Boobs...
Yeah, Ivy's got em. Well, in 2010 in the United States alone, apparently over 318,000 women also decided to get them. Since 1997 that has been a 155% increase in the total number of plastic surgery procedures in the United States. The number one procedure was breast augmentation... followed by liposuction, eyelid surgery and abdominoplasty (tummy tuck). An estimated 5 to 10 MILLION women worldwide are now walking around with cosmetic breast implants... regardless of the cancer risks, the leakage/burst risks, the other health issues associated with this procedure. Our media shows us that apparently men find big breasts attractive... and many women are willing to pay a lot of money and disregard the health risks to become the fantasy.
http://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/2010-quickfacts_0.pdf
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm241090.htm


Anime Eyes...
(this is apparently a before and after picture of Ayumi Hamasaki, one of the best-selling singers in Japan)

The rounded, childlike eyes on the bodies of 20 year old women found in most anime... well, apparently many Asian movie and TV stars are getting blepharoplasty which adds an eyelid and visually "rounds" the eyes giving a more child-like look. With their media showing round eyed Asian women, the rates of blepharoplasty have sky rocketed among the Asian population. A straw poll of 232 Korean women in their 20's and 30's who went to a dating website responded to a survey and 90% said they would have plastic surgery. 58.2% of them stated they already had done plastic surgery, with eyelid surgery being the number one procedure. A slightly larger Gallup poll showed that 11.7% of female respondents in their 20's and 30's had undergone a plastic surgery procedure. This was back in 2007...the numbers have increased since then.
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/10/26/2009102600798.html



In addition to the plastic surgery, special contact lenses are being worn that make the iris of the eye much larger and much darker.


These are just two examples of how the media we consume (movies, TV, video games) can have an impact on culture. There are multiple references available... but the facts are that a very large number of women seek to increase their breast size and Asian women are increasingly seeking a more anime or western look. Men also undergo plastic surgery, but statistics show that the overwhelming majority of procedures are performed on women. There are abundant statistics that also show that increasingly women are dissatisfied with their appearance and simply feel "ugly" which has not only led to high rates of plastic surgery, but also anorexia and other issues.

The question is... can media also have the opposite effect? If TV, movies and video games started to show more healthy and realistic female images, would women be more satisfied with their looks and could they be happier? Could men start to define "beauty" as something other than huge boobs? Personally I believe "yes", which is why I do often speak up on this topic. Fantasy has it's place, but when images of fantasy become more prevalent than images of a healthy, realistic female - then it can't help but have an influence on our overall culture.

I believe that game developers have a societal responsibility to portray our video game heroes and heroines in a way that is more realistic and attainable for average people. With male heroes we have Old Snake and Dante with a slim athletic build, we have the heavily built, more muscular space marines in games like Gears of War, the more average build of the normal soldier in many FPS games, and we have Nathan Drakes. Most male video game characters are still fantasy, but there is variety. Where is this variety in female characters? The only playable female protagonist I can think of who is even close to "normal" is the character of Faith in the Mirror's Edge game. She has an athletic, healthy build and wears clothing suited to the environment of the game. Aside from her (and possibly Jade from BG&E), most every female protagonist that isn't created by the user, is impossibly slim with breasts often larger than the hips. The anime trend of large, childlike eyes in particular seems to be evoking a particularly dangerous mix of an extremely youthful face (often that of a 10 or 12 year old) with an impossibly exaggerated caricature of an adult female body.

The media we consume isn't harmless fantasy. If beauty is defined, then game developers should define it as healthy. Men and women should aspire to a healthy figure and weight - neither anorexic, nor steroid induced musculature. Variety should be the norm, rather than the aberration. The use of harmful unrealistic imagery should be reduced and if the developer doesn't personally know at least two non-plastic surgery enhanced women or men with the body they are drawing, then they should change the design. Women should aspire to be more than a set of giant plastic boobs or collegen-filled pouty lips. Asian women should revel in their own distinct beauty and not be influenced by cartoon drawings of a pedophile's fantasy. Consumers might enjoy a particular art style but should push for changes that are more beneficial to our culture.



