QTEs: Press X to post blog.

Quick Time events have an extensive history, dating back to the 1970s, first featured in Kansai Seiki Seisakusho Co's The Driver where the player is tasked with matching the movements of the steering wheel, gas pedal, and brakes to the indicators shown on the screen. But in modern gaming our idea of 'Quick Time Event' is pressing Space to execute an enemy or the infamous 'Press X to Jason'. So when did QTEs simply turn into Pressing X to Win for so many people and do they still have a place in video games?

Do QTEs serve a purpose?

The core argument against QTEs is that they reduce the difficulty to such a degree that it cheapens the game play, it also becomes repetitive to see the same QTE appear throughout the game. It isn't fun to mash the A button until you rip an enemies head off in an execution style mechanics, in fact execution style mechanics as a whole are getting over played with video games trying harder and harder to be more 'visceral' while ignoring the core aspects of game play and instead just giving players something to gawk at. But it is understandable why game companies would want to implement QTEs, they are by far one of the easiest game play mechanics to program, simply have the player go through an animation if they hit a button at the correct time or another animation if he doesn't. But with games like Ryze being released in the near future and reports that not only can you not fail the QTEs, you can actually shut them off. Is that a developers idea of a game play mechanic? How much does a developer lack confidence in how fun their game is if you can turn off an entire sections of game play?

So the question remains, 'Do QTEs have a place in video games?' and the answer is, 'Kinda'. Games like Dance Dance Revolution and Guitar Hero are exclusively QTE and they were immensely popular, but unlike FPS or Strategy games, no one really plays them anymore. People got bored with matching their feet and fingers to symbols on the screen and the genre slowly died out until the point no one makes those games any more. What happened to Guitar Hero, guys? I don't know, you don't know, nobody knows, nobody cares.

QTEs have a place, but only within their our genres. If we're playing an FPS, we want everything that is expected with an FPS, the ability to aim and shoot as the core mechanic. If we're playing an RPG like The Witcher or Elder Scrolls, we expect all the game play mechanics respective to that series. Point being, QTEs should remain in their own separate genre like they do with DDR or Guitar Hero, but when you try to shoehorn them into games like Bioshock then QTEs become nothing more than 'Press X to not die', and no self respecting gamer thinks that's fun. Of all the QTEs I've been tasked with, none have offered significant challenge or entertainment and all of them become repetitive after very few completions. As far as I can tell, QTEs only serve as an easy way for developers create boss battles. I mean, what would be easier, having the player fight an extensive battle with multiple phases and mechanics or just having them press a button and going through a death animation? They're detracting and they take you out of the experience. How am I supposed to think I'm playing an actual character or enjoy the scene in progress with giant symbols slapping me in the face?

So. Do you think QTEs belong in video games? And how would you like them implemented, if at all?

Follow me on Twitter @GreaterGaming and visit my full blog at http://greaterthangaming.blogspot.com/

Review: Company of Heroes 2

The original Company of Heroes is among my favorite RTS games if not my favorite overall. It has great combat, plenty of vehicles and weapons, good graphics and the campaign is diverse and interesting. So imagine my excitement with the release of Company of Heroes 2. The hype train came to a screeching halt when during my Steam purchase of this game, I was disappointed to find out the shear amount of day-one DLC; so disappointed in fact that I wrote a separate post about it. Huge amounts of Day-One DLC is one of the first omens of a crap-for-cash video game. Nonetheless, I would be remised if I didn't take the time to play through it at least once.

But I can't say I'm too pleased with the results.

Gameplay and Functionality

Close Quarters:

The first level of CoH2 starts you off during the assault of Stalingrad. Beginning with 2 infantry units, one of the first things you notice is that the map is very, very clustered with buildings. This wasn't an issue to start with because it was the first level after all and, of course, it was a city. But continuing throughout the game you notice that this issue does not really get better, in fact on some maps it gets worse. The majority of the time during the campaign is spent fighting in small streets with tight alleyways and considering the game utilizes tanks and tank destroyers, you will grow you despise these clustered cities with every fiber of your being. The problem is alleviated only in the skirmish mode against players and AI but I would have liked to see more varied level design.

Are you dead yet?:

The time it takes to kill infantry in the game is borderline unacceptable. It got so bad during a skirmish at one point that five infantry were able to take my armored car down to quarter health with a flamethrower before they finally fell back. . .with three of them still alive. This problem becomes almost rage-quit worthy when you try to fight enemies stationed in buildings. In the first Company of Heroes, you could throw grenades through windows or use satchel charges to blow them out; this not only gave you an option against enemies in buildings, it also made you measure the risk factor in sending troops into the line of fire, but now you have to either damn-near destroy the building or burn it down with a flame thrower. Worse yet, considering that the majority of the maps you play on are cities with a  lot of buildings, well, you can see where this becomes a huge issue.

Scripted RTS:

Be prepared for scripted events, because there are a metric ton of them in this game.  Whether it's a small in-game event where a tank almost destroys your AT gun or a tank driver losing control, this game piles on scripted events to the point where it feels like you're just watching a play acted out. What's really restrictive, however, is how the campaign spoon feeds you parts of the map. Instead of giving you access to the entire map and then telling you what you're objectives are, you have to unlock areas of the map bit by bit before you can beat the levels. I absolutely hated this, especially given the fact that the maps are linear as it is.

Cheesy mechanics:

The rest of my issues lay with corny little mechanics like having to make sure your troops don't freeze to death on cold levels and Order 227. Oh, Order 227, how useless you were; basically, Order 227 means that if you tell a unit to retreat back to base, they will be shot by the officer stationed there. This would have been interesting if they used it on certain levels, but it persists throughout the entire game; which, again, would have been fine if they hadn't attached a completely artificial mechanic onto it. On the right side of your screen is a bar, when that bar fill up, Order 227 is given and remains active until the bar depletes. I still can't figure out what causes the bar to fill up, but all I know is that throughout the entire level I hear "Order 227 has been given", "Not one step back!", "Order 227 has been withdrawn". It feels incredibly unnatural.

