Console gaming and PC gaming are always at odds with one another, like a married couple constantly fighting while people wonder how they are still together. Really, it has always made sense to me that PC gaming and console gaming both accomplish niches in their respective arenas. Consoles have catered to the relaxed, the party groups, and the family-friendly. PC has targeted an audience of innovators, of strategistsor people like me.  You see, even though I have gamed since I was four years old I never owned a console until last year when I picked up a used Xbox 360 for $80. I expected some sort of magnificent spectacle of change to occur: to see that divide clearly between consoles and PCs like I did as a kid. Instead I was disappointed at how lackluster the console seemed at this point, like a shade of its own. Yes, part of that might be the wistfulness of old Nintendo, Sega, and Sony consoles talking. However, it really boils down to the fact that this current gen and most likely next-gen as well is no different than the average PC.

Heresy! you say. Consoles have exclusive titles! They have couch co-op! They can play in the living room on the TV! Please, hear me out. Turn on your nostalgia-meter; its time to dive into the past.

As a kid I was told by my parents I could never buy a console until I stopped gaming. Obviously there is a flaw of logic there: isnt the point of a console to game, so if I stop gaming then why would I buy a console? Oh, you Baby Boomers, you. Wily as I was I decided to skirt around this by learning to play on a PC. At such a young age it was easy to adapt to learning the keyboard and mouse controls, and from there I grew into PC gaming. However, I love all games whether PC or not, and back then nothing was better than going to a friends house who owned a console. I played all the classic 1990s games through other people: Pokémon, Link to the Past, Sonic Adventure, Super Mario World, Star Fox 64, etc. Those were amazing days, so when I bought the Xbox 360 I expected more of the same and got nothing but soft soap. What gives?

It dawned on me that consoles are missing what made them consoles, at least to my feeble kiddy mind. You see, consoles didnt equal just video games. I could go to the arcade, a PC, even one of those cheap store electronic games to play those. The difference between consoles and all other games was three things: simplicity, exclusivity, and camaraderie. It is these very three things that now are rapidly disintegrating from the living room.

Consoles were simple back in the day, and still are. It was easy: plug it in to a TV set and play it. You had a controller with a few buttons and nothing more. On paper it still works that way to this day. In practice it is much harder. Do you realize how difficult it is to first set up a current-gen console? First you do the above, then you must create your account. This process could take between 5-30 minutes depending on how long it takes to confirm it. Then you need internet access (believe me, it is droll to not have it) which means now you have to create another Live account. After that you create your avatar, then you finally are into the menu. It took me an hour the first time I set up this console to just get to the starting screen! Well Raptor, its just the first time. After that its a lot simpler to get in. Thats true, but take a look at what consoles have become. They are now entertainment systems; my console gets more work out of running Netflix and Youtube than it does actual games anymore. Their very architecture speaks to their PC roots. Hell, I have plugged in my PC to my television, started up Steam Big Picture, and played with an Xbox controller for an hour before a friend realized I wasnt running the 360. Let us be honest: the PC has always had the potential to be the best entertainment console. It simply hadnt yet invaded the living room fully, and with the announcement of the SteamBox that may very well change. With the advent of recent technology it is becoming harder to discern what really makes the difference between what a PC is doing versus what an Xbox is doing.

Exclusive titles can help consoles stand out in the market, but this too has become moot as games are becoming cross-generational. It makes sense from a developer perspective: by porting games the audience becomes that much bigger, with that much bigger of a profit. What is more, exclusives dont feel all that exclusive anymore. Having played Halo, Killzone, and Resistance recently I couldnt tell you truthfully that they all felt different compared to when I first played the Xbox-exclusive Halo in 2001 versus the PC exclusive Half-Life in 1997. It seems to me that the divide of exclusive titles was much bigger twenty years ago. When I first was married to my wife we had nothing but my computer in an empty apartment all day, and both of us were bored so I decided to dust off some old SNES games, borrow a console, and play them. It was during this time I found out she had never played a single Mario title before, and she found out I had never played a single 2D Sonic game. That was quickly remedied on both parts, but how does this happen? Simple: I played Nintendo, she played Sega. It would be much harder to find that same sort of divide between Sony and Microsoft today (Nintendo is still playing hard-to-get, of course). And, with emulators on the rise, the wall between exclusivity from consoles to PC is only a generation behind (a flashed BIOS later and I could potentially play PS2, Xbox, and Wii games). Meanwhile, consoles struggle to have ports of PC games over. This is due in part to both the complexity of the game (such as strategy, MMO, and MOBA games) and the developers wish to remain in the nonrestrictive environment of PC gaming.