There has recently been some debate on the imagery of Elizabeth from the upcoming game Bioshock: Infinite. Some have described the image as misogynistic (a hatred of women), while others simply say that it's based on real fashions of the Victorian/Edwardian eras or alternatively they rely on the "harmless fantasy" argument. There is no need to harken back to an era where the reality was that women often broke ribs and developed health issues from wearing such painful and restrictive garments (including the swooning or fainting of women so often during those eras... it wasn't a 'delicate disposition' that made them faint, it was pain and lack of oxygen). The era of the corset and later the girdle was also the start of bulimia and anorexia. The thing is that games ARE fantasy, the developers could just as easily have retained the fashion but used a more realistic body image. In some ways it actually is misogyny to use an image so unrealistic from how real women look. It must be hatred of women to show such a tiny unrealistic waist with massive mammaries as any definition of "beauty", even if it's just in a video game. Could this impact fashion... well, if Madonna managed to bring back the corset in the 80's, it's not at all unrealistic to think that "Elizabeth" of Bioshock, might well bring in back yet again.

The image of Elizabeth in many ways sums up the issue. Throughout history women have abused their bodies to achieve a cultural image of beauty. I doubt that this will change any time soon. It certainly won't change when game developers, producers, models, actors, singers and those that create our consumer media continue to have an attitude that female imagery is simply harmless fantasy. The games we play may be entirely based in fantasy, but the media we consume has an insidious influence. TV, music and games influence how we perceive "normal", it influences our perception of "beauty", it delineates cultural qualities such as heroism or sexuality, and it re-defines our fashion. Before people start to talk about how any female imagery in a game is "harmless" fantasy, perhaps they need to walk a mile in the shoes of a woman... preferably 3" spike heels that are one size too small, with pointed toes. Then, and only then, can they be better equipped to speak about how harmless fantasy is.



... and as a final thought, think about if you had a young pre-teen daughter. What images of "beauty" do you want your children to aspire to?

I've never been a real fan of the Call of Duty Series. I've played the campaigns for most of the recent games and particularly enjoyed the Modern Warfare series, but I've just never enjoyed the online play. I tend to like team based shooters where people talk about the objectives, enemy movements and try to coordinate and work as a team. I enjoy the social aspects of shooter games... the social aspects that aren't full of little kids asking me what my nipples look like. Call of Duty tends to move too fast for any real team based chat to be effective. I didn't like jumping into a game and getting killed over and over and over and over again. The graphics were beautiful, the guns feel effective and are responsive... but the game seemed to lack soul. Modern Warfare 3 is the first time I've actually stuck with Call of Duty and achieved a rank higher than 10. I like the support killstreaks. No matter how bad I am, I do tend to get a couple of these in a game because killstreaks don't reset upon death. I like that I get to experience the fun of actually having some form of "killstreak" reward without the need to sit and camp for kills. Ranking up also brings all the usual rewards of better guns, better perks, better scopes... better everything. Again, this rewarding good players has always been a negative for me in the series. I almost feel bad killing some n00b with a basic gun and few if any decent perks. I definitely do feel bad when I get killed by a high level player with a really good gun... and I get to see the replay and want that gun so at least I would have a fighting chance!

Still... last week I reached the tipping point. I'm a level 59 and I unlocked the thermal scope on the GC36 assault rifle... and I was actually excited that I unlocked it! I now tend to place in the middle of the pack in most games. I often place last on my team, but usually I'm just sitting there near the bottom and on a few wonderous occasions I've actually placed first on my team (usually because everyone else has dumped for the game or else because I've had a really good run with the recon drone!). I don't tend to use my mic at all in Call of Duty... I have it on, but generally have myself muted because I don't like the sound of others talking coming through the TV. The tipping point came when I unlocked that scope and realized that I like this game. It's a rather mindless game... just jump in with any group and simply play. The game is very much based on "first shoot, first kill" but after awhile you tend to know the usual camping spots on many of the maps and check them before blindly running anywhere.


(WTF? How did he manage to see me to shoot me?? I say this a lot in COD!)


There is strategy in the game, but it's strictly a personal strategy... and there is a wide range of strategies to use. The game does rock, paper, sissors quite well. Having a shotgun or close range weapon is lethal up close, but useless at a longer distance. Sniping is often a one shot kill, but anywhere you can snipe from generally has multiple entrances that are difficult to guard, so being knifed in the back becomes part of choosing to be a sniper. Each of the perks serves a purpose and tends to counter some of the other unlocks given. The restriction of only 3 perks generally means that you will have a weakness somewhere. The number of guns, unlocks, perks, etc. can be rather overwhelming and confusing but it does add some depth to the game and allows people to change their playing styles. I've not reached the level yet where I can prestige and don't know much about choosing that option... but again, this does seem designed to again add depth to the game for those that play a lot... or too much I guess!