Along with bad AI pathing and  the fact that Relic has done what no one asked for and shifted focus from large armies to  troop and vehicles abilities like they did with their poorly received expansions, Company of Heroes 2, in terms of game play, is a significant step backwards(So they will be executed back at base immediately).

5/10 - 'Average'

Story and plot

Spoiler Alert: The Russians win:

Considering everyone knows how World War 2 played out, I assumed the player would just be taking to part as  a run-of-the-mill Soviet commander on his way to Berlin, so I was surprised by the well written story in this game. It followed a good natured journalist after he was caught trying to defect to the Americans. Each level is accompanied by his stories and the struggles that the Germans and Soviets went through on the Eastern Front. Although the plot of someone telling their story while being interrogated is a bit cliché, it gives a balanced view of Germany and Russia during the war.

7/10 - 'Good'

Dialog and script

Another pleasant surprise, the dialog feels natural, well written and the troop banter is pretty entertaining to listen to. Hearing Soviet troops talk about American mayonnaise on spam sandwiches gave me a pretty good laugh. The main characters talk like you would imagine they would during a war, with the main character lamenting over the horrors he's seen and the commander trying to justify them as being part of the greater good for his country, it offers some convincing dialog I that thoroughly enjoyed.

7/10 - Good

Technical Graphics

(Played on a nVidia 670 / i7 Ivy Bridge, performance may vary)

Company of Heroes has always been about the realism factor and that is reflected in its graphics and Company of Heroes 2 has done a general improvement of the textures and graphical effects. There's nothing like seeing massive amounts of dirt kicked up from giant explosions and bullets shredding through the ground or gun fire from an AA half-track slamming into the side of a building. The models look better, the explosions have been reworked to look more convincing; essentially all aspects of the engine have been improved, although I am hearing about some performance issues on other rigs so I can't speak for everyone. There were some graphical glitches like floating bodies and mounted troops flickering in and out so points will be docked due to those issues.

8/10 - 'Great'

Art style and direction

As I said, Company of Heroes stresses realism and the art style is no exception. The art design fits this type of game perfectly, there are no cartoonish features and nothing ridiculous that wouldn't belong in a World War 2 drama. I've always loved that about Company of Heroes; the realistic way that NPCs battle and the fact that the game carries a very convincing graphics engine and art style is what makes Company of Heroes the best choice for a realistic WW2 RTS.

10/10 - 'Perfect'

Level design

Again, the cities in this game are cluttered messes that restrict movement and only act to infuriate the player as they try to plunge their way through tiny streets with tanks that are larger than the alleyways. The fact that the maps are cut into sections and unlocked as you progress through the level is also a massive detriment. Overall, the level design just feels bad and I can't think of a logical reason for these type of restrictions, like the developer didn't trust the player and wanted to hold their hand throughout the entire level.

3/10 - 'Bad'  

Sound design

There hasn't been much improvement in the second installment, the machine guns still sound like they're shooting out dull thuds and the small arms still sound a bit too 'Hollywood'; guns don't make clicking sound when you shoot them, well they do, but you can't hear it over the deafening bang. Why can't developers understand this? While the gun sounds could be greatly improved, and probably will be by modders, the explosions and tank shots sound much crisper and are worthy of turning your headphones up for.

6/10 - 'Above Average'

User Interface.

Coming off of the first Company of Heroes, the UI was somewhat recognizable to me. The unit cards have been moved to the center and they give you a pretty neat overview of the currently selected unit, the unit list was moved from the center right to the top right and some of the building options have been slightly rearranged. I won't go as far as to say the user interface was drastically improved(Since there were not many issues with the first games UI to begin with) but there were a few improvements made that I hope they keep around.

I would, however, like a better way to keep track of currently selected units, this is a problem that has persisted since the first game, especially on skirmish and multiplayer maps.

8/10 - 'Great'

Production value

As far as aspects like Q & A are concerned, Company of Heroes 2 is certainly a well-built game. Throughout the entire campaign and the few skirmish matches I played, I had not encountered a single non-graphical bug.  Unfortunately, this is one of the few areas that CoH2 excels at.

9/10 - 'Exceptional'

Price value

There are plenty of features in this game, new multi-player modes and skirmish options, plenty of maps and a decent sized campaign. But I cannot forgive the absolute money grab that was the day-one DLC packages. The fact that it will cost you almost an entire game just to receive all the skins and tactics (Which in my opinion is vital to the game play) is absolutely unacceptable. No company should chop up unit skins into 22 different packs and then remove game tactics and charge $40+ dollars for the entire bundle. I would have even been fine with them including the tactics but keep out 4 or 5 skin packs as DLC, but to have twenty six, TWENTY SIX, different DLC items on launch is the completely wrong direction for SEGA to take and in a lot of ways it makes me regret the death of THQ even more.

But this kind of nickel and diming has become standard in the industry. Want a complete game? That will be $90 please.

5/10 - 'Average'.

All in all, it wasn't a 'bad' game, but it definitely stung, I hope this isn't a preview of the direction Relic is taking or what SEGA is pressuring them to do and instead is just a hiccup that will hopefully be resolved by the next installment. The restrictive maps, shifting focusing onto unit abilities, jarring game mechanics all had me asking 'why?'. Who asked for these things? Considering the reviews of the Company of Heroes expansions, this is the exact opposite direction we wanted the series to take. We wanted more open maps and bigger battles but what we got were claustrophobic maps and smaller battles.

I'm happy Company of Heroes has a pretty dedicated mod community because this game needs a lot of work and unfortunately I don't think Relic will be the ones providing the kind of changes we want.

Technical score:
68/100 - 'Good'

Personal score:
5/10 - 'Average'

Most Overrated: Bioware.

