 6 of the year!

6. Portal 2

This might be the hardest pick of the list because below this is a sea of almost titles that could have, if done right, taken it away from Portal 2. But the more I think about it the more I realize how a well crafted package Portal 2 really was. Humor, story, puzzles, art style and a really robust co-op. Every puzzle in thegame wasa challenge of varying degrees but it was never impossible and it always felt rewarding when you finished it. The interactions and discoveries along the ride was very rewarding in filling up the story of the place called Aperture Science. It also boasts one of the most interesting and yet, personally, most terrifying endings I've ever seen.

5. Trine 2

I never did get around to actually playing the first Trine, so I can't make a value judgement based off of it's previous iteration. Based on it's own merits though, Trine 2 is a magical trip. The story is cookie cutter save the princess and kingdom sort of deal, but they do it with such a charm that it encapsulates the whole game with a warm fuzzy glow that makes playing the game almost cozy. I finished the entire game co-op with my brother and I can honestly say we haven't had that much fun playing co-op in a long time. Not only is the game fun, but the physics and puzzles sometimes make for some really funny moments when you're making life difficult for each other rather than helping out. But even when we're helping out it was a rewarding experience that was just plain fun. Then there's the matter of how goddamn gorgeous this game is, from art direction to graphics. The world is lush with details worth noting and I never stopped marveling at the game's visuals, it's just that pretty.

4. Saints Row: The Third

You should play Saint's Row, just so you can appreciate how far this franchise have come over the years. I reluctantly started playing the first Saint's Row for lack of a GTA when I bought my first 360. It was a good clone and I stand by that, it was a carbon copy that was not self aware enough to be funny and tried too hard to somehow be and beat GTA. Saint's Row 2 came around and you could see sprouts of new ideas that you couldn't necessarily trace towards GTA anymore. The humor and over the top nature had grown slightly passed even GTA: San Andreas, especially in the main story. Cue The Third, a game when Volition finally made the Saints their own product. They went so far into crazy that Saints Row: The Third almost can't be played in any serious way. But now they are truly self aware, so much so that it feels like The Third is both a celebration of video games and a middle finger towards games in general.

3. Battlefield 3

I loved Battlefield 2, but I haven't touched a Battlefield game since then either. I've been deep in the trenches of every Call of Duty game. What a breath of fresh air it is to finally experience these large battles again. The crazy events that can take place. But let's keep the multiplayer for a bit. The game had a single player that, while not the best thing since sliced bread, was a fun ride and had some really nice set pieces. It doesn't hurt the game that it can be quite visually awesome at times. The moment you step out onto the carrier in the rain walking up to your jet is just gorgeous. Explosions that feel like they have punch and sound design that just rivals just about everything. Multiplayer, again, is just really addictive and fun. The notion of leveling up classes and guns separately is a fun way to solve what used to be tedious one route to one gun approach. It has made me try out more weapons and combinations and really experimenting with classes. And even as someone who loves to snipe, it's nice to see some built in reasons to not camp and be more of a team player.

2. Deus Ex: Human Revolution

I'll be frank; Deus Ex: Human Revolution looked like garbage to me until I played it. Nothing I saw of it caught my fancy, the graphics looked too cell shaded, art design looked too much Metal Gear Solid (and I like MGS, it just felt like a ripoff at the time). But people kept talking it up so I eventually caved and figured why not just give it a shot. I might be wrong, and boy.. was I ever. The world is extremely well realized, and the various ways to read up on current events in that world gives it even more depth. The story is probably this years best for me because it had me reevaluating some of my core beliefs and further study the world of bioengineering and the future of human augmentation. Which is a concept and field of study that isn't as science fiction and one might think. On a philosophical level, Human Revolution truly challenged me to think about the world, the real world, more than any game this year. Most games have you pondering the actions and consequences of the in game reality.

But DE:HR gave me a reason to think outside the game world. What is transpiring in the world today and where do I stand in the midst of that development? What is the potential future for us humans and how far off are we from a technological point of self created evolution?