I don't even know that I would call the game "fun" for me... but since hitting that tipping point, I find I want to play it... pretty much all the time, too much, and more than is good for me. I want to try out the different guns, I want to rank up a better gun and unlock the scopes I like. I want to try some of the other perks or even try different killstreaks. I want to play some of the game modes I haven't tried yet. I've reached a zen state where dying rarely bothers me now... I almost zone out while playing and in some respects it's like playing a game with annoying bots rather than real people (especially since the voice chat quality is very poor when compared to a game like MAG where it's crystal clear).

This "tipping point" has occured in other games. I didn't initially like MAG and found it confusing... but at one point I looked around while playing the 256 player Domination mode and that tipping point was reached... I was addicted and to date I have over 1400 hours in the game. With single player games I tend to find the tipping point more quickly... I just started Skyrim and I KNOW this is a game I will love. With multiplayer games it often seems to take much longer. With Call of Duty it took a lot longer and I'm actually a bit surprised that I even reached it. With some games I never reach that tipping point, or I give up long before it's reached. I like Uncharted. I've played UC1 and 2 and have played a bit of the online for 3 (and will play the campaign later). I don't think it matters how much or how long I play Uncharted, I'll never reach that tipping point where I want to play the game constantly. It just doesn't hold that addictive factor for me. I'm not even sure if this tipping point is personal taste or design. I started Skyrim and was immediately there - full blown addiction, I can't put the game down. It seems that others too feel this same response. MAG and Warhawk took a bit longer but there are others too that obviously feel this addiction because both games still have active online communities years after the game's release. Call of Duty has a fanatical online following so it seems that those that have reached this tipping point into a love for the game are quite willing to transfer this adoration to each new game in the series to a some extent. The online gameplay is similar enough, yet different enough to retain those that love this game - and this is surely purposeful design. This tipping point... it's a cash cow. If developers can achieve it, it not only seems to assure sales of the game, but can also assure sales of the next game. The Oblivion, Final Fantasy and Call of Duty series point to this.



The odd thing is, is that this tipping point is a different thing for me in each game. In Call of Duty it's the fact that I am not playing with a group. It's a solitary experience where I can just zone out and play. With MAG and Warhawk it was the opposite - it was the group experience of playing with friends and being inter-reliant on them. The early SOCOM games relied on this social aspect as well... with large clans that formed to regularly play the game and not just socialize, but work on the game as a unit that worked well together. With Skyrim, it's the exploration... on my way to one location I come across a cave... this constant input of newly discovered locations keeps me constantly going in the game (regardless of the glitches and other annoying aspects). I'm sure that devs did wish that there was one answer to what the tipping point is, but I guess fortunately for us gamers, there is no one answer. This means that devs will keep looking and will continue to bring us a variety of different games in the hopes that the game will have that elusive addictive factor that can assure sales.

In the meantime, my addictions are piling up! Skyrim... or Modern Warfare 3... or MAG... or trying the Starhawk beta again because I'm pretty sure I'm close to reaching the tipping point there. I need more time... I need... ugh, I need to get a life and quit spending so much time gaming. Meh... I'll get back to real life right after I check out that new town I haven't been to yet in Skyrim... the one I've been heading towards for the last couple of days but keep getting sidetracked!

... just like real life.

(though it should be noted for those fearing I have a gaming addiction, that while I game a lot and can occassionally lose track of time while playing a game, I have no problem turning off the console to spend time with my husband, friends or family. My housework gets done, dinner gets made and I find time to write blogs and read Destructoid. Gaming mostly replaces TV watching or other leisure activities... and being retired, I do have a lot of leisure time!)


(and is it a bad thing that when I see this picture I think of the Arkaden mall map in Modern Warfare 3?)

Mods or modifications are generally associated with PC gaming, and they are usually fun changes to a game that make all the characters naked, add game content, or in the case of the header picture... let you play Oblivion as Michael Jackson! There are also game mods available on some consoles. UT3 allowed PC mods to be converted to PS3 format, then freely downloaded off the web, installed on the PS3 and used. However, what I want to talk about are modifications that are more commonly used on consoles and are of a less savory nature... I'm just gonna call them "modifications for pathetic losers". Maybe these people are born with an itty bitty tiny penis, that's my theory - but they will use hardware or software modifications to give them an artificial advantage in a game.