Seeing as I have no money to actually buy video games coupled with the fact that Verizon's idea of "high speed internet" is 500kb/s , which means won't be able to pirate(scratch) wait patiently for a Steam sale, I've decided to begin my "Most Overrated" series where I take the things  you all know and love and shit on them for no apparent reason. In keeping with the spirit of my blog, these posts will carry on my tradition of crippling negativity and hopelessness. I will begin this series with two posts; the one you are reading now, outlining everything I despise about the hype surrounding Bioware, followed by another post with a surprise topic, Bioshock Infinite (Oh yeah. Surprise!). So with Dragon Age 3 revealing more information, I figured I should remind everyone that if the prospect of another Dragon Age game gets you excited than you may qualify for diability.

Yay me.

Whyoware

I've never quite understood the reason Bioware carries a sort of seal of quality behind its name. If this was the mid 2000s or late 90s and the Bioware brand was still benefiting from the hype it's received from the KOTOR and Baulders Gates series, I could understand the trust that consumers put into the brand. However, in recent years we have seen the gradual, spiraling decay of talent coming out of the Bioware studios  with the development of Dragon Age 2 and the complete fumbling of the Mass Effect series (And by the way, the ending wasn't even close to the only narrative issue) along with the revealed details about a new Mass Effect game, were starting to see the EA cycle work it's why into the once decent game developer. I hope you're ready for a Mass Effect: The Strategy Game, Mass Effect: The MMO and Mass Effect: The Dating Simulator (Joke's on them, Mass Effect is already a dating simulator).

Since Bioware loves stories so much allow me to tell you a tale. It's the story of a game developer who squandered RPGers trust and would prefer to talk more about their anti-marriage stance than actually addressing the issues that permeate throughout their games. It's the story of a studio who's arrogance alienated fans and destroyed beloved franchises. This is the story of Bioware.

Game play innovations, or lack thereof.

During the 90s, video games saw the largest amount of innovation since it's  conception. The first RTS, the first FPS, the first grand strategy; all appeared in this relatively short time and continued until the mid 2000s when video games began seeing a stagnation of gameplay innovation that ultimately lead to modern gaming where the majority of major E3 reveals are sequels and rehashes.

And in this regard, Bioware has done little to alleviate the stagnation. Arguably, Dragon Age: Origins was one of the few innovative titles in terms of game play in recent years. The mix of action and strategy harkened back to games like Baulders Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. And yet despite the incredible reception to Dragon Age: Origins, Bioware and EA were not content to play by different rules; they weren't satisfied with having a game that didn't take the mechanics of another series and just replace the art assets and slap on a story. They instead chose the 'broader audience' approach and showed RPG fans that they're more concerned with how flashy they can make the combat look than they are to developing interesting game play that engages the player.

Dragon Age 2 was a cruel joke in terms of game play, a $60 dollar prank. The pitiful amount of challenge it offered only varied by its artificial difficulty where turning up the game from easy to hard simply increased health amount and damage done by the enemy AI. Rather than forcing you to approach situations depending on the positioning of the enemy and anticipating powerful enemies ability, you can simply wade into the fray without having the worry about your companions dying simply because the new equipment system of Dragon Age 2 had been so striped down that throwing on some basic armor and a ring or two would be enough to support your entire party of 3. And this is what Bioware wanted. They didn't want new players to have to concern themselves with carefully selecting companion gear. They instead tried to compromised by leaving a few ring slots that don't really mean anything while shifting all the focus on to Hawke and how 'uber' they can make him look.

Mass Effect, while better, was a marginable improvement. To its credit, the first Mass Effect had an extensive inventory system, unfortunately after the player reached a certain point in the game, the weapons became vastly superior to the enemies and hindered the challenge greatly. Regardless, there were spots where the player had to genuinely strategize. And then came Mass Effect 2, by far Biowares easiest game to date. Jumping from cover to cover to engaged enemies until your shield went down, ducked into cover until it recharged and repeated until everything was dead. Even the giant robot fetus at the end offered a meager amount of difficulty. The biggest mistake Bioware has made with the Mass Effect series was focusing so much on cover shooting. This isn't fun, Bioware. It isn't fun to hid behind a wall and pop out for half a second before diving behind cover again. And it doesn't get better in Mass Effect 3. The entire game is just a slow progression of diving behind conveniently placed walls and boxes.

Baulders Gate and KOTOR were by no means the pinnacle of great game play but it at least had some semblance of strategy. But today, Bioware is more concerned with emulating more successful games and slapping their own story over it while parading it around as original.

Are we ready to admit that Bioware stories aren't that great?

Yes, it's true, the one facet that Bioware claims dominance over is one of their weakest points. In fairness, Bioware does a good job at writing some characters (SOME, as in not Fenris and his angsty bullshit) and even then they tend to fit into an archetype that is shared across many Bioware games. The 'tough' character (Jack, Aveline, ), the mysterious character (Fenris, Thane), the 'witty' character (Isabella, Garrus), the 'cutesy' character (Merrill, Liara, Kasumi, Tali), the wise character (Samara, Wynne) and of course the boring characters no one cares about like Kaiden, Jacob, Anders (Yeah, thanks for ruining a perfectly good character, Bioware), really anyone who wasn't previously mentioned probably isn't worth mentioning with the exception of Legion who manages to not fit into an overexploited archetype.

As far as main plots go you can almost always (and I'm tempted to just say always) boil them down to 'ancient evil'. These are antagonists who border Saturday morning cartoon villain status, complete with illogical plots and lack of motivation. Mass Effect , for instance, tries to explain The Reapers motivation in a grand total of about 5 seconds. Essentially, The Reapers want to destroy humanity because humanity will eventually create Reapers that will destroy humanity, so in order to stop humanity from destroying humanity, the Reapers destroy humanity. I think the only missing plot device in this arc of a story is how much Bath Salt the writers injected their neck to come up with this shit.

I can thankfully say that Dragon Age 2 does not suffer from a convoluted main plot, not because the writing in Dragon Age 2 is good but because Dragon Age 2 has no main plot to begin with. I played that game twice and still can't figure out a single reason Hawke should even exist never mind be the protagonist of a story that spans 10 years. The most memorable part of DA2 is when you're family is escaping from the Blight and eventually you reach the city of Kirkwall. The reason this is so memorable is because it's the only part of the plot that isn't a crunchy cluster bar of nougatty fuck. Your first task is raise enough money to go on a scavenging expedition so you can raise money (I'm not even joking). And here's the fucked up part, the amount of money you get from the expedition is less than you raised to go on it in the first place. In chapter 2 something happens with the Qunari because someone stole their book or something, basically who-gives-a-shit is what happened in the second chapter. Nothing happened during that time period that matters to this non-existent story.

Eventually you get to the final boss fight where the main templar lady goes crazy and starts killing people. Why? Because fuck it that's why. Why WOULDN'T she go crazy and start killing everyone? That's what people with white hair and black armor do in Bioware games. After some more boring, uneventful stuff happens, Anders goes crazy, blow up a Chruch and declares Jihad against the Templars. Let me explain how bad this plot line has been. Bioware could have taken literally everything out of the game and left only the last 30 minutes in and it would have been enough to set the scene for the 3rd installment. Almost nothing in this game mattered. I never felt like my character progressed, the story meant nothing and the entire game was just a vapid build-up to Anders destroying a temple. And not to mention, the temple itself had maybe a dozen people in it and Bioware wants us to believe that would be enough to spark a world war between mages and templars?

Bioware used to create above-average stories like Baulders Gate (Of course this was back when they worked with Black Isle, a vastly superior studio), but even then they were overshadowed by games like Planescape and Fallout. They can make interesting worlds but they lack the resolve to give me a reason to progress through those worlds.

Don't like our game? Stop being homophobic.

There are plenty of game companies, and companies in general, that support gay marriage. I would go as far as to say they majority of gamers also take this stance. But the fervency that Bioware takes with their pro-gay message in on a level I haven't seen in a company.

 I would have no issue with this if it weren't for EAs obnoxious insistence that the reason gamers attack Bioware products is because of homophobia. I wish this was an exaggeration but a few months ago EA brazenly stated that a large portion of people who attacked the company were bitter homophobes. Keep in mind this is coming from a company that staged fake protests in order to promote their games and then have the balls to act insulted. There's also that little incident of EA forging digital signatures for their gay marriage petitions. I've never seen any other company so quickly use misogyny and homophobia as a defense against criticism. When Jennifer Hepler, a writer for Bioware, was attacked (in a lot of cases unfairly) one of her infamous Twitter post accused attackers of being jealous that she has "both a vagina AND a games industry job".

Bioware has been keen to use gay people and women if it means being able to worm their way out of criticism. In terms of activism, I have no issue with someone being pro-gay marriage, but to EA and Bioware these are just PR tools that lets them use gay people as mops to clean up their mess.

They're just assholes.

Ultimately, this all accumulates to Bioware developers just being absolute, unadulterated douche-canoes. Whether it's telling a fan to "Deal with it" because they complained about the hair not having proper physics or calling your entire forums "Toxic", Bioware developers and moderators never fail to take their place as part of a small elite who can proudly claim that they are among the biggest assholes in the industry.

It's a shame, I used to be a Bioware fan. Now they've been warped to the point where they're my most hated developer of my most hated publisher.

Oh well, at least David Gaider was kind enough to explain the stages of denial I was feeling before I came to terms with the fact that they've turned into an irredeemable trough of mediocrity.

Only at the end of this post do I realize I didn't even mention SWTOR or the blatantly paid reviews of Dragon Age 2 (Dragon Age 2 is what video games are meant to be. Right, Escapist? RIGHT?). But it's probably for your benefit, I could write pages dedicated to dissecting those monstrosities.

OUYA customers receiving an alpha build of the newly released console.

On Jun 25th, OUYA, the grassroots console system made possible by the incredibly successful Kickstarter fund raising campaign, launched into the gaming world. The reception to the new console has been lukewarm at best, with gamers complaining about the lack of substantial titles, the awkward controller and the underwhelming hardware performance. Regardless, the OUYA has sold out on Amazon, proving that the new console is at least a moderate success.

Unfortunately, the launch of the OUYA has not been without it's fair share of criticism and issues. According to many Facebook posters on the official OUYA Facebook page, the promised early version of the OUYA system that was sent to the donors of the Kickstarter page has shipped with an alpha version of the systems software.

Looking through the OUYA support page of Twitter, this remains unconfirmed, however some of the Twitter responses have managed to provide some humorous responses.

Sexism in games: Is there a line to draw?

Anyone who  pays close attention to the controversies in the video game community should be no stranger to the heated theory proposed by those who believe sexism is a permeating issue within video games and, in some cases, society itself. Unfortunately, this debate is remarkably one sided, with very few people on the other side of the fence who, in many cases are too afraid to take a contrary stance in fear of being publically shamed or called a sexist. But myself, being the low life with no self respect as it is, take no issue with arguing the contrary. Not that sexism doesn't exist in video games, of course it does, it exists in all facets of life and it effects both genders, not just female by the way. My stance, instead, is that despite the fact that sexism in video games exists, we should take no action toward stopping it. Open your mind and take a journey with me.

Drawing the battle lines.

In the thickest of fighting over the issue of video game sexism stands an icon of gaming feminism, Anita Sarkeesian, host of Feminist Frequency and champion of feminist gamers all over the world. She gained notoriety through her Youtube channel, speaking at several conventions (including TEDx) and most notably, the massive success of her Kickstarter project, Tropes vs Women, which raised over $150,000, well past the targeted goal.

Naturally, trolls from every corner of the world were quick to jump on the bandwagon and begin harassing Mrs. Sarkeesian and her followers. But instead of ignoring them like any sensible vlogger would, she instead dedicates entire speeches to denouncing the trolls and claiming they're part of a massive coordinated "hate campaign" . I've never, for instance, heard Anita address her alleged public shaming of Twitter users. The Youtube user, Thunderf00t, for instance, has put together a brilliant dissection of Anita's arguments, found here.

No sensible person has an issue with giving your opinion on an open forum like Youtube, but when you complain about how feminists are being misrepresented and then dedicate entire, syndicated speeches to misrepresenting your opposition, that's when you should reexamine your arguments and see if they would actually hold up to scrutiny without trolls to use as scapegoats.

You don't have a right to not be offended.

A few months ago, in the final week of last semester, I sat with two other game design classes and watched a great presentation by game industry veterans. At the front of the room they talked about their career history, what games they worked on and gave us advice in their respective fields before we plunged ourselves into the competitive world of video games.

One of the many moments that stuck with me, however, is when the speaker spoke briefly on the difficulty of joining the gaming industry. At one point he explained how few female game developers there were throughout the industry and that he doesn't know why it had "taken so long for the game industry to get more women". It was the way he phrased it that rubbed me the wrong way. Was he suggesting that the gaming industry is a conscious being that decides what gender ratio should be allowed to develop games? He seemed completely oblivious to the fact that there is absolutely nothing preventing women from obtaining a game design degree or starting an indie project. Instead he tried to push the blame on to the industry itself for being "anti-woman".

As I said at the start of this article, sexism in games absolutely does exist but people seem to forget the reason. Back twenty or even ten years ago, if you played video games, you were considered a loser. You hid it from your friends and you hid it from any girls you knew. You were afraid to reveal that you played video games. Video gamers were seen as nerds on the lowest rung of the social ladder and often times they were simply by virtue of the fact that throughout their young and teen years they were out caste by members of the opposite sex. Video games were a male past time, especially back then when most teens and tween girls wouldn't even touch gamers never mind pick up a controller.

Eventually these gaming nerds grew up and began making their own games. Entire game companies full of almost exclusively male developers. And knowing that at the time there were so few female gamers and even fewer female developers, they didn't have to worry about offending anyone and when left to their own devices, a male majority will create male centric products.  It's nature. But now it's 2013 and the number of female gamers has increased dramatically and we are beginning to see developers walk on egg shells as not to offend any potential female consumers. But why is this a bad thing?

I think it is any developers artistic duty to offend their viewers. Provoking thought through expression is the only way to create compelling pieces of art. Instead what we see is an industry that is vastly more censored than any other industry. For some reason, in the past few years, comedy and video games have been under fire as the only artistic mediums that are not allowed to be offensive. When Mayor Giuliani proposed the closure of an art museum for containing works of art he found offensive, people were up in arms about how censorship is the death of art. But for some reason, going after game developers and comedians is considered admirable.

Censorship is the death of art. If you are reading a book, or watching a movie or playing a video game and you are not offended at some point in the story, than it has failed as a story telling medium. Without anger or objection in a plot  line, whether by gender or not, the story will fail to engage readers or viewers.

And if your reasons for objecting to sexism in game is personal, that the story does not suit your tastes and you wish the developers took a different path so you could enjoy it more, than simply admit that is the case. I wish the Transformers series was more in line with my tastes, but I have accepted that Michael Bay's vision for Transformers is a vapid expression of art. I didn't start a Kickstarter to speak out against bad directors, I didn't make videos talking about how action movies have no place in the theatre, I simply did not watch.

Societal damage.

Some may argue that sexism in video games promotes the 'rape culture'. This ties once again with comedians being shouted down for rape jokes. These people seem to miss the entire point of free expression. Free expression isn't there to comfort you, it isn't there for you to mold into your own personal soap box. Free expression allows for anyone to share their opinions and vision, whether it be in a public forum or through an artistic medium.

Harkin back to Mayor Giuliani trying to close an art museum over offensive content. Now contrast that with the fact that many gamers, myself included, consider video games to be a form of art. Are we, as gamers, so willing to restrict and censor a form of art simply because we are afraid of offending someone? If video games are an art as many of you say, than no amount of offensive content would be grounds for removal or alteration. No amount of sexism or racism or any content that one would deem offensive should be subject to censorship or, god forbid, legal action. For years gamers have tried convincing the masses that video games are a form of art, but how can they take us seriously when even we ourselves do not treat video game as a form of art? And if you deem that video games should be censored, than you have forfeited all grounds to call video games an art. Censorship is the death of art.

Some feminists may also argue that sexism in video games effect us as a whole on a societal level. This argument is not unlike the debate on whether or not we should ban violent video games. The proponents of this philosophy propose that the consumption of violent video games has contributed to the murder rate, mass shootings, suicides and crime rate despite the fact that the crime rate has seen a steady decline even as video game consumption increases. This also rings true for sexism. There is no study that suggests that sexism in video game has a direct correlation with rape or violence toward women and in fact the number of rape and domestic violence is decreasing with the overall crime rate. In fact, in countries where abuse toward women is common, particularly countries like Kenya, Pakistan and Ethiopia, the video game consumption rate is remarkably low.

It is logically impossible to take to the stance that violence in video games does not affect society but sexism in video games does.

The bottom line.

If, after reading this article, you still maintain the stance that sexism in video games is wrong, than you forfeit the right to call video games a form of art through virtue of censorship. If you call video games an art but still maintain your stance against sexism in video games than you must admit that it is for a personal reason and that the best course of action is to simply not partake in the purchase of said game.

If you maintain the argument that sexism in video games effects society negatively, than you must also take the stance that violence in video games also increases the murder and violent crime rate, in which case you have lost the empirical argument given that a magnitude of scientific studies has  debunked this claim. This arguments house of cards cannot stand under scientific scrutiny.