But probably the largest divide consoles have always had on PC gamers has been couch-play. LAN parties with PC games have always been awkward to pull off, with friends lugging their desktops to each others houses and the mess of cables stringing together each PC. Sure, these same people could play online but then it is not much better than playing against a highly unpredictable bot with a bit of mic spam. Nothing compares to sitting next to each to each other with controllers in hand, spazzing up-smashes or clawing for the Golden Gun. These were the best moments of console gaming: when friends sat down together and played.

So why would consoles decide to phase this out? Name the most recent game you have played on the Playstation or Xbox 360 that was couch co-op and obviously built for it (I add this in because some games you can tell the split-screen co-op is tacked on). I can name mine: Lego Lord of the Rings. Seriously man, what the hell? It makes some sense from a marketing perspective: why sell one game for four people when you could sell four games for four people? Countless times I have turned down buying a video game strictly because it wouldnt accommodate my wife playing on the same console as me. This is quite sad, because by phasing split-screen out of consoles they have lost an effective trump card on PC gaming. The majority of PC games dont include this co-op ability due to hardware problems, but that number is steadily increasing.

I really cant tell a difference between PCs and consoles at this stage. I dont mean to be a pompous person when I tell friends that PC gaming is the future. If anything, it seems more fact than fiction at this point that soon all entertainment consoles will just be pre-built PCs catered directly for a living room. Perhaps that is what it already has become.

Note: You may notice I did not include current or next-gen Nintendo consoles on this list. This is because they have (from my perspective) kept a degree of exclusivity and splitscreen intact while also making strides to differ in their use of motion controls and multiple screens. I am not a fanboy of Nintendo. I do not own a Nintendo console. In fact, I havent played a 1st-party title of theirs since the Gamecube (the exception being SSBB and Mario Kart Wii).

-TheRaptorFence

You ever get that uneasy feeling when you think you just felt the jump the shark moment of a franchise? Normally it is when you are having tons of fun in a game and then you see something that just doesnt fit quite right. Or maybe it does, but needs some polish, but you get this nagging sensation that it wont ever get to that point. For the Assassins Creed franchise that moment came in Brotherhood when I first was introduced to the assassin recruiting, and all the new weapons, and the ludicrous amounts of side quests. I took a look at it all and said Huh, that seems weird. I mean, its kind of cool, but why would I use/do any of this? I feel like some sweaty Ubisoft exec would have come sliding up to me if I had said that out loud and been like Well you dont NEED to. I mean, its there JUST BECAUSE. In case SOMEONE wants to, you know, micromanage a bunch of menu screens. And I remember feeling like Well, I mean if this is a one-time thing I guess Ill just shrug and go with it.

Well that was a disaster, wasnt it?

After Assassins Creed Grandpa Ezios Road to Constantinople 2.75 I felt that we REALLY needed a change in setting and character. And when they announced the Revolutionary War as the setting I winced a bit, because the American Revolution is kind of dull comparatively to the political intrigue of Europe at the time. But hey, I threw a bone. Maybe Id rub elbows with some of the great revolutionaries. Participate in some battles. Sadly, none of this would pass because I would end up running through the biggest disappointment of a game Ive ever ran through, bar none.

Yes, Assassins Creed III is not only no better than Revelations, but I feel its a big step backwards for the franchise. It is everything that ISNT Assassins Creed. Hell, it isnt even a good game in its own right, on part of its boring plot and unfocused and shoddy gameplay. Ill list all the good things here, because people enjoy hearing the God-awful things much more: the game is pretty, and naval battles are a near-perfect addition and the most enjoyable thing since stabbing men in haystacks. Right, moving on.