The easiest mods to do are generally hardware mods. The most common of the hardware mods is the use of a modded controller. "Rapid fire" controllers can be found for sale all over the Internet, and even at some retail outlets. Sony and Microsoft won't ban people from using them and leave it up to the developer to deal with this issue. Some people don't even regard it as cheating because there are advantages and disadvantages to using them. What a modded rapid fire controller does is that instead of continually pushing down on the trigger to fire a single shot weapon, a rapid fire controller empties the entire clip with one hit on the trigger. If you've ever seen a pistol acting like a machine gun, chances are you've been killed by a moron using a modded controller. The advantage of the modded controller is that single fire weapons tend to be quite lethal in many game because you generally only get that one shot. Shotguns, sniper rifles, pistols and burst fire assault rifles are the types of weapons usually used by those using a modded controller. Instead of firing a single shot or burst, a rapid fire controller will fire a very fast succession of shots (often emptying the entire clip). It's generally a sure fire kill with practically no skill required - hence it's appeal to those without the manly (or womanly) balls to just play the game with the same guns as everyone else in the game. The disadvantage to the rapid fire controllers is that people often run out of ammo quickly if they aren't smart about how they use the controller. Generally people will use it for their pistol (their back up weapon) or alternatively they will use it for a shottie or sniper rifle and carry an automatic back up weapon. Alternatively you'll often find these people camping near re-supply points. Modded controllers often come with additional mods such as a jitter shot (specific to burst weapons turning them into fully automatic), drop shot (the ability to go prone and fire), quick scope (automatic scoping when firing), and automatic reload. Essentially it's "Call of Duty for Dummies".

The other use for modded controllers is for fighting games where several moves can be tied to a single button... a "macro" for multiple button presses. Some developers now use anti cheat software for modded controllers. If you've ever depressed a shotgun fire button six times and only fired 3 shots, this is the anticheat software in effect. The game itself restricts the timing of single fire weapons, but moves like drop shots or quick scoping can also be done manually so are virtually undetectable by anti-cheat software. Now it should be noted that there ARE legitimate uses for modded controllers for those with handicaps such as missing fingers or the ability to only use one hand... but the vast majority of modded controllers are used for one reason and one reason only - to cheat.




The other easy hardware mod is the use of a Lag switch. It's apparently the game equivalent of viagra for those with limp dangly bits as it helps them have a big e-penis. With the simple push of a button their internet traffic is disrupted for a few seconds and the player appears to stand still in the game but they are in fact able to move around. Everyone also appears still to them and for the few seconds, they can get easy head shots or a knife kill on still targets and move out of the way of any shots coming their way. When connection resumes they often appear to move quickly around or even "warp" to a new location as all the actions made during the use of the lag switch are performed. Now some people have legitimately laggy connections, so Sony, Microsoft and some devs tend to look for patterns of strong internet signal with sudden short cuts in the signal. Lag switches generally are detectable and when found, the user is often banned from the network... unfortunately occasionally so are some players with really unstable internet connections, but the reality is that they probably shouldn't be playing in online play anyway. Developers are also increasingly using a simple server disconnect function when a lag spike is detected... the player is basically auto-booted from the game. Lag switching can still be found in some games, but increasingly they are becoming more and more difficult to use because of detection software. A lot depends on the game and the ability to match the lag switch with the server detection so that increasingly they can only be used for a split second which more or less avoids a death rather than gains a kill. The detections used simply make it so inconvenient to use a lag switch that many people don't bother.




For the more technically daring, there are software mods. Xbox has long fought a battle with software mods and generally can detect and ban consoles that use these types of mods in online play. Sony was pretty impervious to these mods until the infamous Geohot crack. Primarily a modded or cracked console tends to be used for game piracy, but they also gain the ability to alter code directly on the console which can also lead to online game hacks. After the Geohot crack, Modern Warfare 2 became virtually unplayable on the PS3. There were the usual aimbots (where the cursor auto centers on an opponents head), the wallhacks (ablity to see an enemy through walls), and speed hacks (allowing a player to move more quickly)... but the outstanding number of hacks and cheats made the game completely unplayable for anyone who simply wanted to play the game as the developers originally intended. This is always the fear of true gamers... not that a hacked console will be able to pirate games - but that hackers will ruin online play for people that legitimately bought the game and just want to play it. Hacks are common in PC gaming, but PC devs are a little more attuned to this and have anti-cheat software that can often detect these modifications. At the time, the PS3 had little in the way of detection, though this has now changed and many current games are released with the ability to detect software mods. Like the Xbox, the PS3 can also now detect modded consoles and can perma-ban them from PSN and online play. While piracy was, and still is, a huge issue for console manufacturers, the bigger issue of allowing console modifications is the disruptions to other gamers who just want to play the games they paid for. Still, hackers will hack and it's the constant (and expensive) job of the console manufacturers and game developers to keep on top of this with various detection methods that allow for the disabling or banning of the player, the IP or the console. It's an expensive race, and every gamer pays for it.