Should you take anything away from this article, let it be this: Censorship is the death of art. Artists should be left to their own devices without fear of censorship or scrutiny. Any rational human being would not dump paint on a piece of art they found offensive, no rational human being would prevent people from entering a movie theatre showing a movie they found objectionable. No matter how offended you get, no matter how hateful the content of a piece of art is, nothing should drive you to actively work for its removal.

When a developer releases content you do not agree with, simply do not purchase it. Any further action against that product would be absolute selfishness.

Company of Heroes 2: Before I even begin, let's talk DLC.

I mentioned on one of my blogs that Company of Heroes is one of the best RTS games of this generation. Everything from it's robust graphics engine, it's AI, and it's unique approach to how battles play out on an individual level was a step in a new and brilliant direction. It felt like a fresh break from the average strategy game where enemies stand in front of each other and hit the other guy until he falls over.  

RIP THQ. The show must go on.

So imagine my excitement when I heard about SEGA announcing that Relic Entertainment was making a sequel to the "highest rated RTS game in history". There was a few months there where we didn't know what was going to happen to the game series. THQ had filed for bankruptcy and was sadly no more after a valiant battle with financial troubles. But then SEGA buys out Relic and now Company of Heroes lives! Yes! I was so excited! Of course I'm going to play this game and proudly review it, it's the sequel to one of my favorite RTS games of all time!... 

How about a nice cup of shattered dreams?

So... Are you waiting for the catch? Can you FEEL it in the air? Can you picture it hurdling toward you, about to slap you in the teeth? Well, my friends, when SEGA bought the rights of Company of Heroes, I was alright with it. SEGA publishes Total War, my favorite strategy series, what could go wrong? A lot actually. You see, the gaming community exists in a series of controversies. Before DRM, there was DLC, before DLC there was whatever people older than me can remember.  

While the whole EA, Xbox One DRM train wrecks were being cleaned up, we suddenly seemed to not care anymore about day one DLC. There was a time, just a few months ago where day one DLC was in our cross hairs. Mass Effect's hilarious on-disk DLC for example had the internet in a fit and Bioware haters in stitches. But because the bloated tumor that is corporate interest continued to grow to the point where it over shadowed DLC, we've come to accept it as the norm. 

"Alright. Fine. We have day-one DLC. It wasn't that bad, so why are you so angry?" You ask in a perplexed tone with your head cocked to one side. Allow me to illuminate the answer to your question, dear reader. 





Let see, two dollar camouflage patterns that doesn't even effect all the vehicles. See the (L), (M), and (H) next to to the text? That means the pattern only effects the light medium or heavy class of vehicle. How lovely. Three dollar tactics. Tactics.  I know some people might have taken it a bit far by saying day-one DLC was ripped off the disk, but I refuse to believe this wasn't slashed off the disk and monetized. They literally took a skill tree from the game and are charging three dollars for it. Not only that, they're doing it four times. The German Spearhead and Joint Operations and the Soviet Anti-Infantry and Conscripts Support doctrines. All yours for the low low price of 1/5 of an entire game. 

$55.74. That's how much it will cost you for all the day-one DLC. That's less than five dollars from being a whole other game. Awesome. But hey, at least you can get all the DLC if you "upgrade" your game to the collectors edition, in which case it will only cost you $40. How nice of them. 

What a disappointment to be faced which before I even buy it. But that's what happens when we let some things slip because we were paying attention to the newest controversy. Companies finallyfound a way to make us accept day-one DLC. They finally did it, guys. Which makes me wonder, what kind of monstrous, colossal frozen turd are they going to try to launch at our faces so we forget about console DRM? 

People thought they had a victory against big business this week when Microsoft pulled their DRM. Instead what they got was a distraction that let other companies run profuse behind your back and put in yet another way to screw you out of more content and out of more money. 

Please make the ride stop. 

Games you shouldn't be excited about..

We all know the gaming industry has recently been inundated with throbbing hoards of garbage being passed off as "triple A" titles. The largest culprit of this perpetual excretion on gaming is the "broader appeal" philosophy. For those who don't know, the broader appeal philosophy is where you take your core fan base, the people who have supported you throughout your companies history, and tell them to fuck off. Now that you don't have those 'fans' anchoring you down, you're free to turn the game series into a thriving pile of cancer cells. And oh, my friends, there have been no shortage of broadening appeals in this years E3.

Curb your enthusiasm

Ryse: Son of Mediocrity

Inaccurate armor designs? Tiny tower shield? Romans fighting by themselves? Romans with British accents? QTEs? QTEs you can't even fail? God damn, Crytek, it's like you didn't even try. Yes, the developer of the Crysis series, owned by the broadener of audiences themselves, EA, wants you to broaden your asshole and buy another DudeBro summer smash, God-of-War hack and slash press X to win clone. But this time it's Romans instead of Greeks. How. Fucking. Quaint. 

Crytek couldn't even be bothered to make an interesting gameplay video. Instead, they took the opening scene of Saving Privite Ryan. There is so much wrong with this game just from the demo. Like the armor. It's so over-designed and tries so hard to look uber for the CoD crowd. And the shields, why are they so tiny? I guess you can't pull off L337 executions with a realistic shield. That

That covers the first 50 seconds of the game play trailer. There is so much that reeks of bad about this title, from the uninspiring Saving Private Ryse beach landing to the hilarious "formation" you pull before you assault the city.

I want so much for a good, realistic, game where you play as a Roman legionnaire that isn't full of #YOLOswag420 casual garbage. Oh well, I guess I'm sticking with the Rome mods for Mount and Blade for now.

Dragon Age III: Inquisition
Oh Dragon Age, what happened to you? You used to be so above decent. Oh right, broader audience.

Dragon Age: Origins was Biowares way of telling us that they still cared about dedicated RPG players. It had a decent range of classes, interesting characters and branching paths. But we should have known that the only reason it was so enjoyable is because DA:O had been in development before EAs acquisition.

I have never and will never understand the mentality of big publishers who believe they can garner more fans by trying to garner more fans. Do they really think World of Warcraft exploded in popularity because the developers said "Lets make a game that will get us 13 million subscribers."? Of course not, at least back then they didn't. Now the new Blizzard is more concerned with holding subscribers than they are with making good games. This is what happens when entertainment is melted down into a series of statistics and share holders.

These are the reasons I have no hope for Dragon Age 3. No matter how many gimmicks they can shove into the disk (right next to the on-disk DLC of course), no matter how open they claim the world is, I have absolutely no faith for this game.


Dead Rising 3
'Wooh wooh wooh' you're thinking, "Dead Rising are great games". Well, I have news. If you haven't noticed a recurring theme in this post, allow me to illuminate the mystery. Somehow, Capcom got lost up their own ass (again) and instead of trying to build their fanbase from the roots that made it popular they

Brown and Bloom: The Game

instead chose to... That's right... Broaden their audience

Capcom seems to be going for a more "realistic" version of the Dead Rising games. Remember all that fun you used to have by killing zombies with golfballs and wifleball bats? Well that's not 'visceral' and 'dramatic' enough for Capcom. They want you to pick up an AK and stay frosty,


Elder Scrolls: Online
I actually had some hope for this game. I know that practically every singe MMO in the past 4 years have either failed spectacularly or has proven to be a mediocre vomit spewed solely for the purpose of profit. But I actually had hope, and what happened? They were dashed the second I opened the video for the game play.

The second the video starts you notice the first flaw. The Hero Engine. OH BOY, you mean the engine that proved to be a perpetual pain in the ass for SWTOR the first 5 months after release? Well were off to a roaring start, what else will this quality video show us? Well not much honestly, just your typical MMO trailer, killing things and trying to look flashy (Which they never do since MMO combat is almost always inherently bad). But for the the real dirt on why this game looks like a trash heap lies in the information given by the developers themselves.

Dungeons, third person combat, hotkey based, combo system. Really the entire thing looks like another typical WoW clone with a dash of Guild Wars 2 thrown in for shits and giggles. The lore is COMPLETELY fucked (Really. Nord working with Elves? Yeah, ok) and the combat looks just as boring and uninspired as every other MMO since WoW.

Abandon all hope.

Well that wraps up the games I'm pretty confident will turn out to be mediocre to terrible.

Remember this shit? Me neither. I tried to suppress the memories.

The games on the horizons undoubtedly have potential and a lot of them I WANT to succeed. But there are games coming that I didn't even mention that will turn out to be terrible. Halo 5 might be terrible, espeically considering the colossal box of disappointment Halo 4 was, Battlefield 4 will PROBABLY be terrible since it melting more and more into the COD cycle while EA shits out more funding for DLC packs that don't all get released before the next sequel is announced.

And to be honest, I love good games, but hating bad ones is almost just as satisfying.

Something ELSE to get insulted about.

First sexism in video games and now religion. Now people get to be insulted over something else so they can take up their righteous pitch forks and act like entitled little children who think they have a right to not be insulted.

If you go on Broteam's latest video you'll see that the comments are saturated with rage and indignant people, mostly saying something along the line of "Islam is the religion of peace, now fuck you.". But surely, there is a reason for all this outrage? Surely this hatred and bile is just?

 Well, in a follow up video, the Youtuber KhaleDQ84EveR make it obvious what line in the video he finds the most offensive. "The Christian Jew god of Prophet Muhammad"... That's it? That's the line that made you make a video, calling for a digital Jihad against Machinima? I have a feeling, judging from many of the comments on the video, that mixing the word "Jew" and "Muhammad" in the same sentence is what sparked this controversy. It's amazing the amount of intolerance the intolerant what us to tolerate.

When I watched the video, I was all I could think was "what could cause this kind of outrage?". Did they burn a Qur'an? Did they tell Muslims to fuck themselves? No. They called Mohammad a Jew. Oh for Christ sake. I just wanted to play video games. I was PROMISED video games. Why has there been such a title-wave of people actively looking to be insulted recently?

Anyone who can't take a joke need to delete themselves from the internet, because the internet is full of them.

Total War: Best in series. (Plus Rome 2 features)

It's that time again. Another Total War is on the horizon and it's what we've all been waiting for. Rome 2.

I mentioned before that the Total War series is my favorite video game series. Despite that, I don't consider myself a hardcore Total War fan. Don't get me wrong, I buy all new Total War games but I haven't played the first Shogun and Medieval Total Wars. Regardless, after I played Rome: Total War for the first time, I was hooked on the blend of RTS and grand strategy. But there is an unanswered question about this legendary game series. What is the best game of the best strategy series in gaming?

Rome: Total War

The first Total War game I ever played (And I suspect this is the case for a lot of people) is Rome: Total war. I'll never forget how blown away I was at how massive the battles were and yet each character fought their own individual fight. It's reasonable to say that most people who have been with the Total War series for a while would say that Rome: Total War is the best in the series. As much as I love, and still play Rome, I can't help but disagree from an objective standpoint.

Rome: Total War at the time was the peak of big battle RTS and was undoubtedly the best Total War during that period, but the game, when compared to the standards of today's Total Wars lacks a lot of the improvements that later games had. Some of the annoyances included diplomat characters (This one is debatable, having specialized diplomats was pretty cool), weird control schemes, incredibly easy and one-sided economics (Just build random things and make money. SKILL!) had Rome Total War showing its age later on. It is nonetheless one of my favorite games and the defining strategy of my teenage years. But the best? It pains me to say it, but no.

Medieval 2

Medieval 2: Total War should, on paper, should be considered the best Total War game of the series. The units are incredibly diverse, their armor changes with upgrades, eventually you can use gunpowder weapons, you can even be the first country to explore the Americas. There is so much to do and experience in Medieval 2 when compared to Rome. Unfortunately, it's greatness is hindered by several problems that Rome didn't have.

For now lets talk positive. What improved with Medieval 2? Number one, the world map and diplomacy aspects were greatly improved from Rome: Total War. Instead of every settlement being the same and just building everything in every city, players had to choose between a town or fort city. Towns gave wealth, forts gave military. Already players have to make a strategic decision. This coupled with the religion and Papal States and being able to call a crusade (Or being called upon) if your reputation is high enough added another layer of complexity to diplomacy. Still shallow, but better.

But every great feature doesn't come without a price and Medieval 2 had plenty of issues. The most obvious was the sluggish AI. When you told a unit to go somewhere, it would often take several seconds to process the order. On several occasions my units would stand around while being slaughtered as I furiously tried to get them to move. Medieval also suffered from a problem that Rome suffered from, and that is that EVERYONE hates you. Why? I've done NOTHING to you, you fuck. I never understood why relations in Total War were effected by difficulty. You should be able to cultivate relationships in Total War, not just have it be a dice role. Really the primary issues in Medieval 2 were AI issues, the overall game itself was excellent.

Empire: Total War.

This game is odd. Not because it's bad, but it's not particularly good either. It has the reputation as being the worst in the series and for good reason. The release of the game saw massive amounts of bugs and AI issues. The combat was repetitive and sometimes outright boring with player just doing nothing as two armies shot each other until one of them ran away. But I don't think Empire: Total War gets a fair shake. While it is PROBABLY the worst in the series (At least from Rome to Shogun) it is also the most additive in terms of features.

Naval combat? Added with Empire. Towns and villages? Added with Empire. Technology research? Added with Empire. In fact some of the most important UI improvements came with Empire. You could actually see the firing arc of ranged units, you could control the camera with WASD, you no longer needed agents to negotiate for you, instead you could just pull up the diplomacy screen. Empire added a lot to the series and while it certainly wasn't the best, it was a very important stepping stone to the modern Total War series.

Napoleon: Total War.

It's seriously just Empire: Total war plus automatic unit replenishment and minus the horrible bugs. It also had a lot smaller campaign map.

Shogun 2: Total war: Shogun 2.

This is where the series starts to define itself in modern gaming. Shogun was the return of non-gunpowder units. We would get to experience the improvements that came with Empire while enjoying the great strategic combat of Rome and Medieval. And Shogun delivered. At first I had trouble adjusting, mainly because I wasn't a big fan of the direction the art team had made. After I got used to it, the game really came together. The AI was good (at least as good as you can hope for in a Total War game), the graphics were spectacular, the controls were solid and the campaign map and diplomacy was more interesting than previous title. Even Naval combat with these shitty little blocks of wood for boats was interesting simply because it was another take on naval combat in the ancient world.

My biggest issue with Total War: Shogun 2 was the utter lack unit diversity. Every faction essentially had the same units with minor bonuses depending on the clan. Thankfully, the fights in Shogun 2: Fall of the Samurai were much more interesting. One side had gun powder units and the other had traditional sword and bow units. I loved seeing the different ways each side had to adapt depending on who they chose to play as. FotS also added naval bombardment support in land battles which offered more incentive to build a strong navy.

Shogun 2 was a great game and overall, despite some changes I don't agree with, I'm satisfied with the direction that Creative Assembly is taking the series.

The best of the best.

I'll come right out and say it:

Medieval 2: Total War is the best of the Total War series. Yes it had issues but everything right down to the armor upgrades felt like it was put in with love and care. There were so many features, so much diversity in the units, the buildings, the maps, events and diplomacy that it's hard not to say Medieval 2 was the best in the series.

Medieval 2 took what made Rome Total War great and simply added depth. Although it lacked the complex campaign map of Shogun 2 and Empire, the diplomacy and events made the world feel like it was constantly progressing. Going from basic mail-wearing light infantry in France to cannons and musketeers in South America all the while with Mongols closing in to seize Europe from the east makes the player feel like power is constantly shifting and flowing. How can you NOT think that Medieval 2 is on top of the Total War series?

On the horizon.

Of course Total War isn't stopping there. With the new Total War: Rome 2, fans have a lot to look forward to.

-Naval and land battles are being combined, D-day style. Now you can conquer Egypt without having to trudge through sand. Just row right up to their cities and attack from the shore.

-Regions are grouped into provinces with one city being the 'center' of the province. I'm not sure if this is similar to Shoguns system, but it will be interesting to see if they've changed it at all.

-Players can ask their allies to attack specific town. I'm very happy to see CA expand their diplomacy some more.

-Naval battles are fought over naval 'regions' rather than the water being like a giant open lake.

-The campaign map will stretch farther east. No details on how far.

-There will be new unrest systems to make it more difficult to conquer rather than just steam rolling the entire world with one super army.

-Armies will be recruited from a General in the field. It isn't too clear how this will work and what the limitations will be.

-Armies have their own skill tree. CA looks like they really want each legion to have their own unique traits.

-Generals are affiliated with their own 'families'. It looks like these will work similarly to how the clans in Fall of the Samurai works. I'm hoping it is similar to how Hearts of Iron handled political parties. I'm really happy to hear about Creative Assembly focusing on more than just combat.

-Units in battle have true line of sight. What they see, you see.

-Ambushing armies will be able to deploy traps such as burning boulders.

-Calvary charges won't crash on a unit. Instead they will power through and reform on the other side for a second charge.

-Heavier units will be able to 'push back' lighter units.

-Soldiers throw spears on the run.

-Overhead tactical map.

-Soldier heights will vary to add more variety to the looks of units

-Infantry will use their shield to block arrows (Holy fuck it's actually happening)

Judging by how many features CA is adding with Rome 2, it could easily over take Empire as the most additive Total War in the series. But with all these improvements and depth being added along with more complex diplomacy and politics becoming an actual faction, Rome 2 may take Medieval 2s place as the greatest Total War in the series.

TRIARII