The story is horrible. I mean disgustingly horrible. I wont harp on playing as another character, because that character was quite interesting. But the situations he was put in, aside from the unforgettable beginning assassination in an opera theatre (see, THIS is Assassins Creed at its finest), were dull and boring. For five hours I slogged through a tale wondering what the buildup was to, but by the time it ended I didnt even care what the big plot twist was. It should be a cardinal sin to play as an interesting character through uninteresting missions and plot that make me feel like Im doing chores. The same goes with Conner: after another three hours of backstory (look, just put it in the freaking game manual like they used to) finally he got to be an assassinand was sent on fetch quest after fetch quest. Right, well I wont even bother with the rest. Even Desmond, who had some great character development through Brotherhood and Revelations, didnt convince me the writers could have done better for a triple-A title. And by the end so many plot twists had come about with Desmond that it became laughable and utterly destroyed the conspiratorial feeling of the original two games. Good one, Ubisoft.

I might feel better if Conners story was good, but it felt like a vehicle to get from rubbing elbows with Famous Person A to assassinating Minor Person B. Nothing grabbed me like it did with Ezio. I can blame some of this on the setting: America is a terrible setting, Ubisoft. It cant compare to the Napoleonic Era, the French Revolution, the British Industrial Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. in terms of pure conspiracy and energy. London and Paris both screamed personality in their cities, yet they chose Boston and New York, neither which feels distinctive apart from red brick. The frontier is a bunch of trees, rivers, and rocks sparsely populated. Americans like Samuel Adams and George Washington sound tired in voicing their lines more often than not, probably at having to be in such a dull game. But ultimately it goes to the writers, the ones who couldnt pick up something as simple as Conners story and make it interesting. How could a distrustful Indian NOT be interesting? A man who would have to learn to accept the order he is a part of on faith, but never know whether to fight the British or the Colonists or the Templar or even his own people. Always being lied to, constantly wondering what he is fighting for. Other than some half-hearted soliloquies Conner never resonates like Ezio did.

If gameplay was better I could at least embrace the game better, but gameplay is a jumbled mess designed by an ADD kid. The core mechanics of fighting have been moved around unnecessarily (ACII did quite fine perfecting this) and its difficult because of the frustration at the lack of response to the controls. Glitching in a fight occurs often, and many times I find myself dead due to the fact a pistol didnt go off rather than because I was outwitted. Free-running is almost impossible, and when it isnt theres no fun anymore. Places like Jerusalem and Florence were great because of their tall buildings and architecture that created a vibrant city; combined with the daring feats Altair and Ezio pulled off hundreds of feet in the air it fit perfectly. In Boston and New York streets are wide and buildings rarely go above two stories. I, the average everyday citizen, could have run the buildings with ease(presumably shouting Parkour! the whole time).  The cities themselves have little life (I mean, they ARE colonies, not the bustle of Rome) and most of the life is composed of enemies. Sorry, but I do like to take a jaunt to the general store without getting butchered at every corner in-between. Maybe if every map wasnt so bloody big. Theres only a few stores in Boston, and yet I have to run three or four times the distance I used to, fighting every guard along the way.

Remember the jumping the shark moment in the beginning? It manifested itself here as an ugly creature. The whole game permeates with unfinished optional hobbies. All of the game pastimes like gambling and hunting feel like someone left them off halfway through. Something Rocksteady learned with Arkham City is that the larger and more diverse your open-world gets, the less focus the game as a whole gets. Theres a reason why RPG giants such as Bethesda and Bioware exist: theyve honed this down to a T. Anyways, hunting and trading especially were big no-nos for me. Hunting became a bore because it wasnt like I was fighting anyone who could fight back, and trading and crafting were the only ways I could make money. Both required extensive amounts of menus that made my head hurt. I just want a damn 1000 gold to buy another pistol! Dont make me suffer through this! I never was a fan of collecting feathers and the like before, but I tolerated and indulged in it from time to time. But here the mountains of building, crafting, hunting, trading, searching, foraging, and much more vastly outweighed the amount of assassinating I did. Oh, do you remember that, Ubisoft? That its called Assassins Creed for a reason? If I want to play a retarded version of Frontierville Id rather have it WITHOUT ruining one of my favorite franchises.