(particularly those that are caught!)


Modifications. Yes, they can be fun, and in fact some games allow for servers to be legitimately modified to allow or disallow specific weapons, or to alter other gameplay factors. Consoles can be modified in fun ways that show the creative tastes of the owner. The problem arises when players make console modifications for the sole purpose of cheating. These people appear to have sociopathic tendencies and actually feel a sense of achievement when they climb the leaderboards or place well in games by using these various modifications. They take pleasure in disrupting the gameplay of other people. The reality is that these people are barely gamers. They're playing a game of avoiding cheat detection rather that truly testing their skills against other players. There is no glory in winning a game through cheating... absolutely none.



Cheaters can overcompensate all they want. The reality is that the rest of us kind of pity them. If people have to cheat through using mods, it's obviously because they lack the skills to play the game.

Yeah, I'm currently playing Fable 3 instead of Skyrim. I'm old. Normally for Christmas I get practical things like socks, fuzzy slippers, or a pizza cutter. Last year I actually had a totally awesome Christmas and my husband bought me an iPod Touch... which came as a complete surprise because I already have an iPad and use it all the time, so wasn't expecting to get a mini-version. It has actually become my constant companion and I'll admit I'm a bit addicted to it... but it's rare that I get one of those "Wow" Christmas gifts anymore at my age.



This year I want to re-live that excitement of something totally awesome being unwrapped on Christmas day, so I've asked Santa for a copy of Skyrim. It's a game I'm really looking forward to and I know that being able to put the game in my PS3 on Christmas Day will bring back that wondrous sense of excitement that used to permeate Christmas as a child when I got that Barbie camper I really, really, really wanted (and my brother got G.I. Joe who promptly got stolen and used as Barbie's date while she cruised in her camper... hmmm.... that sounds a bit Ted Bundy doesn't it?) Anyway, I've been avoiding reading many of the Skyrim blogs this week to maintain that sense of "new" when I get my copy of the game, though I guess in reality, it won't make a lot of difference as the thing with Skyrim is that everybody's adventures will be so unique.

So instead of Skyrim, I've been playing Fable 3. I really enjoyed Fable 2. It was "RPG for dummies" but it was still a lot of fun. Unfortunately, Fable 3 is "RPG for morons" and has removed a lot of the fun factor, but it's still fairly addicting. I'll admit that when I initially heard that Fable 4 would be an on-rails Kinect adventure I was a tad upset... but now, I really don't care. It seems that this is the direction the series has taken and I wouldn't be surprised if Fable 5 turns into a game where you simply press X to do everything. There is no challenge whatsoever in Fable 3 and it's barely a game... it's more of an "experience".



In Fable 3, I spend my time adopting kids and fixing up various houses for them. That adorable hugging animation is cute the first few times you see it... but after awhile the long animations for interactions made me pretty much ignore my kids. I'm a bad Mommy! The quests are simple and expected, and the interactions with the NPC's have become boring. I talk to everyone I meet simply to get the stupid guild seal. My options generally consist of belching or dancing... and I'm getting damn tired of dancing with guys only to dip them then kiss their hand. It makes the men in the game seem like pansies and is obviously a male character animation that they never bothered adapting for a female hero. Hence my decision not to marry... but instead to adopt, yes, I'm the Angelina Jolie of Albion! I miss the ability to choose our interaction with NPC's. I also miss having an inventory. Yes, it's easier not to have one, but games can become too easy... as Fable 3 has shown me. Still... easy can sometimes still be fun. I tend to run the game during the day while I'm doing housework. I'll do a quest or decorate a house and all my little properties make me money while my character is idle. I do like money! I already own everything and just became Queen and I have 9 million in the public coffers and another 7 million of my own.

When I feel like a challenge I've been playing some Modern Warfare 3. I get my ass kicked but frankly I find this game has no soul. There is no need for teamwork, no need to talk to anybody, and the few joyous moments are simple things like finding a sniper and knifing him in the back... it doesn't matter the game - that kind of fun never gets old. It's odd, but a game like MAG that is rated T for Teen seems to mostly have adults that play, whereas a game like Modern Warfare rated M for Mature seems to have an overabundance of juvenile kids who want to know what my nipples look like. Yeah, that's what I got asked on Tuesday night. My response was simply "I'm probably old enough to be your granny... so just imagine your granny naked... and there ya go". This was greeted with dead silence and then one guy pops up with "man, that was harsh... now I got this image of my naked granny in my head... ewww!" My work there was done. I took a break and moved on to another game where I promptly ended up in a game with a bunch of other kids who were fascinated by the fact that I was an older female (I tend to use my age as a weapon as it usually shuts kids up). Instead these kids kept calling out "Elllsssaaa... where are you?" through the whole game. They kept following me around and trying to "protect" me. They were adorably cute and also annoying as hell. I think I'll do what most other people do in the game and simply not bother with a mic and I'll mute everybody. This is unusual for me because the social contact is one of the reasons I play online games. I like talking about the game, feeling part of a team - but this just isn't that type of game.

I think that Starhawk may well be that type of game.... team based gameplay with people talking about what to build, enemy movements and asking for cover when they take a base or the flag. I tend to like the more strategic shooter games. It's ironic, but my husband got the beta invite and I didn't. What's sort of funny about that is that he was never really a gamer until I got in the Warhawk beta and asked if he could help me out with testing the split screen play. Soon enough I would find him using "my" PS3 to play Warhawk on his own, which meant that we eventually went out and bought him his own PS3. Even now, he's not nearly as avid a gamer as myself... and he does still love Warhawk and is looking forward to Starhawk... but it still burns my butt that he got the private beta before I did! LOL!


STARHAWK!!!!

I have a bit of gamer ennui... not really sure what to play though I find myself gaming a lot lately. I currently have a bit of dissatisfaction with the games I'm playing, but I guess that will make Skyrim all the more exciting when I unbox it on Christmas morning!... and maybe there will be a pre-order for Starhawk in amongst those presents too!

... but this woman does! I love playing open world WRPG games and recently completed Fallout: New Vegas and I'm just currently finishing Divinity 2. Both games have shitty maps. I spent many frustrating hours in Fallout, heading for a map location only to find that it was apparently in the middle of a mountain that wasn't climbable, so I would have to slowly make my way around the entire mountain (or mountain range) looking for a path or way into the center of this inaccessible area. Yes, I often discovered new things along the way and would get sidetracked... but only to go back to circling that mountain range once again (often to discover that the only way to the marker was to take a cave entrance located elsewhere... crap!). I do love those helpful NPC's who offer to "let me mark this on your map for you"... but really, couldn't they offer a little more information about how to get there! At least in Fallout there is that perk you can take that shows all the locations on the map... so many little distractions, with many turning out to be very unimpressive tourist stops... yeah, the equivalent to seeing the World's Largest Ball of String.


That "El Dorado Dry Lake" ... not really a good tourist stop!

In Divinity 2 it's even worse. Rarely does anything appear on your map until you actually find it. In particular, when you are in your dragon form there are loads of cliffs with small areas and you have to land on to see if there is anything of actual interest at that location. I spent a lot of time morphing in and out of Dragon form and becoming anal retentive about examining each location where I could land (and there were a LOT of them). There were few if any quest markers on the map and once again they tended to be a very vague pointer in the general direction with little in the way of specifics. Worst yet was that quest givers weren't noted on the map so trying to turn in a quest and get your reward often entailed visiting tons of old locations to try and remember where in hell that NPC who wanted you to recover his dead Mamma's earrings was!

Designing maps for large open world games is an art form. Putting everything on the map with easy directions destroys the sense of exploration, however on the other hand, putting a location on the map with no obvious way to get to it can lead to frustration. Having too many locations on a map can lead to being overwhelmed, while too few things on the map means why even bother with a damn map? On looking at Skyrim's new 3D mapping system I think that hopefully they've got it right. When one of those helpful NPC's marks your map, you'll at least be able to see a possible path of how to get there... taking a long or short route is up to you, but finding a location should no longer be a frustrating quest of uselessly wandering around and around the bottom of a mountain range.



The ideal situation is being able to see what you want to see on a map. I like games that give you options... little tick boxes of what you want to see. Do you want to see towns... voila! Quest locations... there ya go! Everything and anything... that too. If you only want the main quest location and leave everything else to exploration, then that option should be there too. I also like the option of seeing what locations I've already been too... and which one's I haven't been to. It's too easy to forget where you've been and what you've done.

Maps are important in games, not just in open world RPG games, but also in shooter games. In MAG I find I am continually keeping an eye on my mini-map, but additionally I flip to the full map to see enemy/ally movements. When first playing MAG, using the full map was truly essential in learning the basic map layouts and in many shooter games, this is a good habit to acquire because it gives a more overall sense of what is happening in the game and can allow for better strategic decisions in addition to better seeing where objectives might be.


Kill the red dots!

Minimaps are also essential. In both RPG's and shooter games they often give indications of enemies in the area. Gamers that play shooter games generally become reliant on their minimap and often end up saving their ass by seeing that sneaky little enemy coming up behind them on the mini-map. One thing I dislike about shooter games though is that often the minimap is not well defined in terms of what shows up and what doesn't. In some games you show up if you are firing a weapon, in others if you are running. In MAG I still have no idea if I appear on an enemies minimap when I'm running or firing a silenced weapon while wearing a fully perked out sensor jammer. The minimap in shooters is such an essential tool that somewhere it should be clearly defined what and when marks show up on the minimap!

I admit it. I've become a bit map-addicted. A great map makes me squeal with girlish delight at how awesome a tool it is. A bad map generally has me haunting the internet looking up locations I need to find. I think that people read maps differently though. I NEVER use the North, South, East, West thing but instead use left or right (or straight or behind me), so a triangle marker showing the direction I'm facing is crucial. I use landmarks a lot and tend to remember where something is in relation to something else. I rather wish that noticeable land marks were more often noted on maps and I think this is something that Fallout tried to incorporate, but they should have just noted the location as a landmark rather than an actual "location" - thus avoiding the tourist syndrome of disappointment on reaching the location to find virtually nothing there. In shooter maps it would be nice if buildings were noted... so I can see I have to go left at the church... or so that I can better tell my teammates that there is a sniper somewhere to the left of the church. Sometimes the buildings are nondescript and they need a descriptor so that everyone can see the location and know which building you are talking about! This is particularly maddening in shooter games where on the map all the buildings rather look the same and descriptions started to get convoluted... and men start to sound like women and saying things like "it's that dusty building with the patio facing our spawn that has a hole in the wall between the two rooms and has that room with the linoleum floor... but the guy was up on the area that has the wood floors". Really? Wouldn't it just be easier if it was called "building A" on a map!


So... describe where that sniper is!

After playing with the terrible map on Divinity, I can't wait to luxuriate in the awesomeness of the new Skyrim 3D map - though I hope more locations are actually labeled than what is shown! I do wish that devs would include those wonderful fold-out maps in game cases again - I miss those. Alternatively, putting downloadable maps on their websites would be a nice option - especially given the increased use of tablets like the iPad that can be tucked beside the chair as easy reference while I'm gaming.

Maps... love them or hate them, they are an intrinsic part of gaming - even for men.

The stoic soldier, with gun pointed down... walking away from a hazy wartorn backdrop.

There are too many shooter games. North Americans are obsessed with their stupid FPS games. AAA games are all becoming FPS games. FPS games are all in shades of gray or brown... they're all about war... they're boring... they're all the same. FPS games are ruining gaming! I see these statements littered through the comments, and frankly, it pisses me off . Usually the person making the statement has not played a lot of FPS games and their only exposure to the shooter concept is aiming for the toilet bowl... and probably missing.

Shooter games involve shooting... and that similarity extends through the genre in the same way that RPG games have quests, or that platformers involve moving, jumping, exploding or rolling from one platform to another, or that fighter games involve mashing some buttons to pull off combos. As with any genre, when one game become inordinately successful, others unfortunately seek to copy it. How many Mario clones are there out there? Why are many JRPG games all similar in some way to Final Fantasy? Why does Bayonetta seem like Dante with boobs? Why do Two Worlds 2, Divinity 2, Dragon Age and Fable all seem suspiciously similar to Oblivion? Yes, the incredible commercial success of the Call of Duty series has had an impact, but this has always happened in gaming. Ideas are often stolen and used as a genre of games grows, evolves and changes.


Sometimes we see the back of the stoic soldier... walking into a hazy, wartorn backdrop.

First off, games like Portal, Borderlands, Half Life, Bioshock and Fallout 3 are all FPS games. They all involve shooting from the first person perspective. Secondly, even among the "typical" war based FPS games there are huge differences. I realize that people generally tend to have a problem with the second part... the war based "realistic" shooters, so I'll restrict myself to discussing those.

Let's look at the single player element. FPS games tend to borrow from a variety of other genres which often makes them all a little different and keeps them interesting. Most tend to have a convoluted story of sort, and yes, the story is usually shitty and often involves Russians or some random terrorist group, not unlike the usual crappy RPG story line of save the Kingdom. Many even involve a quest structure, like Far Cry 2 where the game is very much like a WRPG with a main quest and optional side quests in a fairly open world. The only real difference between Far Cry 2 and Oblivion is that there are guns and jeeps in Far Cry 2 instead of horses and swords.

Other FPS campaigns include racing elements, vehicle sequences, and boss battles. These are very similar to boss battles in other genres - a boss or mini-boss with special powers and you must figure out their weakness through trial and error. They require the same persistence and skill to defeat, although the boss isn't always a specific person - sometimes it's a large group, or a new class of enemy with a specific weapon, a stealth section to get through without being spotted, or sometimes it's a large creature or vehicle. Just like most RPG games, conquering a mini-boss or boss often unlocks a new skill or weapon or alternatively you are given a new weapon/power that must be used to defeat this boss. Many FPS games are based on real-world weaponry, but others like Halo, or Resistance: Fall of Man are based on incredibly fun and imaginative weapons - sniper rifles that can slow down time, bubble shields, or a gun that can shoot through walls. In some FPS games you are alone, in others like Rainbow Six you have a "party" or squad that you can control. In still others, like sections of Modern Warfare, you follow the lead of another character who gives you specific instructions, and in Battlefield: Bad Company you had a hilarious group of A.I. sidekicks that often made me laugh with their humour.

My main point is that FPS single player games are NOT all the same. They are not even all in shades of grey and brown. While they tend towards a more realistic look, I think that the colors of Resistance 2 were closer to a Ratchet and Clank-ish colorful world, than the sepia tones of the first Resistance game. Far Cry 2's jungle areas were alive with bright greens and colorful flowers.

While the single player campaign portions of most FPS games have quite a wide variety of styles, and lean more towards the "adventure" genre, many gamers tend to buy FPS games, not for the campaign, but more for the online portion. Again, these games may seem to be all the same to the view of a more casual outside viewpoint, but they simply aren't any more similar than the platforming in Mario when compared with Super Meat Boy.


Sometimes the soldier is even pointing his gun... against a hazy, wartorn backdrop!

In general, FPS gamers are not attracted to these games because they are violent sociopaths who want to kill (well, maybe a few of us are), they are attracted to these games for the same reason that MMO's are so addictive - it's the social aspect. The game is continually changing depending on who is on your own team and who is on the opposing team. Clans form and people gather together to share a social evening of chatting and teabagging some opposing team. Like MMO's, FPS games also tend to incorporate the hook of "leveling up". There are new ranks, or guns, or classes to be unlocked. For the money spent on a game, FPS online games tend to offer value... hundreds of hours of value.

Yes, most have similar modes. There is deathmatch, team deathmatch and then various objective based modes. No, on closer examination they are NOT even remotely the same. Some are team based games requiring team cooperation in order to win the match (MAG), others are squad based (Battlefield) and others are more individual, where players play mostly on their own for killstreaks and a high score (COD). Additionally there are co-op games like Left for Dead or Resistance 2 which are again similar to MMO's where members group up to take on a quest against A.I. Some FPS games are "twitch shooters" or reactive games that are extremely fast paced like Halo and other arena style shooters, while others are proactive - slower and more strategy based like SOCOM. There are even some FPS games where a high score is not at all based on kills, but can be based on points gained by reviving teammates and repairing team assets. Playing each of these differing game types within the FPS genre requires a substantial shift in how you play. Those used to getting high killstreaks in COD will often find themselves placing last in MAG games because they're not running with their squad getting objective points, revive points or repair points. Those used to using vehicles merely as a form of transportation in MAG will be reviled in Battlefield or Homefront where the use of vehicles is more key to decimating the opposing forces, and using a tank as a taxi to the front lines is a waste of a team asset. In Killzone, the choice of class is often key, not just to a team's win or loss, but also your personal points within a game. There are many variations of FPS games and they can't all be played in the same manner.

In conclusion, before you ever type the words "FPS games are all the same" please don't make an idiot of yourself. There is a reason that FPS games are so popular, there is a reason that a lot of developers create new FPS games - the reason is because they are not all the same. The genre is growing and evolving. In addition to RPG and MMO elements, we are increasingly seeing RTS elements also entering into the category of FPS games. There is room for growth not only in gameplay, but also in social elements. There is a large variety of single player and multiplayer forms of FPS games, creating a vast genre. For fans of the genre there are nuances and substantial differences to the games. Yes, there are lots of sequels in the genre... but who can complain about FPS sequels while they're playing Final Fantasy XIII, Mega Man 9 or the most recent Pokemon, Mario or Madden game. Any genre looks somewhat the same at first glance, that's what makes them part of the same group, but if you think FPS games are "all the same"... then you either don't play them - or you're playing them wrong!

... or maybe you're just judging the book by it's cover, cause yeah, I'll agree that the box art on a lot of FPS games is pretty similar! LOL!