Game wise, DE:HR is a decent but not great first person shooter with some cover mechanics. What makes it interesting though is the myriad of ways you could finish any level and the leveling system making you pick a path to go down. Personally I was sneaking and hacking my way through the game, but I could very well see an argument for doing it the more action oriented way.

1. The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim

Yep, me too. I wasn't sure if I wanted to put it here. Because I experienced a rather breaking bug as I traversed the lands of Skyrim with my first character that have me completely locked out of the Companions quest line. Apparently, a sequence of the events may cause a person you're supposed to "rough up" in the "Hired Muscle" quest to die and never come back. The quest giver doesn't think twice about this and nothing else can be done. Unless you play the game on a PC and resurrect the character with commands. I am stuck never playing Companions with the character that fits doing that.

But maybe that's a price you could willingly pay to play a game that truly lets you go about it however you want.

I have played Morrowind and Oblivion prior to Skyrim and what Skyrim does better is making the options more obvious and easy to find. Going down the path of magic, sword and shield, bare knuckle brawling, archery, smithing, hunting, flirting, killing, exploring. It all feels totally viable. And it is interesting how novel such openness is. When you find a mine for the first time and you stand there going "I'm mining ore, which I will later melt down and turn into armor. This is fantastic!" I couldn't believe how free I was to do the things I wanted to do. Tackle my way through the story on my own terms.

It was not until I started my second play through on a magic character that it truly dawned on me how complex this game is. While I made a conscious decision not to walk the "beaten path", it was interesting to see how different the world of Skyrim looked from the eyes of a Female High Elf Mage as opposed to a Male Nord Warrior. They are completely different places. You get taken to other locations or see the same locations from other angles.

And I shouldn't hide the fact that the viking looking art design is like a dream come true for me personally.

It's also the first Elder Scrolls game where I actually got sucked up into the political intrigue of the land. I could just focus on the dragons, but the Imperials versus the Stormcloaks were just such an interesting avenue. And the amount of back story to find regarding that dispute was really quite something, especially when there really was no good guy. Just two different sides with two different viewpoints. And even some things I've experienced with this new character reveals new agendas or opinions of both sides that wasn't as obvious first time around.

It's just that good, bugs be damned.

Honorable Mentions

• Yakuza 4: Have not had time to finish it, but it's like watching an over the top Yakuza film and be able to be in the driving seat. It blends so many things into one pot that it's almost crazy. Most of all though, Yakuza has a really interesting story and I always felt it was under appreciated in that regard. But another thing I never felt it got recognition for was the facial animation and overall cut scene quality.

• LA Noire: This game ages really badly in my head, and I am not quite sure I was as impressed of the game as some were when it came out. I felt like I was doing more or less the same thing, rinse and repeat, and never quite really getting awarded for it. While it was an interesting new take on an open world game and the overarching story was interesting. The motivations of the actions of your own main character could have been handled better.

• Batman Arkham City: As other's have said; It's goddamn Batman. And the game is gorgeous. But it feels a little bit "more of the same" and I didn't think I would go stale on such a good take on Batman this quickly.

• Assassin's Creed Revelations: I don't know what it is, but I really love AC's story. Maybe it's like LOST and you want to know the answers to the questions even if they make it up as they go. ACR is "more of the same" but it's still awesome. Just not awesome enough.

• Dead Island: Co-op zombie killing is a blast. First person melee that has punch. Decent RPG mechanics. Just not show stopping game in general though.

• Bulletstorm / Gears of War 3: I don't care what happens to any of these characters, never had, and the end of GoW3 has a really questionable scene play out. And Bulletstorm is pretty much Gears in first person to some degree. Fun action in mindless packages.

• Mortal Kombat: The best Mortal Kombat since I was a kid.

Notable Absentees or "Games I didn't get around to"

• Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception
• Modern Warfare 3
• Forza Motorsport 4
• Dark Souls
• Catherine
• Dead Space 2
• Bastion

I couldn’t tell you when it all began, where it began or why. One could analyze a life and suspect that certain points in time had a particular effect on you. But whatever the case was that made it this way, the truth of the matter is still the same. For me, tragedy is the highest form of love. Happiness is fleeding, content is gray, breaking up is irrelevant. But tragedy, it’s bittersweet. The reason tragedy holds such a high note for me is because it’s generally always mixed in with a heroic sense of sacrifice. Maybe that’s it. There is more though, it’s not just a warrior fallen on the battlefield watching the valkyres come down and bring him to Valhalla, that’s just heroic. For tragedy, that warrior needs a wife that cries by his side as he passes on. Though in a sense, that’s still a fairly light hearted form of this love of mine.

In some way, I think we all love things we fear. It’s the very reason people like to watch horror films or play games such as Dead Space. We want to provoke a certain feeling from ourselves that we may or may not feel on a daily basis. Some numb their senses to the point where they have been so abused they no longer react to those things. It is why people, such as myself, can watch Serbian Film with a group of friends and gleefully see them cringe over things I don’t react to. I don’t feel what they do, I just see a movie and experience it rather objectively. On the other spectrum, there are things I don’t face on a daily basis which in turn makes me react to those things the way they react to prior mentioned film.

Love.

Love is a sensation that I have had mixed results with. Most of my experiences are bad, ranging from being left without real warning to being worn down in a relationships with posessive, jealous and insecure individuals. The fact is, I sort of fear love. Not only is it an emotion I’ve acted stupid under, but also an emotion that has caused me much anguish and retroactive annoyance at my own lack of self respect. Naturally, I sort of always enjoyed romantic movies. Which is in some ways weird to hear a man say. But it’s always been true. Not that it was something I was waving around, it was my own secret. There was something special about seeing two people really connect. A sensation I never truly experienced. I can’t quite connect with people on a deep level, because I always distance myself to keep from being hurt whether I want to or not. And without sounding too much like an asshole, most people bore me after a while. And their problems, are tiring to listen to. But I make an effort, at least with people close to me. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t have them there. And most of them know me well enough to accept a lot of my fallacies.

But what does that have to do with tragedy, love and.. video games?

There are plenty of ways, as I said before, people provoke their emotions. Experience things they may not always do. For me, romance that is coupled with tragedy always enhances the romantic part. Because if everyone is happy, I can’t fully relate. But I can relate to things that are damaged, dark and depressing. Tragedy in this aspect just means I’m experiencing love between two people, but something enter their lives and turn it up side down and brings about pain, misery and possibly death. Death. I don’t know if I have a morbid fascination with the idea of dying. As someone who don’t believe in an after life, death is pretty uneventful idea. But I think we all have an in-grown sense of wanting to be missed by someone. To have meant something to someone.

Alan, Wake up.

To bring this back to Old Gods of Asgaard, a fallen warrior is a heroic individual. But his loss is in some way counter balanced to his sacrifice as a hero. But in pure breed tragedy, there needs to be the sense that no one is gaining anything. It’s only really a painful loss for all parties involved. Playing through Alan Wake I found that it scratched that itch. Here we have a writer and his wife goinng on a vacation that turns surreal, but not before his wife is taken from him without remorse. And the entire game is spent trying to save her, yet in classic tragic ways, ignoring the well being of himself. Alan Wake had a lot of very interesting concepts and I wouldn’t hesitate to jump back into that world. And it’s interesting how well Remedy makes tragic games. Think back to the original Max Payne. Sure, we remember bullet time and flashy leather jacket and a big smirk. But what I remember the most was the killing of his family and how tourmented Max was throughout the game, to the point in which he’s following a blood pattern in nothingness to the soundtrack of a crying child. Alan and Max shares a lot of smiliarities, even down to dress code in some aspect. But what they do share the most is the loss of their loved ones by forces out of their control. One deals with psychadelic psycho drugs and the other exists in a surreal existance somewhere between reality and madness. But burn it down to it’s core and it’s simply only about the sadness and the fury in which we wallow in it.