Look, Ubisoft, weve got a problem. You obviously dont want to make Assassins Creed games anymore, otherwise you wouldnt suck at it (either that, or you are just dumb). You want to make some sort of Red Dead Redemption/Farmville/Colonist simulator and are sick of these stupid games of free-running and stabbing. You want to be rid of the franchise. Thats fine and dandy. But you signed up for annual installments, and it is in your contract that you had to finish. So why would you just piss all over the work youve done? I mean, even crapping out a sequel like Brotherhood would have been good enough. Somewhere along the line you forgot what it means to be an assassin, that its not about anything else other than your blade going into the evil dude. When everything in your game revolves around that, you create games that will be remembered for generations. When you turn into your five-year-old nephew without his ADD medication, you get Assassins Creed III. Make no mistake, citizens: this franchise has jumped the shark. Until someone else other than Montreal handles it, this whole game IP is as good as dead.

-Approved by TheRaptorFence

Theres a lot to be said in that Bioshock Infinite had the ability to pull me into a game world so thoroughly that it hasnt even been twenty-four hours and I am replaying it again. I cant remember the last time a single-player game achieved that (the Half-Life/Portal series is the most recent I can think of). A lot hinges on the ending, but thats to be expected. A whole articles worth could be made about the ending, and probably will, but I wont go spoiling it for everyone. Suffice to say Infinite is worth at least a single play-through, and will be a landmark video game for achieving a level of characterization that hasnt been met in ages.

Unlike the faceless protagonist of the original Bioshock, this spiritual successor puts you in the shoes of former Pinkerton agent Booker DeWitt and thrusts you into the familiar setting of a lighthouse upon an ocean. Only this time you are strapped to a rocket (literally) and shot up to the city-in-the-sky, Columbia. Here you are looking for a woman named Elizabeth to wipe away the debt that Booker has contracted. The city has other plans, and as soon as you find her you are pursued by the villainous Prophet Comstock and Elizabeths mechanical monstrosity, the Songbird. While the story has a stunning first act, around the six hour mark the game starts to plod through the second act, with the third picking up before a shocking finish in the last thirty minutes. Yes, Bioshock had a twist, as did both System Shocks, so it is only to be expected Infinite would try to one-up its forerunners. More on that below.

The story itself isnt as interesting as the writing and setting that it portrays. Columbia is a beautiful city that had me grinning and running from shop to shop for hours just admiring the details Irrational Games poured into it. I wasnt a fan of Raptures claustrophobic corridors and dark interiors. While that setting held a certain beauty, in Columbia the quasi-religious patriotism fits perfectly with the light shafts and sunrays. The first act is where it really shines, as the second and third turn the city into the normal FPS warzone, albeit steampunked. Also, the NPCs are wonderful. Bioshock felt so lonely without sentient people, while in Infinite the NPCs are sane, if prejudiced and misguided. Hundreds of hours of dialogue were recorded and placed into the game, and all of it kept me immersed. No choppy, nonsensical mess of normal dialogue; this stuff builds the city, and no one does it better than Elisabeth and Booker.

If Telltales Walking Dead proved you could have a videogame with believable characters, then Infinite proves that you can have believable characters with your videogame. Lets be honest: as much as I loved Lee and Clementine and Kenny, the point-and-click nature of the game interspersed with cutscenes was more of an interactive film than it was game.  Irrational outdid themselves by interweaving the childish nature of Elisabeth (reminiscent of Rapunzel from Tangled) with the reserved demeanor of Booker. Whats more, I came to like Booker even as he made mistakes and grew to love Elisabeth even in her naiveté. These two create a bond unlike any other characters in a video game, and its believable! If you want to see the best dialogue a video game can offer, look no further than here.

Gameplay in Bioshock Infinite isnt terrible, but I wouldnt venture to say it is the high point of the game. It follows along the same strand of its predecessors: get in a firefight, kill everyone with circumstancial powers and underwhelming firearms, then scarf everything in reach and loot every trashcan for the money that ordinary people throw away (okay, maybe the NPCs of Columbia arent so sane). Eventually youll find a groove or a trick that youll repeat for the majority of the game. Mine was raising people into the air and then pumping them with a shotgun or hand cannon blast. I wasnt a fan of Bioshock because its progression wasnt particularly invigorating (try to access A, but to do so you need to engage B and find C, rinse and repeat).  The same goes for Infinite, where I never felt a sense of satisfaction because I never felt in any danger due in part to the plentiful consumables, rechargeable shields, and the availability of respawn. I never died in combat once due to enemy design, and by the end it felt like I was just chaining events together to get to the next plot point. The structures of character and setting helped keep me amused enough to not get bored, though. I think Bioshock Infinite would have done better without the inclusion of a rechargeable shield and putting more oomph into its weapons and powers. Half-Life has showed that having AI that can overwhelm the player creates a sense of satisfaction when a firefight is won due to the challenge. Long story short, if you liked Bioshocks gameplay youll love it here.

Two new inclusions lauded by Irrational have been Elisabeth as a helpful NPC and the skyhook system. One shudders to think of helpful combat NPCs, but since Elisabeth never fights it becomes less of me protecting her and more of her protecting me. Elisabeth can find money, ammo, health, and tear holds in the fabric of reality to create objects at will. Sadly this was pre-conceived and not as cool as I thought it could be (like dropping bombs on peoples heads and seeing 21st century cars smash into the sides of a group), but made for a tactical thought as to how to play out the environment and further bound together Elisabeth and Booker as characters. The skyhook system was more of a winner; in large environments (which Infinite has plenty of) a rail system would allow for transportation almost anywhere in the map that both enemies and friendlies could use. Again, I wished for some chase sequences but never got any. Both were good additions to otherwise forgettable gameplay.

Overall, when it comes down to the game as a whole it is a recommendation based on three facts: the setting, the characters, and the end. Im sure the end will be confusing and controversial for many, and that alone makes this a game worth playing. I remember Bioshocks Twist which commented on the nature of character design in games while simultaneously asking questions about fates hold on humanity, and it worked so well because up until that point no one was looking for it. Until then it was a FPS shooter with philosophical leanings. In Infinite it is common knowledge early on that something is afoot, and when the curtain finally lifts the actual twist is not too surprising (seriously, if you didnt see it coming then you werent looking at all). In fact, Infinites last thirty minutes expand its universe to a level of meta that some reviewers have criticized, and I tend to agree with them. The ending feels way too large and beyond the small world that has been Booker, DeWitt, Comstock, and Columbia. For having such deep characterization I felt that a simpler ending would have done right, but the ending turns the recognition, applauds itself, saying Haha! Look what we made! It was so cool! Just read all the implications into it! In a different game it would have fit much better, but here the ending works on a wholly different plane of story and character than the game thus far has done. Its good, but not the smash-wow poignant ending that could have been between Elisabeth and Booker. That being said, it is an impressive ending, especially how deep the rabbit hole goes. I already spent a couple hours reading about it. I can think of movie equivalents, but I wont spoil the surprise (if I havent already). I can live with the ending since Irrational Games obviously put time into the story as a whole, and the fact that I already wrote this much about it should speak to how grand it really is.

Bioshock Infinite is proof to me that for every dozen spunkgargleweewee AAA games out there at least some are attempting to forge ahead without falling to cash grabs. On the basis of story, setting, and characters alone it is worth a play. The gameplay is mediocre, but then again what modern FPS hasnt been?

-Signed and Approved by TheRaptorFence

I checked my phone all day Sunday for updates on Bungie's new generational IP Destiny. In the car, filling at the pump, grocery shopping, at the mall, on the walk with the dog, etc. Don't mistake me for a die-hard fan of Bungie: I did start with Halo and Oni and enjoyed them both, but they aren't walking on water with the work they do. Instead, I was more interested in how their first reveal since their 10-year Activision deal would go. In short, disappointingly.

To quickly go over the good, the story and setting are downright gold. It looks darker than Halo, with a Ridley Scott tone. I was reminded of movies like Alien, Battlestar Galactica, and District 9. The potential to steer shooters away from bombastic styling without losing set-pieces is fantastic. It could become, dare I say, an artistic game.

The problem is, it can't (and won't) steer any developers anywhere because it refuses to either tread new ground or forge new paths. Let's be honest: Destiny is quickly gaining a reputation in forums as a co-op RPG/FPS blend (Borderlands) with a sci-fi epic focus (Mass Effect/Star Wars) where social media is king (WoW, every MMO) and the game is set through a hub world (Dark Souls). Now some of these games I enjoyed (Dark Souls) while others I hated (Borderlands), but I find the problem is that whole "social media" aspect.

You see, to date almost every game I've played that I could call artistic has been single-player. There are exceptions (don't worry...I'll think of some eventually) but in short artistic games are created solely for a single player's interaction. Like any marriage, it's harder when other players are added because then the focus gets taken off of that singular interaction. Once a developer decides co-op or multiplayer is the way to go the game's artistic integrity becomes divided between the players. There's a reason multiplayer story-focused games don't exist: it's just too damn hard. The developer automatically has to make every enemy encounter capable of taking on multiple players at once, every small detail examined to make sure it can't be used to grief another player. The more players that are added, the less work the developer can put into an efficient artistic universe because that developer is having to devote that time to making a functioning universe for thousands of players. By the time that's finished they barely have time to throw an art cover on before it's shipped.

I'm not saying it's impossible for Destiny to somehow become a game that tugs heartstrings and evoke emotions, I'm just saying it's hard when multiple players are shouting in my ear and tea-bagging aliens. "So play the single-player then." Well, you missed the point. Take those extra players out and the wallpaper comes down to show the game for what it's truly worth: mediocrity at best, terrible at worst. Multiplayer shooters are a framework, not a whole house: playing Left 4 Dead becomes lonely after the first round trip through the levels. I'd know, I made at least twenty.

What's more, this is supposedly a 10-year deal with Activision. That means players are to expect new iterations in the coming decade. But what more is there to do? Bungie's written themselves into a corner when they threw the whole "social media" thing in. The only thing a developer can do is add more social function and more customization. Maybe we should start referring to it as the COD effect: drowning players in a bazillion new maps, gamemodes, weapons, social aspects, hats...wait, this is TF2, right?

Halo in 2001 made the scripted shooter popular for consoles, and I'd tenatively call the first one a milestone, if not a work of art. Bungie apparently thinks they're treading new ground by injecting a social media aspect into their new shooter IP. Sadly, that won't breathe new life into the shooter genre. It's only going to dilute it more.

Last week my hometown of Bakersfield, CA was besieged with news crews reporting on the Taft Union High School shooting. While I may live halfway across the country it was still painful hearing from friends over Facebook what happened that day, and how it must have been violent video games (a token statement always heard during school shootings. I remember it was Doom during Columbine). It also solidified my feelings that violent video games CAN be an answer to the violence in our culture today.

That might seem paradoxical if we simply consider the violence itself and not the messages they send. No one ought to play games that are created specifically for torturing or murder. However, that doesn't mean you can't use that same violence in a different situation and come out with a completely different answer.

Consider this: a zombie game where a person must survive the waves of undead, shooting them in droves and being on the lookout for any new weapons or items that could help you continue your survival. What game comes to mind? Killing Floor? Black Ops 2? One of those iPhone knockoff zombie games? Are you imagining the violence inherent in such a game? Where killing what was once human is a necessity for survivial?

Well let me change the picture with five words: The Walking Dead: The Game.

All of a sudden each one of those blood-splattering kills you are making isn't for the visceral feeling of violence, but instead out of desperation to keep loved ones alive. You aren't searching for power-ups any more: you're searching for the things that will allow you to keep pushing a little longer, to save the ones around you. Whereas I cheered as I blew the brains out the back of a head in Call of Duty Zombies, my wife and I winced as we did the exact same thing in The Walking Dead. Surprising how much context can change how violence looks.

Not doing it for you? Alright, another example. You are in an AC-130 shooting multiple terrorists on the ground. They pour out of buildings and you blast each one, the silence louder than any of their screams could be. They burn, and you enjoy it. Terrible, isn't it, and yet every iteration of Call of Duty has some variation of it.

And then you drop that last shot and hear your commander cursing, and you realize you just dropped the bomb on a group of civilians. They may have all looked different up there, but down on the ground you see charred bodies of women and children. That happened in a game this year (won't spoil which one). It offered commentary as to whether the gamer really should be enjoying the violence at stake, because that's the sort of violence that can happen in today's world in such a scenario.

I will not provide commentary on whether violence in video games should be fun, but I do believe everything in this world has a hint of good and a heaping of evil. A person can grow that good into something much greater than evil, but it is going to be hard. I would never say all violent video games are a bane in today's society, because so many of those violent video games have taught me enumerable life lessons. DayZ taught me about trust and communication to strangers I don't even know. Far Cry 3 forced me to look at the kind of person one would become if subjected to so much killing. Fallout is a commentary on the futility of war. Total War taught me mathematical odds and strategy. Even Final Fantasy taught me the pain of death at an early age!

Before we start condemning violent video games, let us remember how we as a human race learn best through experience. Video games are one of the most experiential of all art forms, so wouldn't it make sense to utilitize it to the benefit of mankind? Simulation might be the key to unlocking how our future generations perceive violence.

System requirements are total lies. My custom-built PC (Sasha) has been able to handle even the poorest-optimized video games to date, and I found myself eager to play Dishonored (a stealth/action hybrid developed at Bethes-oh, never mind, at Arkane Studios. Well I know who's really getting all the credit). However the requirements made Sasha look like yesteryears Apple III rather than the Alienware/Razer lovechild it is. An nVidia 460i? Minimum? It's a 360 port, not the next Pixar movie. Well screw this I thought, installed the game, set up the resolution, and proceeded to beat the game on the highest graphics. So to all you developers for PC's out there, a few pointers. 1.) Optimize your game well. 2.) Hi-res textures are always a nice option. Oh, uh yeah, and 3.) DON'T TELL ME MY THREE YEAR OLD COMPUTER CANNOT HANDLE A GAME IT CLEARLY CAN.

But I digress. Dishonored is a stealth/action game from Beth-see, there I go again- Arkane Studios in which you play as Corvo, the former bodyguard of the Empress of steampunk Russia-London. Corvo is wrongly accused of murder and must become an assassin (or already was one...they weren't very clear on the story there) embued with voodoo powers and wield gadgets powered with electrical whale oil. Which begs the question: if all the beluga whales of the ocean are electrified, who would be daft enough to try swimming anywhere in such a setting? Just sounds like a bad idea. As far as the Final Fantasy meets Eastern Bloc setting goes it works to bring interesting setpieces to the table, even when it does take nods from Thief:TDP. So kudos to the original setting and storyline.

The story isn't what draws a gamer into this particular game, though. It's stealthy murder. Or stealthy nonmurder. Or nonstealthy nonmurder. Or nonstealthy murder, which I guess could be just called murder. The point is, if you want stealth you are allowed to move without ever killing or even being seen. You can say screw it and murder everyone or pick and choose who dies. The open-ended map structure is extremely useful for such tactics, and while I felt the actual weapons and powers limited what I could physically do it made for a nice vacation from narrow corridors. And as a note to all developers, learn from Arkane Studios about how to build verticality into your maps. This alone made the large maps greater than many other stealth games beforehand.

However, I do have a probelm with these stealth/action hybrids. Many times they try to build the game so one can either blaze away or go around without being seen, but the best playthrough requires you to break whatever arbitrary rules you've impressed upon yourself. You become punished for going through the game without being seen or killing anyone because it takes away from the storyline of being an assassin (plus all the fun gadgets), but murdering everyone creates this evil ending and you have no stealth element, and many variations inbetween. Games like Thief stuck to absolutely no killing. You knew this and so focused on not being seen. To allow someone to kill in that environment would have broken the facade created by the very structure of the gameplay.

I played Assassin's Creed: Revelations again last week and wondered where the "Assassin" part went. Maybe "Mass Murderer Creed" would fit better because it fell into this trap of allowing a person to switch from silent assassins to stab-friendly and walk away still. At least in that game there were no negative consequences of choosing one or the other. Besides, wouldn't an assassin or thief make more sense scrambling madly to lose pursuers, every wrong dead body having the player hyperventilating as they shove it into a closet? I still remember many moments in Hitman like this. Why are developers so concerned with having all their bases covered? Aren't the best games in the genre not the ones that blend, but the ones that stick out?

Now I honestly can't say Dishonored is a bad game. It's good, better than average I'd say, at least a rental. Can I say that it is the new stealth game of the decade? No. But it does take a positive step in the direction, especially seeing as Splinter Cell and Hitman are taking five steps back, an escalator down, and a trip across the channel to AAA territory.

-JediLegacy (aka TheRaptorFence)

This week was difficult to decide what to review. In the past three weeks Ive playedJurassic Park: The Game,Tribes: Ascend,Blacklight:Retribution,ARMA 2 Free, TF2s stellar Mann Vs. Machine update,I Am Alive,Minecraft, and theBrothers in Armstrilogy. Jeez I feel lazy just saying that, even though Im at a 48 hour a week job, full-time college, and married. But these games I can save for later updates, because they were just appetizers getting me to the game I really wanted to play for eight years:Black Mesa.

If you dont knowBlack Mesa, thats okay. If you dont knowHalf-Life, the game thatBlack Mesais updating, then get off the computer and walk out of the room. In 2004Half-Life: Sourcewas released to disappointment from the community. Considering the amazing detail Valve put intoHalf-Life 2many people expected a totally new Source version of their old game, complete with smarter AI, physics engine, superior T&L, and gameplay tweaks. What they got was a straight port of an old game. A few modders decided to take the work into their own hands and -after gaining permission from Valve- began work on a game titledBlack Mesa: Sourcewhich promised to build HL from the ground up using the Source engine.

Then it disappeared. For eight years a handful of screenshots and a trailer were all fans had to go by, and even though it remained the most anticipated mod ever it soon became a parody of itself and of vaporware in general. After the release of the infamous vaporwareDuke Nukem Forevermany wished that BM would remain untouched.Well do not worry citizens, becauseBlack Mesafulfills and exceeds its purpose. But what is that purpose? The game cannot be called an update or port. It is extremely different yet retains the familiar. I would hold that it even becomes its own game. If anything, call it a modern interpretation of a classic game.

When I first booted it up, all I could do was marvel at the amount of detail inherent in the game. The developers didnt just revamp textures, but added and cut material as they see fit. Because of this sections of the game look extremely familiar, but so many sections just scream of a AAA title in the making. It is astonishing for unpaid workers to come up with this on their free time. My favorite part were the many signs dotting the game, just like in a real facility, each one speaking volumes. These developers understand how to tell a story and setting without dialogue and do it amazingly.The AI is improved, and the additions of physics and physics puzzles is a welcome addition. All the sound has been remade and dialogue re-recorded. It tends to be jarring when you hear the same voice for three or four different people, but then again its not incredibly distracting. A soundtrack was also recorded with original music, which follows a lot of the same stylings asHalf-Life 2(except for some piano bits which stand out as just weird to me). It is also good to see that G-Man, Barney, Dr. Kleiner, and Eli Vance all have been given small cameos as well in the game. And of course, the shadows and particle effects (which, by the way, are better than Valves own effects) are much better and set a much more ominous tone than they did back in 1998.

There is, however, a fatal flaw that the poor developers just couldnt get around. Id say it is almost impossible to get around for a remake of an old game. By placing the game in a modern interpretation one begins to see the flaws of the past stand out that much more. The story, while good on paper, just doesnt translate well in dialogue when held up against the masterpiece that isHalf-Life 2.The enemies of Xen and humans become almost hilarious to look at and arent really that scary or daunting at all when looking at many of the most recent games (exception: Headcrab zombies still make me $%!# my pants). That isnt to say they arent rendered or animated terribly (the very opposite), but a Bullsquid doesnt look intimidating next to this generations horror games. