How many times will we have to hear about Modern Warfare 2? Well, a lot, and this blog is no exception; the biggest game of the year also happens to be the shortest (Not really, but BURN). However, at 5 hours, it's also the most jam-packed, adrenaline-filled, action-packed adventure of the year, surpassing even the likes of Nathan Drake's sophomore attempt. It's well-paced and it never holds up until the last shell cartridge hits the ground, even if the "No Russian" level is the game's only misstep (Various people, Rice and Rev in particular, have gone into why). But I'm not here to talk about "No Russian"; I think we all know where we stand on it at this point; I'm here because this game, as well as others, begs a few questions about the length of a game and it's relation to the quality of the experience.

Now, let me get off of MW2 for a while to talk about a few other games, one of those in particular being Portal. Remember Portal? Of course you do; it took the gaming world by storm only two years ago and has yet to leave the collective consciousness of the videogame-playing audience. Well, the biggest complaint about the game was that the game was too short; at a terse 4 hours (and that's being generous), it was an experience that was brief to say the least. But in my opinion, and in the opinion of basically everyone else on the planet by this point, is that it's brevity was the best part about it. Well, okay not the best part, but it was the perfect length for that game; it never overstayed it's welcome and it left the player satisfied with the experience after completion. The mark of a great game is the desire to have more of it and still feel as if the experience was enough to qualify the time you put into it.

Portal and Modern Warfare 2 stand together as the very definition of "short but sweet". These games simply work at the length that was appropriated to them, and if they were cut down or bulked up at all, they would lose a very big of their appeal; their ubiquitous nature. Let me use an analogy: you have a peanut butter sandwich. Now, you only have so much peanut butter you can use, but you have tons of bread you can use. However, you know that the peanut butter will be spread perfectly over a single slice and simply folded in half; the bread-to-butter ratio is perfect. You could use two slices and make it a bigger sandwich, but by doing so, the bread-to-butter ratio becomes 1:2. God forbid you make the ratio 1:3.

Modern Warfare 2, Portal, and games of this ilk are the perfect 1:1 ratio; a set amount of gameplay (peanut butter) spread over an appropriate amount of time (bread). In terms of narrative-lite shooters, the 1:1 ratio floats between 4 to 8 hours, where as other games like Half-Life 2 or Bioshock have enough gameplay differentiations and plot to make the 1:1 float at a much higher place; you have an equally satisfying experience, but it lasts longer. In other words, as a purely single-player affair (say the buyer doesn't have Xbox Live or internet capabilities), Bioshock has more economic value than Modern Warfare 2.

Since quality is a subjective thing, the measure of economic value for videogames is their length of able enjoyment; Modern Warfare 2 has 5 hours of fun for 60 USD and Bioshock has 12 hours of fun for 60 USD; in this case, the obvious choice would be Bioshock. But this scenario brings us to the big question: does economic value, determine the quality of a game? I say no; absolutely not. This is not an argument about modern reviewers or something, God knows they go through enough undeserved chagrin to cause a mass suicide. No, this is about the relationship that this article is titled over.

You see, if we are to measure a game's economic value through the amount of enjoyment that can be derived from it, then we are leaving out the biggest part of the equation; some games are too damn long, and therefore, are less valuable since the overall experience is underwhelming. Take for instance the difference between Persona 3 and Persona 4; both games are equally long, both floating around the 50 to 60 hour mark, but I'd say without a doubt that Persona 4 is the better game. It's a matter of pacing; in Persona 4, you are always moving forward, and not very often are you going through the same motions week after week like you do in Persona 3.

Plot is doled out in generous chunks and special events like camping trips or school trips happen frequently, always giving the player a goal; a mark to show their progression. In Persona 3, which is by no means a bad game, and is in fact one of the best JRPGs on the PS2, but you spend much more time in Persona 3 just going through the motions with no events coming up anytime soon than you do in Persona 4. If Persona 4 is the 1:1 ratio of a 60 hour JRPG, Persona 3 is the 1:2 ratio; you still have a good amount of peanut butter, but sometimes you feel like there might be just a bit too much bread.

You see, length and pacing are synonymous with each other; in my mind, they occupy the same space. You see, Modern Warfare 2 is a much more intense game then Uncharted 2, not because it's any better at pulling your adrenaline strings (A train barreling down on you and nearly falling off an icy slope are both cardiac killers), but because the experience is so much more brief. This is not to say Modern Warfare 2 is better than Uncharted 2 or that Uncharted 2 needs to be shorter, but that the marked quality of Modern Warfare 2, intensity, is elaborated due to it's brevity.