Sorrow prophecy.

In a larger scope, tragedy and sacrifice has an appeal in the sense that if you’re acting heroic (like Max or Alan) due to tragic reasons, it always feels like it’s more honest than someone trying to uphold a sense of self righteous law. You’re working not to better something, but to make something right by the one you love. And putting it all backwards, I’ve always dreamt of being the person that sacrifice himself for his loved ones because I like to think I’m that type of person. The type that holds other people’s well being above my own. That may or may not be true, as I’ve come to realize I’m unattractively selfish. But perhaps just wanting to be something is more than enough to become something better than we already are?

Needless to say, my love for tragedy has many depths. And I am glad video games is giving me a chance to connect and experience certain emotions I’ll probably never experience in my daily life.

Closing comments.

I only mentioned Alan Wake and Max Payne here, but there are plenty of other games where tragedy strikes and death takes it toll on individuals in those games. But there are not many games that have that same love bond explained and relatable. And while in many games we lose friends and our allies dies at the hands of our enemies (goddamn you for killing Ghost, General Shepard), it’s a tragic moment that is of a different kind.

Maybe one day I’ll be laying on a hospital bed dying from something I ate and I can heroically look over at my then wife and tell her; ”Here’s looking at you, kid.” And I’ll make the moment seem like a million bucks until she asks what the hell I’m talking about and I’ll die frustrated that my wife doesn’t know about Casablanca. Probably also one of my favorite movies where the main character sacrifice his own needs for the greater good. Man, Humphrey Bogart was awesome.

But in the end, I think quoting the song The Poet and the Muse from Alan Wake is very descriptive;

”The poet came down to the lake to call out to his dear

When there was no answer he was overcome with fear

He searched in vain for his treasure lost and too soon the night would fall

Only his own echo would wail back at his call”

Community outreach.

So, I'm curious, on the topic of this, what is some of your gaming memories of loss/death or general tragedy?

Can video games portray love strong enough to be relatable such as in movies or is the game aspect of it too restrictive?

What are some other events of the human condition that you relate strongly to that may or may not be portrayed in video games today?

I could have called this blog "Why Red Dead Redemption is awesome: a retrospective." But consider that idea trashed. I could also talk endlessly about how much nostalgia I get from the first level theme from Gun.Smoke. But that's ridiculous. I do, however, want to ramble on about why I loath the west. Or, well, not specifically the cardinal direction but rather the time and place in American history that have been turned into movies, books, toys and.. fashion? Not to mention video games. Somehow though, the appeal of westerns have always eluded me. I never liked the brown dust colored setting, everyone looked dirty and on top of it all, it seemed everyone was overdressing in that desert heat. It's as if I get sweaty just watching them standing around in their cowboy outfits grinning in the sun. They probably had more ass strain than your average nerd too considering how much horse riding was involved. Or made to believed to have been involved. And then there was shooting with less than ideal firearms. Did I mention it always seem to take place in the desert or something like it? Did no one like water back then? I mean, even a little?

My father was a big fan of western movies though, though in retrospect, I am not sure if he was a fan of westerns or just Clint Eastwood in general. But he grew up when America was beginning to spread it's wings culturally around the globe. American cars were exotic and people collected cards with their favorite actors. That's not even getting into the fact that we have a subculture of greasers here that have survived since the 50s and are still active. And from what I just read, apparently there are more restored vintage 50s cars in Sweden than in the US. Which is pretty crazy considering the size difference. But perhaps I grew up in the generation that was no longer impressed by the passing of the US icons. I didn't find Clint Eastwood or cowboys interesting the way my dad did, and I know he played cowboys and indians when he was younger. And probably read some western themed books. But I grew up in a different world.

When I grew up, Sweden was in the middle of an identity crisis and some would argue we still are. We were bombarded with not only American television but also a new wave of immigration from cultures that were not as similar to our own than those previous (such as Germany and Finland). Suddenly, we had people from the Balkans here and they had a different way about them. At least, that's how it felt. I never related to them, nor they to me. Yet when I think about it, maybe I should relate more to Cowboys and Indians, a cultural gap between two sets of people.

But getting back on track, my issue with the western theme was never the cultural gap between two distinct groups of people (and why did no one play cowboys and chinese? or vikings against indians, that happened too) , but the overall sense of dread regarding existence in general. But more so than that, there was an intangible feeling whenever I saw a western that just creeped me out. Even old fun movies like My Name Is Nobody felt like that. Dirty miserable people somehow liking it. I didn't get it.

Recently though, something changed. Maybe the John Wayne cowboy finally died in the same way 80s action heroes no longer exists. Games such as Red Dead Redemption and movies such as The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Henry Ford and True Grit brought about something else. An introspective sense of purpose. They were not just dirty, they felt something and had opinions and feelings. I know, I'm totally butchering old western classics by indirectly implying they never had that, but I am not saying that. Because I never could get myself to watch enough westerns to find out, at least when I began consuming movies and games to know fully, but at a glance, I never got that impression.

So naturally, buying Red Dead Redemption when that came out was.. odd. And when I was playing it, I realized that what I had disliked about Western was superficial at best. But I used to be like that, I never watched M*A*S*H either because I hated the art direction of that show, or maybe it just looked "old" to my then young eyes. Whatever the case was, Red Dead Redemption had when I finished it, single handedly explained the appeal of the west. But more than the overall game, which was beautiful in many ways, it was the character of John Marston that really sealed the deal for me. The journey he goes through and the aspects of his persona that is shown throughout the game.

This blog is all over the place, trying to figure out what it is with western games or movies that don't generally sit right with me, but what I have come to realize is that given the right material, I think anything can rise above cultural differences and narrow viewpoints of how dirty a pair of jeans can be before it's time to change. But I digress. Maybe I just revisit the theme park here in Sweden called "High Chaparall", it's a western themed park that I haven't been to since I was a kid. Maybe I'm out of touch with the inner cowboy.

But come on, Gun.Smoke has some pretty awesome music, right?

PS. If you're a western aficionado and something in this blog offends your sensibilities, deal with it, I'm an amateur and your shoes are not tied properly.

I would like to add..

Should nothing of this make sense, either you're too stupid or I'm too tired and too buzzed from way too much caffeine and sugar. But probably not the latter, because I have a cup that says "It's hard to be humble when you're always right."

Also, anyone else feeling a bit pudgy? I think I've had too much food as of late. It makes it hard to justify eating unhealthy candy and snacks and copious amounts of energy drinks. I should cut down on food. Probably a wise decision. I'm already cutting back on water, so this should be amazing.

It is as though the norse gods are trying to drown me in mead. Or perhaps my dysfunctional brain just doesn't cope well with reality. I suppose the latter is a lot more likely, though the first one would imply I was in Valhalla drinking and having a good time, which doesn't sound all too bad. It has dawned on me that I have a lot of issues in regards to how I leisurely, yet manically, buy video games when they have just been released because they're new. Not necessarily because of some arbitrary (I like saying "arbitrary", makes it all sound so insultingly posh) idea of fulfilling a collection, not because I don't have other games already that I could play (and finish). But simply because they're new. And the further away from release, the less likely I will be to purchase said game. Again, not because it's a less attractive product by itself or anything remotely reasonable. It is as if the interest in the games have an expiration date.

If I don't get a certain game on release, I will eventually forget it in the swamp of other games I play. And when I eventually think about picking that game up I was obsessing over for a few days in October, I'll hesitate and ask myself if I think that game is actually worth the cash (ignoring the fact that it's cheaper now). The worst part about it all though is that I don't get caught up in hype anymore, I've seen too many things over the years. I don't get excited the way I used to (until I get a box in the mail and a free weekend, I suppose). So why the hell can't I just sit back and relax?

I'll tell you why; I don't have time to. Yakuza 4 isn't finished yet because (listen to this); I haven't found an evening when the mood was right. Yakuza is one of those games I have to get into the right setting to play. At the very least I need a couple of bottles of Japanese beer. To get into the setting, and all. You know, things normal people do when they want to play a game. Aside from my obvious aversion of regular brain patterns, I tend to waste too much time on multiplayer games, like Call of Duty and Starcraft II. For no benefit at all, really. I mean, who ever said Prestige was a bragging right? It just means you accomplished nothing more than once. Congratulations.

So, here we are in fall season. I've already pre-ordered Assassin's Creed: Revelations and Batman: Arkham City. And I find it pretty amusing how gullible I am that I even went as far as to pre-order the collector's edition of both of those (because who can deny the attractive nature of a Batman figurine on their book case standing there next to Ezio, Nosferatu [Editor's Note: Graf Orlok, to be exact] and the remote control car from Black Ops). And that's just the beginning. I still have to take into account which modern face shooter I'm going for, probably both even though that's stupid.

I'm not going to sit here and go through the list of games and give them alternate descriptions just for shits and giggles, but it's a long list of games and they will all cost me greatly. My significant other showed me how much it would cost me to buy all the games new with a judgmental look on her face. But she doesn't know, she likes baking and reading books. Still, I am trying to work against my better nature by listing all the games I want so they don't fall between the two halves of my brain when I possibly don't buy them day one. Rest assured, even if I do manage to cut some games, it will be an expensive fall for someone so incapable of acting responsibly and having some form of reasonable priorities. Who needs food anyway? Overrated.

Editor's note #2: Just ordered Deus Ex: Human Revolution today, should be interesting.

I'm getting increasingly tired of seeing the summary of an opinion on a game reduced to the same fucking sentence whenever a game is above being horrible. If the game is good it is always counter balanced by the simple, nondescript variation on "it has flaws". What is a flaw? Whenever I hear someone say they liked a game but it did have some flaws I am always curious about what exactly they define as a flaw. Because I was under the impression that a flaw implied specific things that actually hinder your enjoyment of the game, not something lacking that could make the game better.

To be more specific, I would define a flaw as a mechanic or otherwise that is literally broken. But perhaps that's too harsh of a standpoint on that usage of the word. But even so, I find the use lazy and never really defined by whoever is saying it. And it's such a lazy thing to throw out there, and perhaps some do it as a means not to sound like total fanboys of whatever game they might appreciate.

I recognize that there obviously can be games with flaws. However, if I were to say to someone that I enjoyed the hell out of [GAME A] and that the game did not have any flaws, most might argue with me and say it did. But my definition of flaw means there was something in the game disrupting my enjoyment and if there were no such things in that game to me, I can't honestly say the game had flaws.

Perhaps it's nitpicking people's way of expressing themselves but are games really flawed or are you just afraid to say you really like something? Because unless a game is perfect, obviously there is room for improvements, but room for improvements doesn't necessarily mean flaws.

I finally dragged my ass away from Starcraft II enough to start my adventure in Yakuza 4. And as I am savoring the flavor of the game by doing a ton of side-missions and general walkabouts in the city, I started thinking about Yakuza 3 and how similar they, thus far, seem to be. Location wise they've added rooftop access as well as some underground locations all in Kamurocho. And playing someone other than just Kiryu Kazuma is an interesting touch and gives a new perspective to consider, even though I have just been playing Shun Akiyama thusfar. Nevertheless, brutal fights and overly confident verbal exchanges still color an otherwise heartfelt story so far. And the more I am playing and feeling like this could just be Yakuza 3 but more of it, I started thinking about another franchise I am really enjoying, namely Assassin's Creed.

This seems to be the new trend growing as far as arguments over the multiplayer aspects of games. When Battlefield 3 was announced and later bled some information about itself in the internet I saw a really odd reaction. Namely that of the single player vs. multiplayer situation of that game. To me, who probably sat hunched over the computer for as many hours (if not more) in Battlefield 2 (and it's expansions) and later on Battlefield 2142 (which honestly wasn't quite as interesting) than I've put into the Call of Duty franchise online, that debate seems really weird. But let's get back to what's known. Basically the gist of it all is that in Battlefield 3 you'll be able to play a single-player campaign where you take the role of the elite US marines in such diverse locations as New York, Paris and Tehran. There will also be a co-op campaign. 
 
To me, that's crazy.  
 
Don't get me wrong, I am sure the campaigns in the Battlefield Bad Company games are good (never tried those games past demo-stage) and I am sure Dice have what it takes to make a decent single player experience. But.. that's not what I am looking for in a proper Battlefield game. For a regular meat and potatoes Battlefield game I am only looking for the multiplayer aspect of the game. That's what drew me in and that's what kept me there.  
 
And then I read someone say "Of course there will be a single player campaign, you can't sell a $60 game with just multiplayer". And I was surprised, because I thought people who liked Battlefield games did so for the fact that they were a multiplayer focused game. And since when can't you make a multiplayer only game? If you could do so in the past when multiplayer was not as big as it is today, why couldn't you do it today? Hell, even our single player games (at least on PC) require some form of online validation these days, so don't give me that back talk of not everyone having internet connections. Besides, if the box clearly states it's online only, and you buy it lacking internet, you're stupid and deserve to lose money. But that's beside the point. 
  
I am really confused as to why, as stated, multiplayer needs to be tacked onto everything.. but somehow can't stand on it's own when it has done so in the past. I am all for a completely multiplayer focused release no matter what game we're talking about, as long as they're upfront about it so you're not buying something that isn't what you thought.  
 
Am I taking crazy pills or is the new standard "Multiplayer in everything, but not by itself"?

I don't know why I can't grasp the mentality in competitive online shooters at times, but it just puzzles me how some people think about this. I suppose I am a person to play a game based on how I enjoy it to be played. I come up with my own tactics, that fit my playstyle. Why should I adhere to a set of norms? So, here's my take on it.

Stop camping! 
If you're playing a fast paced game and someone is sitting somewhere taking easy shots at your skull whenever you turn around that specific corner, you might get a little bit frustrated. So what do you do? Perhaps you change tactics the next time around and throw a granade or flashbang in his general direction before or maybe you'll try and flank the guy. But, nope, that's not what you'll do. You'll scream "stop camping you [insert racial, gender or sexuality based insult here]." But why? One could argue that sitting around is not playing the game by the rules, but are they really rules? I've never seen someone kicked for camping, other than for complete inactivity. 
  
There is another element to this that is probably the main reason for my own discontent with the whining; Sniping. A lot of times when I was playing Battlefield 2 and I was on a good streak, I got to overhear people not liking the fact that I was "camping," I thought that was a bit weird considering I was a  sniper. What do you think snipers do? Exactly, they stay down to make sure they get a good shot, they don't generally run around as much as the other guys. Also, as my rifle has long range, and shitty hipfire stats, why would I risk running into you wen I can take you out before you even knew there was someone looking at you? Maybe I am a little more patient than most people, because I love it when there's a big map with a ton of snipers and sometimes, it can get really quiet for some time because everyone is waiting for one guy to make a mistake. But I digress. 
  
So, I would advice people to rather than whine about that guy who always sit in that corner in those bushes, find a tactic to smoke him out. Because once a camping spot has been smoked once, it generally keeps them away. I mean, anyone remember those cranes in Battlefield 2. Awesome sniping right? Yeah, the first week until everyone realized how easy it is to kill a sniper up there.  
 
I suppose to me, sniping in online shooters is a high risk/high reward scenario. Because while you can pick people off from afar, there's also the big possibility that with every shot you take, someone will figure out your location and one is not always the best at looking at the rear view mirror when you're prone trying not to move unecessarily. I continue to digress. Let's move on. 
 
How to tube your noob. 
My rifle has a granade launcher? That's crazy! Awesome! Wait, what? I can't use it? Why? Oh, I see. So basically using a really effective weapon is something for beginners? So when do I unlock the stick? Because that's prestige, killing people with a stick. If you get killed by a granade launcher; get over it. You were not catious enough and ended up in a blast radious of an exploding little thing fired from the bottom of my rifle. I can kill you with my rifle, or even knife if I wanted to. But if I know you're coming, or even calculating the odds that you might (and you might bring friends), I'll shoot a granade in your general direction. Or, into the building I saw you in. It's not me who should be told I'm a noob for using my arsenal to the best of it's abilities, it's you who should reconsider your tactics. I've had granade flown right on past me, blown up behind me, so I know it's not the holy grail of weapons. It does take a little bit of thought to get it to the right place. 
 
So, for anyone who thinks using a granade launcher is a thing for beginners, here's my challange; I want you to play with nothing but a knife. Because if granade launchers (by implication, something you just shoot in a general direction and it has a large blast radious) are for beginners, the elite would use the exact opposite, right? So... knife only. Awesome. 
 
Right back at you, pal! 
Team killing is a touch one, sometimes people are enjoying the griefing of others like that. But, contrary to camping, people do get kicked for too much team killing. The thing about it though is that it's not always your intent to kill your teammate, sometimes your buddy just ran right into your line of fire without thinking ahead. A quick "sorry" in the headset might smooth things over (even if it wasn't technically your fault), but sometimes (especially with Modern Warfare 2) it kills their killstreak and they're a little more frustrated than a mere "sorry" can cure. So what then? Well, you could send flowers, but the most likely scenario I've noted is that they will bring the gift right back and kill you. 
  
How is that helping anyone? If someone killed me, ruining my killstreak, what would I (or my team) gain by killing him and getting reduction to my points? That has to be one of the most crazy stupid things I've experienced of them all. Because if you think about it, he just lost his killstreak and then he decides to deduct points from himself. What?! 
 
You stole my kills, I'm telling mom. 
My most recent encounter with weird gaming logic. I was playing Modern Warfare 2 and made a nice flanking move on two guys and took them out, just seconds before a guy on my team dropped a harrier strike on their position. The whole rest of the game he was whining and whining about how I stole his kills. As if I knew he was planning to drop something right then and there and killed them out of spite. No wait, I actually knew it by mind reading over the internet. Bazinga! 
 
So what's your take on gaming logic, especially multiplayer wise? Agree/Disagree? Give me your thoughts.

For a long time in games, or at least the ones I played, it seemed almost unthinkable to kill off the main character in any way. You were playing a hero after all, and a hero always survives everything and is hailed champion. Maybe that's what got some of us into games in the first place, the notion that we could play that hero and become larger than life in a an existance that isn't always that exciting. I still remember those long summer days playing Suikoden for the first time. I was in so deep in the story and the characters that albeit playing the game in some capacity with friends, I hardly ever turned the controller over to them. After 30 some hours, I was done and I felt like my life was enriched by the experience. My hero led the rebellion and vanquished all evil.  
 
But something has happened in the last couple of years, heroes are still heroic but they are beginning to adopt flaws or even backgrounds that they try to redeem. I suppose we're getting jaded and we need to know that our heroes are regular people with their flaws intact. But with that comes the story development in accordance with that reality. And the result is that the hero may not alaways survive the experience. 
 
I've finished a few games in the last 6 months or so where they all kill off the main character (or at least in some endings) and I am beginning to feel a bit of an urge to play a game where my hero lives. Because while in some respects, it's a bold move to kill the main character if he's very likable, but it's also a very powerful move if done correctly. But, while it is a powerful tool, I've come to the realization that it often leads to a feeling of being unsatisfied. 
 
Some games post-correct that satisfaction, but most don't. 
 
I suppose there's a place for everything, and I do enjoy the emotional aspect of having your character killed. But still, goddamn, sometimes it just plain sucks because some dudes just need to keep on breathing, they've earned it.