There was something I wanted to talk about in my last God Mode On article, something I couldn’t for two very important reasons. The first reason is that reading a massive long piece of text on a computer screen is a pain in the arse. The second, and more important, we have a weird issue with the site where it reads text as code, and when the code (text) gets too long it can’t be uploaded. I mention this because I had to remove a segment of my article on Anita Sarkeesian’s ‘Tropes vs. Women in Gaming’, the topic of what a game is, namely a problem to be solved.

It’s not something I’ve ever really thought about before, I think I’d always assumed there wasn‘t a rule for it, but I’m starting to think that ultimately it is just the one thing. There’s you at one end, the protagonist, and somewhere off in the distance there’s your objective. The objective could be anything, it could be a high score, it could be to destroy the mothership, it could even simply be to finish the story. In between those two points are the problem and the solution. In Tetris these would be the falling blocks and clearing the screen, in 999 there’s literal puzzles and choices, in Gears of War there’s enemies, and not to sound too Death Wish, but killing is the solution.

It’s hard to see now that games really are that simple, I mean look at Journey, the objective is, I guess, to solve your confusion, to find out what the point of the game is. Heavy Rain and Spec Ops: The Line play about with the problem/solution. In both games the gameplay involves having to do things you wouldn’t want to do, you wouldn’t want your character to do. In Heavy Rain it’s about what would be going too far to get what you want, in Spec Ops it’s about seeing that there’s sometimes more choices than you think, and sometimes fewer.

It seems we’re getting to the point where we can do post-modernism in games regularly. Proper post-modernism of the medium, not just breaking the 4th wall and having a character speak to you (“I was in a computer game. Funny as hell, it was the most horrible thing I could think of”), vibrating 2nd controllers, or even resetting the game (and it crashing nearly every fucking time!) a la X-men on the Megadrive. Gaming might not have had its Citizen Kane yet, but it has had a few Memento’s.

If the core concept of what is a game hasn’t changed over the years then what has? I think it’s the scope. The solution of Mass Effect is essentially the same as Space Invaders, well, ish. Space Invaders’ goal is score, Mass Effect’s isn’t, but the solution is to kill the aliens. Mass Effect though has cut scenes, a huge storyline that spanned 3 games, a level up system, conversation branches, choice. Compare classic Prince of Persia to the more recent ones, they’re fundamentally the same except one has more moves.

I’ve been trying to think of a game that doesn’t follow this rule, that there must be a start and an objective, a game that is just the problem/solution, a pointless game. I think it would have to be a toy, the modern equivalent of doodling on a page. There was Wii Music, but that was something you could play well, improve at, so the objective was to do it right and well. There’s Minecraft, although while you do have a blank canvas and free reign, you are supposed to build. Same with LittleBigPlanet’s level creation, you can pretty much do what you want but the point is to create something, ideally something that works.

I mention them though because both Minecraft and LittleBigPlanet’s level creation have been things I’ve struggled to get in to. Watching from the outside they look fun, it’s fascinating seeing what people are capable of creating, but I never get anywhere when I attempt something. I don’t know where to begin, I want to accidentally make something, to learn through experimenting and exploring, but I don’t. When I played Minecraft I built a house, a decent sized thing with glass, stairs, some fire, and then I stopped. I wasn’t satisfied or fulfilled, nor to clarify was I annoyed or dismissive of the game, but it just felt pointless (meaning absolutely no offence).

So, how did this relate to ‘Tropes vs. Women in Gaming’, well because if games need objectives to work, a motivation and context for gameplay, then whatever the rights and wrongs of having a ‘damsel’, it’s easy to see why it became such a fallback.

You might not have watched the ‘Tropes VS Women in Gaming’ video yet, although if you visit message boards and gaming blog sites you’ve probably seen it mentioned. This next sentence should probably read “it’s caused something of a stir”, but I’m not sure it really has, certainly one of the points I was going to make in this article is that the video itself is actually very uncontroversial. We’ll get to that in a minute, but to just make an early conclusion, if this hadn’t caused a fuss over its Kickstarter funding, then no one would be talking about it. Certainly I feel that those praising it as “important” wouldn’t be praising it quite so highly, it just isn’t anything you haven’t seen before.

I wasn’t planning to review the whole thing (although that‘s probably what this will turn in to), but one of my criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian’s look at the ‘damsel in distress’ (or ‘demoiselle en détresse’ in French, which means damsel in distress in English) is that it’s basically just an explanation of the term, then a list of some games that have it. She briefly explains it’s a form of objectification, which is bad, but then that’s it. Chances are if you’re sat watching her video then none of this is news to you, you know and understand the term, you know it’s not a good thing, and you know it’s something gaming has carried over from other media. If Sarkeesian feels this is a subject worthy of discussion then I wish she’d have included some.

At this point I just want to make myself very clear; I agree with Sarkeesian. Women were, and indeed still are, treated as objects in games, not always, but sometimes. You can use her example of Mario, but even in something like Darkness 2, which I’m playing at the minute, the key female (who is dead) is the protagonists motivation for doing everything, she exists only for his benefit, she is his reason for being, or raison d'être, or reason for being. Sarkeesian herself makes the point that not all damsels are created equal, although in her example she uses Zelda with powers in comparison to Peach without.

The difference between Zelda and The Darkness is tied to something our own Duane said to me earlier today, that in a human relationship you do objectify the other person. You treat them as more than that obviously, but his motivations for many of his actions are for his partner and kids. The ‘damsel in distress’ trope isn’t as simple as Sarkeesian makes out.

Again, it’s not what Sarkeesian is saying that I disagree with, more that I don’t think she follows through on any of her points. To mention another Bitparade writer, I was talking to Leigh about this issue the other day. I argued that the idea of a ‘damsel’ was a little false, what we’re really talking about is a ‘Mcguffin’, an object that must be recovered (as she says, women are being objectified). Other people have countered her argument with the game ‘Bad Dudes VS Dragon Ninja’, an awesomely named game where you as a bad dude must rescue the president, in that situation he is the damsel. Take that a step further and look at another brawler, Streets of Rage, and the city is the damsel, it is the precious thing that must be recovered. Leigh’s counter to me was that Sarkeesian is looking at how the tropes affect women, or the perception of women, and he’s got a point, she has a remit. However her remit includes the words “... in Gaming”, which means we have to look more generally at gaming, at least in my opinion

To illustrate her point Sarkeesian talks about how the women, who are the object, need to be rescued by the male protagonist. They need to be rescued because they can’t rescue themselves, whereas whenever the male protagonist gets imprisoned he/you save yourself. I think this sums up my issue with ‘Tropes vs Women in Gaming’, she’s right, if you stop there she’s right, but if you carry on then you see it’s more complicated than that. The reason the man escapes while the woman doesn’t is because it’s a game, your imprisonment is to give you a new environment, strip back your inventory, or to teach/test a set of skills. It’s a gameplay mechanic, in this instance it is a trope that has nothing to do with sex or gender

We’ll see where ‘Tropes vs. Women in Gaming’ goes I guess. I don’t think it’s worth all the coverage so far, but then here I am writing about it, I’ve even got another article planned based on this one, so what do I know? I doubt I will be writing something about every video, and I do think it’s a good thing that people are talking about it. Just to reiterate, I don’t think she’s wrong, reusing the same tired tropes unthinkingly isn’t a good thing, but just stating that isn’t enough.

The problem is she never asked ‘why?’ If she’d acknowledged more that games were borrowing from other established media, which she does briefly mention, that they were severely limited in their scope by their technology, that Nintendo reuse ideas because that’s what Nintendo do, then she’d counter a lot of the noise, make it clearer to see her argument. If she spells out that Mario has the damsel in distress trope because it‘s Mario, acknowledges that, then she can point out that it is still damaging. As it is people seem to be talking more about the video and less about the point of it, that gaming really needs to speed up moving on.

The BAFTA nominees were announced last week. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with the BAFTAs, on one hand they do what you want the BAFTAs to do, reward things that deserve to be rewarded. For example in the category ‘Best Performer’ alongside Danny Wallace, Nolan North and 2 people from industry darling The Walking Dead is Nigel Carrington. You probably don’t know Nigel Carrington by name, nor by face, but he is the lone voice you hear during Dear Esther. His performance helps make that game, it suits the out-of-time tone, the bleakness of the visuals, and the melon collie of the soundtrack. It’s not been rewarded elsewhere because no one played it.

What I don’t like so much about the BAFTAs is that for all the good work they do picking obscure but deserving games, there’s also some odd omissions. Michael Mando doesn’t get a nomination for playing Vas in Far Cry 3, despite it being almost unanimously agreed to be an outstanding performance. The BAFTAs are also guilty of pandering to the popular. Less so than most awards, commendably so in fact, but the inclusion of Call of Duty: Black Ops II in the ‘Best Innovation’ category has raised eyebrows. I understand it’s for the technical aspects of things like live streaming matches etc, to be honest I’m in no position to judge it. Mass Effect 3 being nominated for ‘Best Game’ is really just a matter of opinion, there are plenty of people who loved the game as there are plenty who were disappointed with it. Borderlands 2 getting a nomination for ‘Artistic Achievement’ is a bit harder to justify for me, but it’s a very popular game.

What I actually wanted to talk about, rather than just piss and moan about award nominations, is other people pissing and moaning about award nominations. I get why people have a moan about subjective things like awards, why seeing something they don’t think is deserving being rewarded as being the ‘best’ might make them shake their head. What I didn’t expect to be the problem though was Journey being nominated for ‘Best Story’.

Let me start by saying that I’m no Journey fan boy, and that along side Journey in ‘Best Story’ are Far Cry 3 and Dishonoured, one of which has an appalling story occasionally very well presented, the other a predictable, tired story in a unique world. Journey for its part isn’t exactly telling a unique story, it’s just a metaphor for something we will all experience, and it’s something that’s been done in games a number of times, not least The Passage. But to mark Journey out as being the game that doesn’t deserve to be in there seems odd to me. If we’re being reductive then it is a story we’ve heard before, but then Mass Effect is about the chosen one, Dishonoured is a revenge story, Far Cry 3 combines both with a bit of unintended colonialism.

What makes Journey deserving is how it tells its story. If I remember correctly there’s no text, there’s certainly no narration, yet I know exactly what the game was about. Games too often fall back on cut-scenes to tell their story, usually the story is only progressed during the cut-scenes, the rest of the time you’re walking the actors to their spots. If you acknowledge that there’s things that games can do that no other medium can then this is what you’re talking about; the ideal is that games will do everything through gameplay. I’m not sure I’d go that far, not all games have to be Journey, but when a game manages it, and manages it in a way that includes multiplayer yet still engages people, still has an impact on them, I think we should reward that

There’s been a lot of fuss about Aliens: Colonial Marines, fuss that is still going on. It’s not something we’ve really covered, but there’s been talk of paid for reviews, palming off work, deliberately not meeting deadlines, embezzling money, and now even fake twitter accounts. We’ve not covered it because we don’t have the truth and don’t really have the time or means to try to find out. Credit to the likes of Jim Sterling who have and are though.

Certainly I don’t think Pitchford has come out of this well. I’ve no idea how involved he was in Colonial Marines’ development, or how involved he should have been, certainly though his company should have put out a better game if reviews and discourse are to be believed. I don’t trust Gearbox, I’d never given it a thought before really, but their attitude towards Borderlands 2’s dlc has increasingly frustrated me, and frankly I think Randy Pitchford is making a show of himself on Twitter. Even if those Twitter accounts are fake he may or may not know that, but blocking people for criticising him, and blocking journalists for challenging him, that’s not really on. His claim that it’s his personal account is a bit disingenuous when he’s regularly promoting his games, either through retweets, his own words, or even through shift codes (as he did this morning [Sunday 24th Feb] ).

Just to be clear, both as a disclaimer for what’s above and what will follow, I haven’t played Aliens: Colonial Marines so cannot say whether it’s a good game or not. I suspect it’s not quite as bad as some say, but I’ve had enough people tell me that they’ve had problems with the game to suspect it‘s not a good one. The thing is though, troubled development aside, I can’t say I’m particularly amazed that Aliens: Colonial Marines isn’t the great Aliens game people wanted.

The first Aliens game I played was on the Amstrad CPC 464, it wasn’t great. Then Alien 3 on the snes, then Alien Trilogy on the PS1, then one of the Alien v Predator games, possibly the 2nd one on pc. A couple of years back I got the latest Aliens vs. Predator game free with my graphics card, I wasn’t too fussed about playing it, but I gave it a go out of curiosity and it starts pretty well.

You see, at the start of the game you don’t really encounter any aliens, or Xenomorphs as I should probably be calling them. There’s the threat of them, one bursts out on you then flees, it works really well, you’re aware you’re not alone so you’re always on edge. Eventually there’s a boss fight of sorts against scores of aliens, before you head outside in to the sunshine and are attacked by even more. That is where the problems start, the moment when the aliens become fodder, but tellingly it’s also where Rebellion chose to switch from aliens to Predators.

If you watch the Alien films, especially if you compare them to the games, it becomes apparent how rarely you actually see the Xenomorph. You’ll hear the beeps of a scanner, the death-scream of a victim over the radio, but it’s not all that often you actually see the thing. When you do it’s usually either a quick flash, or perhaps bathed in darkness. The most iconic moments though are the ultra-close ups, the moments where you get a shot of part of its arched head as it slowly, deliberately rises to its full height.

The Xenomorph is, of course, just a man in a suit, but the reason it is so effective is because it doesn’t look like it. ‘It’ manages to look real, animalistic, not just a prop. John Carpenter’s The Thing looks better than the re-imagining because it used real tangible props rather than just CG, but it doesn’t look living, the Xenomorphs do. If you want an illustration of what I mean watch THIS CLIP. It’s a cut scene from Alien, and I think you can see why it was cut. Yes the alien still looks real, but it also looks like a very tall man waddling across the floor.

The complaints about fighting humans in Aliens: Colonial marines might appear to be valid, but they’re followed by complains of fighting too many aliens. The now notorious blind alien gif, that doesn’t happen if you don’t see the alien, if they remain more of a mystery than perpetually omnipresent. The ideal Alien game, in my opinion, would be one with precious few Xenomorphs, let’s say 12 in total, your goal is to make it through various sections of the ship, armed with a movement sensor, picking a route and trying to avoid bumping in to your hunter. Force the player to retrieve things from the nest, make them face their fear, that would be an Alien game

Until we get past the need to kill lots and lots of things, the lazy fallback need for it, until we get past that, you’ll never see a great Alien game.

So the biggest “thing” from last nights Sony conference was that they didn't actually show the PlayStation 4, instead choosing to show off the potential of the console with some game trailers, “in-game” footage and also showing off the new controller which brings new features to the plate in the shape of “share” buttons.


And yet, somehow, “The Internet” in all its hive mind glory has seemingly made this into a “bad thing”, declaring that “the box it comes in is just as important” and other such statements that all sound rather similar. But why is it so important? I really can't grasp the concept that a big chunky piece of plastic with silicon, copper and plastic innards has to have a certain aesthetic appeal. Okay, I understand it a little, if you're 14 years old maybe or its something that you carry around with you, like a mobile phone, so it has to have a certain fashionable appeal to it. But a games console, that sits under your TV? Nah, it really shouldn't matter what it looks like.

Do people pick their set-top box or DVD/Blu-Ray player based upon how it looks? I certainly didn't, I didn't look around at what (at the time) Virgin Media were offering that was different to Sky. The box is just the device that allows me to use those services, once installed I've paid it barely any attention. Instead its mostly been about the UI and the remote (both of which aren't exactly brilliant on either service) and more importantly the price of use.

I'd say its my age, I'm approaching 30 afterall (not till next year admittedly!), but I don't believe its that and I'm not even one for caring about all of my devices matching, all I care about is that they do their job. But I think Nintendo got it right with making their presentation about the controller and delivering a non-descript box as the console and would think that there's a possibility that Sony could do the same. Now admittedly there will be some design choices to be made, it'll need to be made in such a manner that it can be cooled properly etc so just sticking the tech into a slightly bigger “Blu-Ray box” is probably out of the question, but making something like the PS3 (in its various forms) has got to be a thing of the past surely?

I don’t usually go back to topics I’ve already written about for God Mode On, I’ve never really felt the need to, but a quote from Jason Jones, co-founder of Bungie, has changed that. Building hype for their upcoming game ‘Destiny’, Jones talks about how influential Halo was, and is quoted as saying “We limited players to two weapons, we gave them recharging health, we automatically saved and restored the game -- almost heretical things to first-person shooters at the time. We made the game run without a mouse and keyboard.. And now nobody plays shooters the way they used to play them before Halo 'cause nobody wants to”.

I don’t really want to read too much in to that quote, I suspect, or hope at least, that he didn’t mean it quite as bitingly as it comes across. In responding to it there’s kind of a case of “where to start?”. After all, I still play, and prefer, first person shooters with a mouse and keyboard. I still want to be able to quick save, although do appreciate check pointing. Recharging health means you shouldn’t run in to an unwinnable situation, but also means you sit out the game sporadically. The 2 guns thing, I could probably write a piece about how that’s actually a very bad thing, limiting gameplay. Restricting weapons for ease of navigation you can make a case for, particularly on consoles, but having only 2 means your options are limited, especially when the gun balance is off; like how often do you choose to carry around a shotgun in a modern shooter?

It’s the issue of control that I want to talk about. The responses to Jones’ quote last night, when it wasn’t focused on the linear level design, generally descended in to arguments about controls, about aim-assist, and about how much more precise keyboard and mouse is. This is something I talked about in a blog post called ‘WASD The Matter You’, the title of which is still my greatest ever achievement.

In ‘WASD The Matter You’ I talk about the difference in control between console and PC, fortunately reading back I don’t say anything too stupid, but what is apparent is that it was quite a while ago, it was written roughly 5 years ago. At that time the Wii was my go to console, I would have owned both a PS3 and 360 at that point, and that post was likely prompted by me getting a new PC (which I finished paying off late last year incidentally). I was, back then, primarily a console gamer, now, 3DS aside, I very rarely buy console games, just look at how many PC reviews I’ve written in the last year or so.

There’s a few reasons for my apparent switch from consoles to PC, one possibility is that PC and console gaming might have merged. Regardless the shift has happened and my preferred method of control is mouse and keyboard. Not for everything obviously, not for Hotline Miami, not for Ys Origins, not for Sonic Generations, nor Devil May Cry or Driver San Francisco. But for plenty of games, games that many people will use a controller for, like Spec Ops, Max Payne 3, Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Deus Ex Human Revolution. Something like Rage, the thought of playing a game that fast with a controller, not a chance.

My complaint in ‘WASD…’ was that using a keyboard for long periods is uncomfortable, having your hand in that position, fingers close together is slightly unnatural. It’s not agony or anything, nor is it completely alien, I mean my fingers almost fall naturally on to W, A and D, but all day sessions on something like Skyrim or Fallout have left me with some pain. Where I think I went wrong however was suggesting that an analogue stick for movement was quicker, more precise. It certainly has its benefits, analogue movement for one, but the instant movement of a key isn’t to be sniffed at.

I complained about weapon placement, the use of the number keys is still less than ideal for me, but outside of Torchlight and Diablo I can’t think of too many games that have required heavy use. Rage did a bit, it was better than going in to a menu to use more than the 4 set guns, and I used 1-4 on Borderlands 2 quite a bit because the scroll select wasn’t as precise as it should be, but that’s about it. Well done Bungie I guess…

I still think the keyboard is less than ideal, but I’m not sure an analogue controller is the solution. The use of the fingers for movement, plus the extra options of more buttons, they’re huge advantages over a controller. Add to that everyone with a PC has a keyboard, there may be a better way but it’s never going to be standardised.

In Leigh Alexander's recent column for EDGE magazine (#250) she discusses gamers as a community of like-minded, or at least similar minded people, operating under one umbrella to describe ourselves, or at least that’s how things used to be. As the medium has aged, its community has also done so, and has become fragmented and distanced. Then when you factor in people who aren't so interested in the medium as the so-called "core" gamers, the diversity of said community grows even further. EDGE themselves open the issue asking how "mainstream gamers regard developers?" But really how are we defining the lines between "mainstream", "core" and "casual", are they all part of one large community or incredibly different groups of people who want, or indeed expect, something different from their entertainment?


Personally, I think the lines have become so heavily blurred now that "Gaming" is essentially the same as watching movies or listening to movies, you like what you like and those around you often have similar tastes. In wider scheme of things I don't think most games-playing folk care who make their games or what platform they're on, if they are introduced to it via some third party and it gives them something to communicate about, they're much more likely to invest into that product, be it financially or just their spare time. Now obviously, as with the aforementioned medium comparisons, you'll always get a dedicated group of people. People, such as us here at Bit Parade, who do care where their games come from (even though that’s not always an indicator of quality or loyalty on behalf of the titles creator, something that will get touched upon within our Dead Space 3 review later in the week), and even then that demographic of people is incredibly fragmented.

You see, and I don't intend to disregard the hard work put in by today's developers, the only communication with what a developer is expected to produce is only really via feedback from that so-called dedicated community, usually via the developers own message boards or via a press who's ethics this generation have increasingly been called into question. They can't help this really, their work schedules and environment remove them from the larger marketplace, the consumers who aren't likely to vote with their keyboards but are more likely to do so with their wallets. This then leads to certain members of our so-called "community" feeling like they are somehow owed something by the developer, by this I don't mean a continuation of a series' themes or game play elements, but when such things as the Mass Effect 3 ending débâcle snowball as they did, and then the developer somehow feels they have to amend the situation purely because their consumers didn't like how things finished (and I appreciate that there had to be an element of user input to the ending of Mass Effect 3 after how the series had played out to that point, but how things evolved during that particular "scandal" took things a little too far in my opinion).

Working where I do I meet games-playing folk from lots of different walks of life, kids as young as 5 or 6, adults reaching retirement age. Young men absolutely obsessed with FIFA (one customer buys a couple of 4200 Microsoft Points packs a month just for FIFA Ultimate Team) and girls who have gotten into arguments with their boyfriends over who's having the Xbox for a session on Call of Duty that night. I'd even argue that the demographic has always been incredibly diverse. As a child I had a NES, I was a generation behind having had it passed down to me by my brother who had bought a SNES with one of his first pay cheques (there's a distinctive age gap between us both), even before that I had an Atari 2600 that had been given to me by a much much older cousin who had “grown out” of such things. My friends also had games consoles, be they Mega Drives, Master Systems, SNES', NES' or even Game Boy's or Game Gear's, but they were “play things”. We didn't have a wealth of games, even between us we wouldn't reach the number of games that your average household has now. This isn't a “When I were a lad, this was all fields” kind of comment on how we treat games in modern society, but the point still stands that the goal posts have moved, the environment is completely different, developers make games and have to at least attempt to include a vast array of demographics, be they ones who take a heavy interest in different developers and the industry that surrounds them or just normal people, logging into Facebook, playing a socially-centred game that they then discuss with their peers via IM or text message. Games are now just another consumable medium, that doesn't mean that they can't portray a message or strive to be something more, as with music and film, there'll always be a demographic for that and it will continue to increase and make games more socially acceptable by doing so, but that doesn't make the latest iPhone title any less viable within the industry nor does it make the person playing it any less of a “gamer” than someone who sinks dozens of hours or more into the latest MMO or those who hoover up each months big blockbuster console title. We're all “gamers”, or as I'd prefer it to be referred to, we're all games playing people, just as we all watch movies or TV, listen to music or read a variety of books, magazines, newspapers or websites. We don't tend to apply a label to someone based upon what elements of these other mediums they consume, we just accept that consuming these mediums is normal and as the demographic of people grows and time wears on, then the same thinking really ought to apply to those of us who consume video games, because by segregating ourselves on such a regular basis, we're only giving those who haven't yet become regular consumers of the medium, or those with a vendetta against it, an umbrella under which to place us all and use as a weapon to fight what is still a young and growing form of entertainment.

Time, time is important, it’s valuable. Grasp the sand as it tumbles out of the hourglass, grasp it, don’t let it escape! Given how valuable time is to us now, and possibly always was, and how many other demands and options we have, games are really up against it. Gaming is a commitment now, even something like Fifa, a football game that just used to be dipped in to, now requires you to spend time with it, staying sharp, and always be improving and gaining ground.

It’s why, even as someone who likes JRPGs, I can understand why people are reticent to play them. I’ve suffered from it before, I really wanted to finish Disgaea, I still toy with the idea of going back to my PS2 save, get past wherever I abandoned it, and finish what was a very good game. The problem is it’s too long, it’s too much of a time investment.

There’s plenty of people who are buying in to the idea of Persona 4 Golden, all the hype and positivity for the PS2 version has got people intrigued, and rightly so. There are though many of these people who, lack of Vita aside, won’t play the game because of the time commitment. Persona 4 will take them anywhere up to 80 hours plus, it’s not a short game. Again, it’s a game I need to go back to and finish, I probably put 40 hours in, but because the game is on the PS2, and my PS2 is no longer set up, it’s something I haven’t gone back to.

While I’m willing to play a JRPG, I’ve managed to get through a number of Dragon Quest games and a couple of Pokemons in the last few years, I think it’s an accepted truism that JRPGs take too long, or at least are time-sinks. I’ve already mentioned 2 classics I haven’t completed, and you can add Xenoblade Chronicles to that list, and I suspect Ni No Kuni might get added to it too.

Like Persona 4 Ni No Kuni is a game from the genre that’s captured peoples attention, it’s a bit like when Street Fighter 4 came out and everyone cared about fighters again for a year. It could be the art-style, it could be the name behind it, it could just be that people are ready to play something like it, but Ni No Kuni has been getting a disproportionate amount of coverage, especially considering how long we’ve known about it. I’m not begrudging that, I’m looking forward to the game too, and will admit to a pang of jealousy when I found out Duane had been sent a review copy.

The thing is, the idea that people don’t have 40 hours to spend on a game is a bit of a nonsense. When I look at my steam games list I’ve put 76 hours in to this years Football Manager, 34 in to Witcher 2, 62 hours in to Skyrim (which I still haven’t finished), 41 into Deus Ex Human Revolution and its dlc, 96 into Fallout New Vegas and its dlc, 128 into Borderlands 2 and its.

I’m not the kind of person that plays a lot of multiplayer, but I’ve friends who play Halo or Call of Duty pretty much every night. They clock up thousands of hours every year on their favourite franchise, but they can’t spend a couple of weeks on an rpg?

Why are we like that, why to we have that disconnect? I guess it’s the game structure, COD and Halo online are lots of accomplishments a night, a spree of matches, same with Fifa, and there’s the progress you make to the added rpg elements. Something like Skyrim might be a better example, Borderlands less so because, well, the single player has the exact same problems a JRPG does. Skyrim though you’re never in one place long enough to get caught out, you can save whenever, in fact most of the time you’re not even doing a quest, you’re exploring, starting fights with giant spiders, skyrimming up mountains.

JRPGs do suffer from samey gameplay, a certain trudge as you struggle to a dungeon, head back to town, then make your way back to the dungeon nice and prepared, then just as you’re strong enough to make your way in to the dungeon, save and turn off for the night. But while I managed to take a break from Fallout midway through, leave Skyrim in the knowledge I will come back to it, and am currently itching to get back to Football Manager, I still go in to a JRPG expecting to fail. People can take a break from their online shooters of choice to play through their new first person shooter for the week, another week for their new third person shooter, but the same amount of time for an rpg, naw

Borderlands 2 left me with a bit of a sour aftertaste. It’s was strange, for hours I was full of praise for Borderlands 2 saying how it had avoided the mistakes of the first game, then at some point I just stopped liking it as much. There was the area where you’re introduced to Tiny Tina, but I’m sure it picked up after that, before the last few hours feeling like a chore. Conceptually the last area was great, but it felt drawn out, and my memories of it were spending a hell of a lot of time either dying or recovering with a 2nd wind.

The dlc too was less than great. Captain Scarlett’s dlc wasn’t too bad in fairness, completely at odds with the tone of this post I’ve actually begun to soften on it. Playing through it at the time there were some terrible missions. Having to return to areas, with the same enemy placements got very old, and those worms every time you moved…. The characters too were fairly poor, although I didn’t with Captain Scarlett herself that others did. My biggest problem with that dlc was the loot, there was a lot of it at the end of the game, and you can return to farm it, but the stuff you find while progressing through was all cursed in some way, and I felt the balance was off. Take for example the grenade that explodes then launches a swarm of powerful grenades back at you, funny but the wrong side of useless.

Mr Torgue’s Campaign of Carnage, well you can see for yourself, but in summery, horrible characters, far too much revisiting of areas, you have to fight the same enemies over and over again every time you return to the area, which you have to do a lot because the dlc is made up of lots of small areas. Then you’ve got the arena battles, and a series of the worst boss fights of anything Borderlands related.

Add to all that the upcoming dlc Sir Hammerlock's Big Game Hunt, which is due on the 15th January, appears not to be raising the level cap. I also feel it’s come a bit too soon, Borderlands 2 came out at the end of September, it took most people a few weeks to play through, yet less than 4 months later we’re on the penultimate part of the season pass. That’s a month to play through the game then one piece of dlc for each subsequent month.

So there’s been a lot of Borderlands, too much probably, and the tail end of it has been less than stellar, but that’s not why I’m writing this. You may or may not be aware that if you follow Gearbox on twitter you’ll occasionally see them tweet Shift codes. These Shift codes give you golden keys that are used to open a special loot chest in Sanctuary that rewards you with quality loot (if not always stuff you want). The idea being, I suspect, to get you to load the game up, get you playing it for a bit, even if only for a few minutes, just to keep some kind of mindshare.

What Gearbox have done this weekend however has been brilliantly clever. Borderlands 2 is now a 2012 game in a 2013 world, people are starting to look forward to what’s ahead, and let’s face it people are skint after Christmas. To try to reignite interest, and get people to spend some proper time with the game before Sir Hammerlock's Big Game Hunt lands next week, Gearbox announced that this weekend would be a special loot weekend. Friday night saw an increase in rare shotguns being dropped, today it was rare grenades, tomorrow who knows. If you want to get in on this, get some better loot and maybe gain a level, you have to play the game. It’s not like the drops are so common and so overpowered that 5 minutes will see you get enough to become blazé, no you need to put a decent amount of time in, spend an hour or so with the game.

It’s worked too, I’d forgotten that there was new dlc on the way, and I certainly wasn’t itching to get back in to Borderlands (I was actually thinking of going back and finishing Skyrim finally). Now though, not only have I put time in to Borderlands 2’s main game (on True Vault Hunter mode), I’m also set for the dlc to hit midweek. Well played Gearbox

The Sandy Hook shootings has once again seen a tragedy used as a means to reignite the video game violence debate; Are games to blame for school shootings? It’s a subject I’m loathed to write about for any number of reasons, but it’s one we haven’t covered so maybe it’s time.

I have a degree in psychology, I’m rusty with it and certainly haven’t done enough reading to use that to declare myself an expert on this subject, but I’ve a vague memory of some studies. I also know enough to know that if I’m not an expert I should tread carefully, something the media seems to have a problem comprehending.

Take for example the condemnation of Mass Effect, the first game blamed in the wake of this tragedy. The killer had ‘liked’ the game on Facebook, this is back when the killer was the wrong person, the killer’s brother in fact. Jumping to condemn anything as an influence when you don’t even know who was responsible kind of suggests you might be moving a bit too quickly, maybe even caring more about spinning a story for ratings rather than reporting responsibly.

As it turns out the killer may or may not like Dynasty Warriors. Now you kill a lot of people in Dynasty Warriors, as you do in Mass Effect, but if I asked you to name ultra violent video games how long do you think it would take you to get to those two? A space opera and a loosely historical game based around Chinese dynasties?

There may well be an issue with minors playing games that are too old for them, there may well be an issue with games being shallow boom fests, leaning too heavily on gender and racial stereotypes, having binary, unexplored definitions of good and bad, but that’s not what this is about.

In Britain in the last 30 years we’ve had 3 similar gun killing sprees, the most recent was in Cumbria. Typically for these kind of cases there was no definite cause, but it seems an argument over a will is the most likely. The earliest was the Hungerford massacre, which I’ll be honest I don’t remember, the most likely cause there is reportedly schizophrenia. The closest match to Sandy Hook is of course Dunblane, there the perpetrator was either a paedophile or snapped because his life was being ruined by accusations that he was a paedophile.

The point I’m making is that the 3 British gun massacres weren’t even suggested to have anything to do with games. There’s obvious reasons for that, the date they occurred (1987 for Hungerford) being too early for video games to be a scapegoat, and the age range of the killers being outside that of a typical gamer. If you take a look at Virginia Tech though, the killer was reported to be obsessed with Counter Strike, his roommate however claims he never saw him play any games let alone Counter Strike.

There may well be a correlation between young men who go on killing sprees and games, and for that matter rock music, rap music, and violent films, but that alone doesn’t prove anything. Any scientist will tell you that correlation doesn’t prove causality, take games for example, most young people, particularly young males, will have played video games. We’re at a point where it’s no longer abnormal to own a games console as an adult, sure posting on games forums and obsessing over E3 leaks might raise an eyebrow, but your average person will likely own a console of some sort, be it a Wii or something to play Fifa/Call of Duty on. It’s for that reason I think the calls to ban or blame violent games do seem to be getting quieter. Yeah you’ve got Alan Titchmarsh et al getting worked up every now and then, but the groundswell of the 90’s seems to have gone.

So there you go, we’ve talked about it, shallowly, but hopefully in a reasoned way. At another time of my life I considered writing articles where I dissected studies in to games, perhaps that wouldn’t be such a bad idea, but I’m not sure it’s worth the effort. You see there was another reason I didn’t want to write about this; I don’t want to validate it. There’s bigger actual causes that we need to focus on, it’d be a shame to distract from that.