Much like MW2, Uncharted 2's primary quality, it's roller coaster nature, is perfectly fitting for a more protracted, 13 to 15 hour experience. You see, its the set of falls and climbs, slow parts and intense parts, that make the experience so much more fluid. Uncharted 2 is extremely well-paced for such a cinematic, action plot-centric piece; if the game were only 5 hours, you'd be left with a mouth full of peanut butter, which takes a really long time to get off the roof of your mouth (and even after, the taste sticks with you in the worst way...). You would lose a big part of the impact; the fact that, in the vein of Metal Gear Solid 4, it's a globe-trotting adventure. If it were only 5 hours, it'd seem much too brief.

You see, games can only have so many gameplay innovations/types and plot points to support the length of time that they occupy; if you don't find that tasty 1:1 ratio, then you could be left with a game that feels like a sandwich that lacks substance. It would have too much bread.

Videogames, as I've said before, are a very young medium; we have only some bare bones examples of what true, magnum opus videogames can be; ones that can get across the theme or message of themselves more effectively through the interactive medium than if they were anything else. When you look at the highest rated games on sites like Gamerankings or Metacritic, we see the obvious ones like Ocarina and Super Mario Galaxy, which are respectively, the very first successful venture into 3D Action/Adventure and the most polished 3D platformer of the current generation (and by extension, all-time pretty much).

These games deserve this recognition not because of their excellent narratives (Nintendo and Narrative for like a square block and a circular hole), but because of their achievements and advancements in terms of gameplay; I don't think I need to go into the laundry list of innovations Ocarina sported or the absolute perfection that was Galaxy. But while we certainly have matured vastly in terms of gameplay, we still are growing in terms of game-specific narratives, which range from cinematic abortions (Lost Planet for example) to the top tier of meaningful storytelling (Braid, Silent Hill 2, Shadow of the Colossus, etc.). We have yet to find that one title we can all latch onto and say, yes, this is the sign that we have come into our own, not as a "Citizen Kane" to show the world, but as an achievement that the gaming world can look upon as the prime example.

As of now, Braid or Shadow of the Colossus are those games which we call into action when videogame narratives need defending, so some say we already have the Knight in Shining Armor title, but to me, we are still missing a few pieces that we can add to the unfinished thematic puzzle that are Braid and Shadow of the Colossus. While Braid is about the power one human being can achieve, Shadow of the Colossus is about how trust can lead to destruction. These are lessons every medium has to tell at some point, and thankfully, we have tackled them very early on in the videogame time line, however, as I said before, there are other themes that need to be explored for myself, and others, to be satisfied and say that this is it. One of those themes is sexuality.

Now, modern society as a whole has yet to mature to a stage of tolerance and acceptance in terms of the treatment of sexuality in communities, with even the most open-minded nations still not tackling the issue. Now, as a citizen of the United States, where homosexuality is still not accepted by the majority of people or outright hated by others, so it's very hard for a medium as young as videogames to tackle such an issue. Japan is no more ready to do so; on a whole, the Japanese still have an extremely shallow idea of other cultures, homosexuality included. So with the two largest developing countries basically unready to tackle the subject as a whole, I get the sneaking suspicion that it will be a while before we see commentary on one of the biggest issues in the free-world.

However, with the debacle over Modern Warfare 2's lovely anagram (F.A.G.S.: Fight Against Grenade Spammers) and Rev's recent Rant, I have to put my two cents out there. As a Floridian, homosexuality hits very close to home; after all, out Governor, Charlie Crist, may very well be a closeted homosexual. We recently had an election on whether homosexuals could have civil unions, which was, sadly for me, turned down; not because I'm a homosexual, but because I'm surprised we, as a society, still have not come to terms with the existence of homosexuality.

The hardest thing to tackle about homosexuality is the fact that it is a sexual subject, which are a sort of taboo in most places. People are unwilling to discuss sexual topics on an open forum simply because of the immaturity of the people that surround it; i.e. people that use the word "gay" as an insult. I tell you all of this not because I want you to hear me ramble about modern sociopolitical issues (this is a videogame site after all), but because this is the climate that surrounds and permeates the videogame industry.

This is not to say that modern societies will have to accept homosexuality before we see videogames that tackle the issue maturely, but what I will say is that the indifference to the subject and the unwillingness to discuss it is what is holding developers from discussing the topic. However, that said, that does not mean we haven't had at least a couple of examples of mature discussions on the topic, my favorite, and my pick for best example yet, is one many of us are familiar with: Kanji from Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 4.

Now, let me preface this by saying that I am extremely impressed with Persona 4; it tackles quite a few issues that resonate very loudly with it's primary audience, that audience being teenagers. Persona 4 primarily deals with the High School experience, with each character having to deal with the stress and issues that come with post-adolescence. For Kanji, that issue was not homosexuality exactly, but rather gender identity.

Kanji is an extremely masculine character, as well as being the obvious melee fighter in your group; in a way, he's basically the JRPG's teenage version of Francis from Left 4 Dead. However, this is juxtaposed by his true inside character, which is that he has much more in common with what society generally considers femininity; he likes to sew, he has an attraction to cute things, etc. However, the clincher, and the beginning of his true gender crisis, is his obvious attraction to Naoto, an androgynous character who is hiding the fact that he, in fact, is a she.

However, at this point in the game, neither you nor Kanji know that Naoto is in fact a woman, which leads him to questioning his sexual identity, which is resolved yet called into question at various parts in the game. Now, I don't believe Kanji is actually a homosexual, which I think is the most important part in understanding Kanji as a character; he is sexually ambiguous. He never really shows any attraction to any male other than Naoto, but also never really shows any attraction to any female other than Naoto. I think his crisis of gender identity is simply amplified by the existence of Naoto, who's own gender crisis multiplies Kanji's.

Two characters in one game, Kanji and Naoto, say more about issues of sexuality and gender than basically all of videogame history before it. That is why I choose that game as an example of mature sexual discussion, yet I am still holding out for a game that puts that subject at the forefront. However, until then, I'll have to deal with the medium's state of either malignant indifference or ignorant homophobia; but at least I have Persona 4 to remind that some people are trying, and in the end, that's what really counts.

Holy. Fucking. Shit. Three words, three sentences. That's how damn bored I have been for weeks on end. Why? Well, in short, I'm flat-ass broke. More broke (Yes, broke, not broken.) than a redneck's backyard car. More broke than eggshells on Halloween night. (Thanks you prick kids. I'll hunt your asses down and make you lick that shit off of my car...) More broke than an old PC jewel case that you stepped on by accident one day. More broke than...well, I'm as broke as I am out of analogies. However, between checking random forums and swearing I'll finish the last chapter of Valkyria Chronicles, I've been slowly working my way through my established catalog of games.

So far, my Wii and PS3 (barring that damn cheap last chapter of VC...) collections are totally beaten, meaning all I have left is my backlog of old PS2 JRPG save files (Kill me now...) and my good old collection of NES, SNES, and Genesis games. In fact, before deciding I was actually bored enough to write a new blog (Just kidding...), I beat Mega Man X3 for what seems like the 20th time. However, I also have games I've never even touched for more then twenty minutes in my collection, many of which I'm working my way through.

In fact, the last games to feel my wrath include Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse, by far the hardest Castlevania of all-time, but also my personal favorite after beating it, Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, which I think is actually superior to the first Zelda, Ducktales, and even Vectorman. All of these games were ones I was very familiar with, but not one of them have ever been beaten. It's really a freeing sense, like I'm getting a monkey off of my back; after all, I spent upwards of 5 bucks on each, which isn't much, but when you consider my collection of NES and SNES games (Let me count them, hold on a second...43 games. 24 on NES, 21 on SNES), that shit adds up.

This isn't to say I have an amazing collection or anything, but I do have more than an average person. However, unlike the average person, I actually have been going through these and beating them slowly but surely. Why is it that we buy these older games, play them for 15 minutes or so, and then never pick them up again? Perhaps it's simply the differences in design that games from the past have, maybe its their extreme difficulty, maybe their charm wears off soon since we have newer, more advanced technology now, but whatever the reason, we nickel and dime ourselves to death on these things.

Not that that is a bad thing, but sometimes I wonder if I buy them to play them or just the have them. I'm not really a collector or anything, but there is a certain appeal of seeing that cart or that box on your shelf; in fact, sometimes I think that is my true motivation for not pirating games; I have nothing to show for it. Are we that fickle? It seems like everyone with a camera and a false sense of nostalgia is just waiting for the chance to show off their collection of NES-era videogames, as if it's some sort of badge or rite of passage.

In fact, I'm no less guilty of these odd practices than anyone else, however, let me defend myself. When I bought Mega Man 6 a couple months back, it's not because I wanted to finally finish my NES Mega Man collection (Well, okay, it was a factor), but because I really, really like Mega Man! Much like how Jim Sterling's amazing show points out, sometimes I wonder if the easy access to emulation programs has lessened the value of older games. It seems like not many people see the value of owning these treasures anymore, especially when about 90% of purchasers will never actually beat the games.

Whatever the case, it seems that these old carts have been turned into mere legends, people talking about them, yet never actually playing them. When was the last time you beat Super Mario Bros. 3? Have you ever even best it once? Owned it even? Sadly, I'm going to guess that people will either say no, or simply lie and say yes to keep their cred intact. I'm included in the category; I own it, but I've never actually beat it. I get stuck on the last Bowser stage, which is quite a bit better than the majority of people out there.

Remember the days when beating Super Metroid in under 3 hours was a badge of honor by which many people judged if you were a true gamer or not? What happened to that? Whatever, enough nostalgic ranting. The point is that it is a sad day when absolute, soul-crushing, apathetic boredom is my motivation to beat what are general considered classics. However, the worst part is that is that it's almost worse then those who don't value oldies at all, or rather on the flip-side, evangelize them and say gaming has gotten worse. There I sit, in the middle, but at least I'm actually playing Mega Man 2 instead of bitching about it.

Also cocks.

Screams of putrid lucidity that mesh together in the air to form the grating physical manifestation of barbarism itself. People turn on each other, each more narrow minded than their counterpart, savagely scrawling their hatred upon whatever they can find. A thick, pungent air of fear and ignorance cloak the Earth like a fog. Radiated men eat the flesh of radiated men, and there is the most beautiful silence, never to be heard. That's right, I'm talking about the reaction to the days, hours of waiting for Valve to release the Left 4 Dead 2 demo. (I ripped off Bukowski! Im uh riter!)

Was it really that bad people? I can't recall the exact day it was supposed to be out, but I'll give a generous guess of Tuesday, or rather, October 27th. Here we are 2 days later, and we have what we waited so long for. 48 hours. Jesus Christ. What were they doing all that time? Probably last minute server correction or playtesting that ran late, which is actually a good thing...why are we bitching about this again? As if bitching about waiting 48 hours to play a 45 minute demo of a game that's coming out in another 3 weeks anyways, now we have PC Elitists writhing in pain over the fact that Xbox 360 users got the demo first and for free. Holy shit, someone start a crusade, cause God forbid inferiors get to do things mere hours before we do! Isn't this how wars racial cleansing gets started?

For Christ sakes, why is Left 4 Dead 2 itself the least talked about thing on the topic of Left 4 Dead 2. First you have idiots that want to boycott it because...it's too similar? They might stop supporting Left 4 Dead? It's a full retail priced "Expansion Pack"? Whatever the argument, they're all bullshit. Think it's too soon for it to come out? Tell that to people that have been waiting 2 arduously dry years for even the slightest inkling of information on Half-Life 2: Episode 3. Boycotters: go back into your hole. PC Elitists: don't be so petty (As if the fact that you had any interest in the game before release you wouldn't have pre-ordered it anyways). Bitching about delays: It's called patience, virtue, etc. On with the show.

Now that it's finally out (Longest two days of my life! I've never had to wait for things before!), we can talk about our first impressions of Left 4 Dead 2 from the side of regular joes. What do I have to say about it? Well, my word on anything isn't necessarily going to tip anyone's hand or drive mobs to go buy the game, so who gives a fuck. But, for what it's worth, here's a little preface on the subject of where I'm coming from on this thing; I love Left 4 Dead. It's a game that has to balance being a First-Person Shooter, an increasingly overpopulated and increasingly stale genre, and being a Zombie property, an equally increasingly over overpopulated and increasingly (exponentially I might add, hold Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland) stale genre, and it pulls it off better than any other game has to date.

If you're unfamiliar with the story of Left 4 Dead, join the club; no one knows what's going on, where it's taking place specifically, who these people are, how any of this began, or how it may end. And you know what? Good. In fact, I'm willing to say, as far as I'm concerned,Left 4 Dead may be one of the first games to completely rely upon non-linear characterization to tell a story, and it does it well. You see, a story is only as interesting as the people in it and what they have to say, and in this regard, the characters of Left 4 Dead are stunningly realized, Three Dimensional people that you genuinely care about and like.

Now, lots of people will cry fowl when I say Left 4 Dead has a good story, but what they consider story, I consider filler. You don't need cutscenes, dialogue boxes, conversations trees, or any other thing to tell a story; all you need is a few people talking like real people in revelatory banter that doesn't sound like revelatory banter and a rich, textured setting, and Left 4 Dead has these things. Everything is darkly ambiguous, with no knowledge of where the zombies came from or where the survivors are going to go, much like the survivors themselves; you are trapped alongside these poor souls as they try and light up the dread with some fun conversations or reveal what they feel with smartly-written and perfectly delivered dialogue. Yeah, I like this game.

I tell you all of this because Left 4 Dead 2, from my first impressions, retains basically everything I just ejaculating all over mostly. It's too early to tell for right now, but basically most in-game chatter has been cut down a bit, save Ellis revealing something about his friend Kieth in the first saferoom, which I won't spoil here. The writing on the wall is still here; not as good as the masterful Crash Course campaign of the original, but still good, funny, revealing stuff. As for the characters, the most important element of Left 4 Dead's anti-narrative, they fit right in.

It seems Valve took particular care to make every character for Left 4 Dead 2 almost nothing like the previous brilliant characters, meaning there is no bullshit. These people are completely different and very interesting, and I'm dying to find more out about them. In fact, the place where you learn most things about them is between the lines of whats provided; it's the little things. Ellis is always getting into trouble in the intro movie, Rochelle pushes the pistol off of the map shes reading; things like this show us who these people are better than any dialogue can. Rochelle pushes the pistol off instead of holstering it because shes a rational thinker; get a plan, then action, much the opposite of Ellis. Nick and Coach are equally fleshed out, but I need to get to the game part of this game, but suffice it to say these people are likable, relatable, real people that are dying for more time in the full game.

How does Left 4 Dead 2 play? Well, in fact, extremely well. It seems that since the release of the last game, Valve has tightened things up a significant bit. Big things first, there are the new special infected, who are awesome. The Jockey is the most instantly noticeable, as he will no doubt be on your head within minutes of the demo. All of the new special infected add something to Left 4 Dead 2 that really makes a motif of weight noticeable; stakes. Now, with uncommon infected like the armor-clad riot zombies that must be shot in the back, which is easier said than done during a horde, and three new special infected along with the old, ever-present three, as well as walking witches and deadly tanks, every corner is treated as a challenge. Sticking together is more important than ever before, and it works.

Continuing what I stated earlier, there is a gameplay motif of weight that I'm sensing personally, and while probably not strictly intentional on the part of Valve, I sense lots of things that add weight to the experience. There is the added stakes of a ton more enemies, but there is also the new weapons as well. Melee weapons are extremely satisfying and visceral, even if a bit archaic, but more than that, guns pack a much more noticeable punch, and this is due in part to two things; added power and new enemy reactions. The guns, while new and pretty and fun to use, are also very different then before; sure they're basically the same style weapons, but they're all feel much more powerful, with the SCAR in particular being a semi-automatic kick in the chest to undead bastards.

Also, like I said before, enemies react differently than before; not in the way the move, that's basically unchanged, but it's all in the new level of violence. Now, in most games, this means nothing, but zombies offer something that most enemies don't: fragility. These things, now three weeks into the infection, are falling apart. They'll rip you to shreds in seconds, but a shotgun blast to the stomach will create a satisfyingly large hole in the chest filled with viscera, gore, and bone that will make an Aussie burn their national flag. Blowing off limbs and the subsequent recoil is such a terrific indicator that the gun your using is a gun, not a plastic imaginary toy that goes "bang"; this is a bullet-spitting, zombie-gibbing son of a bitch machine, and it feels good.

Added to this continuing motif is the movement of you and the undead, which seems much different. For one, the undead seem a bit slower than in the first game, and much in the same way, you do as well. This isn't problematic in any way, as much of the design of the campaign is based upon tight corridors and rooms that chute you through the campaign at a brisk, intense pace, with only a few sprawling moments that feel all the more large in comparison. What it comes down to, is that while small and hardly noticeable, Valve may have adjusted the movement, but in a way that improves upon Left 4 Dead, which could sometimes feel a bit floaty when the momentum of your character seems a bit odd. It's idiosyncratic for series to say the least.

There are lots of things about the map itself that I want to talk about, but I'm not going to spoil it for you here. Suffice it to say, this is one of the best-designed maps that the series has offered to date, with an incredibly intense crescendo event that raises the stakes of the campaign in a way that is unlike any other before it, including Crash Course. The levels are well-designed, well-populated with zombies, and weapon pick-ups aren't limited to "find all three second tier on one desk"; instead, you can find any random amount of any tier weapon lying around, including melee weapons, which include police batons, machetes, frying pans/skillets, and even a Gibson SG.

Well, before this post gets too long (like every other one of my blogs), let me just say, this is the game we've been waiting for, distilled into two brisk, adrenaline-fueled stages that highlight most of the new aspects of the game to come. It's still far from what we're getting on November 17th, but it's enough to bet that Left 4 Dead 2 may just surpass it's predecessor in many ways; go and check it out if you have any interest in good games period. Also, this applies to Left 4 Dead as a whole, play it with friends. Not public people you'll never talk to over the mic; play it with people you know, friends in real life or over the internet, but playing with real buds is what really makes the experience, because when you're shooting a Jockey that is riding your screaming friend like a Coin-operated mall machine, it's euphorically fun.

Of all growing trends in videogames, the one I've noticed the most is the insistence upon open-world settings or nonlinear adventures. I'm not complaining for the most part, I tend to like Open-world action games like inFAMOUS and Prototype because they give you the option to go off the beaten track and collect orbs or do side missions; break the tension between story missions. However, sometimes, it can be quite bothersome, such as in FarCry2 and Red Faction: Guerrilla where the driving becomes absolutely tedious and obsolete.

However, I'm not here to talk about Open-world games, but quite the opposite; linear adventures. It seems that the biggest complaints levied against purely single player experiences is the lack of multiplayer or the linear design. Now, the lacking multiplayer is a purely economic complaint, as the lack of said multiplayer has no effect upon the narrative and gameplay of the single player game. However, since it's a critic's job to "review" a game, a part of which is measuring it's economic value, I won't complain too much.

However, it blows my mind that people carp about overtly linear design. Many people say they feel constrained or "on rails" when playing a purely linear game, which is an odd complaint to me. When I play a game, the way I approach it and play it is based upon it's design concepts; I don't go into Uncharted: Drake's Fortune hoping that I'll get a helicopter to surf above the jungle. In Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction looking for an open-world space setting. I'm looking to play a game that is very specifically designed and paced, which I feel is an advantage of linear experiences.

I recently played Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (I don't own it, but I played about 4 hours of it), which is a purely linear adventure. The game is paced in a way that it gives you these incredible set pieces with great action mixed with kind of quiet parts based upon fun platforming and some minor stealth (The purly stealth section is awful...). It's the changes in pace that really highlight why linear games still have a place in today's market; they are able to control/illicit certain emotions and such much more effectively since they have complete control over where you go and what occurs around you.

The freedom is in the player to accomplish these tasks however they like, and that I think is something that open-world games often advertise but don't really capitalize on. A very big complaint of FarCry 2 is that the game is laconically paced, and as such gets very tedious very quickly. This is because there are basically no set piece moments or areas that are specifically designed for certain actions. Sure, you can take the route of "you make your own set piece", but these moments, while more spontaneous and natural, don't feel as nuanced or frequent.

Take for example Uncharted 2: Among Thieve's train section, where you have to take out enemies by taking advantage of the curving of the train tracks. It's brilliant, and it's extremely fun and exhilarating, and it's just one of the many moments of the game that do such an action-packed set piece. Since the game is designed around the set pieces, they flow and play incredibly well, where as in open-world games, the missions are made to fit the game, meaning there is much more freedom in how you can accomplish the goal more often than not, but the variety and spontaneity of the moments is severely lacking compared to linear games like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves.

Now, I am not a person that judges a game's merits off of graphics alone or really almost at all, but nonetheless, the linear experience also allows developers to create a much better-looking, bug-free experience that will not distract players form the gameplay. Take Prototype for instance, which is a very fun, if not flawed, open-world game. Even though it was released in 2009, it looks much worse than Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, which was released in 2007. Now, many games do not look anywhere near as good as Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, but that's the beauty of it.

With a linear game, developers are able to accomplish much more than open-world games because of the games singular nature. Take Grand Theft Auto IV for instance; as it stands, this is easily one of the best-looking open world games, if not the best-looking open world game, of 2007. However, even still, it couldn't compare to other linear games in many respects; textures, especially inside environments, were mushy and blended into one another, animations were sometimes down-right terrible (playing pool, executions, etc.)

Now, these days, they're looking much better, like inFAMOUS, which is probably the best example, but even that game has it's problems; pop-in textures plagued collection, characters looked blocky and unnatural up close, and then there are the glitches. This is the biggest problem with almost any open-world games presentation; bugs and glitches. I don't think I need to go into the many times people would walk into/onto one another in Grand Theft Auto IV and inFAMOUS, or how often in inFAMOUS you would get stuck between geometry.

The main point is that linear games still have a place in today's market; not everything has to have a nonlinear/open-world aspect. Most of the time, the mechanic just feels tacked on anyways, like Call of Juarez: Bound in Blood's two (count 'em) open-world areas where you can do side missions. Why wasn't this applied to the rest of the game? Because linearity is still valid. NOt everything has to offer up this element of freedom, which basically amounts to a drive between story missions.

When done well, open-world design is an attractive thing, but in the same way, so is linearity. While non-linearity gives the player freedom to do what they want, when they want, linearity gives the designer the freedom to do the what they want, when they want, and just like film and music, it's always a treat to experience something that someone else's creative mind can bring us. Not every game has to be a Choose you own adventure affair; sometimes when the adventure is given to you, a pre-determined path can offer up some of the most brilliant gameplay and scenarios you'll play in a game.

Following on the coattails of my "Gaming Pet Peeves" article, I have chosen to talk about something that is not a rant for once: things that I, and hopefully others, do in games or while playing games. Hopefully it'll be a "It's sad watching people eat alone" situation (Go watch the HAWPcast if you don't get this, it's a great show!), where everyone seems to agree that they do these things as well. Anyways, let's start off with a strong one!

1. Walking away for a while? Turn that controller off!

This is to all of my conservationists out there: yes, I am one of you. Being a person who lacks a proper rechargeable battery for my Xbox 360 controller as well as no long USB cable for my PS3 controller, I find that if I am to walk away from the game for even a couple minutes, I have to turn the controller off. Period. If I don't, then I'll crucify myself later thinking of all the battery life I wasted while away. Now granted, not only does the PS3 come with a rechargeable battery in the controller (Come on Microsoft, get with the times!), but I would also be using that battery life if I was there playing the game anyways, I don't think of any of this while in the process of turning off my controller/plugging it into a power source.

Now you might be asking yourself "Hey Canti, what about your Wii! Surely you feel bad about wasting 2 AA batteries' energy while away! Why not turn it off?" Well, with every scenario, there is an exception. You see, as completely flat broke as I am now, I did once actually have a job which afforded me the opportunity to purchase all types of neat stuff, including a Nyko Charge Station for my Wii, just one of many absolutely killer accessories produced by Nyko in lieu of the lack of Nintendo support (Nyko Light Gun Attachment > Nintendo's Wii Zapper). Well, this allows me to just smack that Wiimote onto the charge station without a second thought or shred of guilt. Freedom is a beautiful thing...

Although, this begs the question, why feel bad for the PS3's rechargable battery when you don't for your Wii's? Well, other than the fact that I have no actual answer because it's a completely illogical habit, think about this: the Nyko Charge Station is attached directly to a power source (My wall outlet), where as the PS3 must be on since the controller attaches to it directly to charge. This means I must have it attached to the PS3 itself via USB while playing, meaning I need a pretty long USB cable, which I don't have, meaning, I have to either kneel before the thing to play it while the controller is attached to the PS3 or I have to switch it out for the regular SIXAXIS, which I hate for certain reasons compared to the Dualshock 3 (lack of rumble = lack of sufficient weight in your hands...). It's a completely illogical habit, but I'm sure plenty of people besides me do this.

.2. I've fired one or many bullets! GOTTA RELOAD!

Yeah, I know tons of people do this. It doesn't matter if you fire an entire clip or just a single round, after you fire your weapon, you have to reload it. Why? Who knows? You just have to do it, or else you'll spend a few seconds between enemies incredibly uncomfortable for some reason. It's an urge that is beyond logic or reason, truly, it is even beyond good and evil (That's for my dawg Nietzsche!). No one really even has a reason to do it, in fact, I'd go as far as to say there is no reason. It's just our natural instinct for preparedness or against wastefulness.

When you think about it, in real life, to reload a gun after firing one bullet is pointless, hell, even dangerous! Think about it: to replace that one bullet you shot, you have to eject the clip, dig a single round from your pocket, thumb it into the clip, and re-insert the clip. It's not like in a videogame where you discard an entire clip, yet only lose however many bullets you used. This is called a change for convenience sake. (We wouldn't want some of the guns from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare to have even longer reload times, would we?)

Anyways, back to the original point, there is no real reason to do this, we just do it. In fact, I'd say that you're a weirdo if you don't do this!

3. There are default names? I've got to use them for continuity sake...

This is a little less widespread I believe, but I'm one of those people that have to use default names in RPG's, even if they sound like crap. (I'm looking at you DAGGER...) I feel odd if any of the characters have different names than their default ones. In fact, I'm so ingrained to do this, I will look up the default names on the internet if the game doesn't provide them, like in any Shin Megami Tensei game that isn't Digital Devil Saga.

Beyond that, for the sake of consistency, if there are no default names available anywhere, I'll use the same one for every single game, as long as it's a JRPG: Shinji Ikari. Some of you will recognize this as the main character if Neon Genesis Evangelion, in which case, good for you! Now you know what a vagina I am, naming myself after the girliest main character in anime history, and that includes female protagonists! Why do I do this? I don't know, I guess I like hearing "Ikari-kun" over "Johnson-kun"...

This has got me into some odd situations though (I'm talking Awkward Penguin worthy ones here...), such as in Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3. Before finding out about the default name over the internet, I named my character Shinji Ikari. Since some characters will sometimes call you by your first name, I'd get called Shinji every once in a while. This wouldn't usually be a problem, but later in the game, you get a character named Shinjiro, who goes by Shinji for short...This results in some awkward dialogue ("Shinji! Help out Shinji-san!" etc.) Why do I continue doing this anyways? I can't stop, that's why. I'll bet there are some others that share my pain as well...

4. Karma System? Damn...Well, I'll do Good first and then Evil...

Now this might just be my natural urge to please people (odd since all I seem to do is rant about things that piss me off...), but I always play the good guy. It doesn't matter if it's Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fallout 3, or inFAMOUS, I always play the good side first. There's something about getting a nice, appreciative "Thank You!" that gets past the six inch lair of cynicism I keep around my heart and affects me. I like it, even though I know it means almost nothing in the fact that it's a fictional character.

In fact, most of the time, like in the case of Mass Effect and inFAMOUS, I have yet to go back and play Renegade or Evil simply because it's hard for me to be an evil bastard. Something about just ruining a guy's day by murdering his family just kind of takes the fun out of it for me. I'm what the /v/ community would call a "Moralfag", but I can't help it; I like playing the hero. This doesn't mean I'm totally beyond doing evil things, like pickpocketing/stealing in Fallout 3 or getting the Evil ending in Bioshock, but most of the time, I can't take being an asshole.

Now I know lots of people are going to scratch their heads at this one, but I honestly have a hard time being an evil character; being chastised for my actions by the random strangers whose lives I ruin really gets to me, even though they're simply electronic constructs. Now, I can indulge sometimes, like rampaging in Grand Theft Auto IV or electric dropping off a building into a crowd in inFAMOUS, but for the most part, I have a better time playing the good guy, and I'm betting I'm not alone.

5. Visual Progression turns you into a Completionist

Now this relates to the Obsessive Compulsive "reload" habit, but if there is visual progression for a game's side missions, like the map screens of Prototype or inFAMOUS, then I have to beat every single one. There's something about seeing every event as a gold medal in Prototype or seeing a completely letter-free radar in Grand Theft Auto IV that really gives me a sense of accomplishment I need. Now when it comes to side quests that don't get acknowledged in some way, like in Mass Effect or Fallout 3, I usually don't care; there's something about seeing that map, with everything on it done that really makes me feel satisfied.

I think the game that really does it for me is inFAMOUS, a game I really like simply because it shows the progression of your, well, progress! You see every piece of each island completely free of gang control, and you feel like you've really done something. Add in finding most of the blast shards and Dead Drops, and you've got me hooked for hours. I need to see that 100% in my save file. It kind of reminds me of my long-time love affair with Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland, in which I beat all three save files available with 100%, and then re-beat them in the alternate hard mode where you have half the normal health bar to add another 100%. Why? So I can see 6 "100%" on the screen!

It's a crazy what people like me will do to get everything there is, as long as it is acknowledged at some point. Take Super Metroid for instance; at the end, you get a time and a percentage of item pick-ups. If I see a perfect "5:00:00" or "4:00:00" with a "100%", then I'm in heaven. I hardly speed run that game simply because it almost feels like a punishment to be told I didn't get everything, even if I did it faster. I really hope I'm not alone on this or else this is going to awkward...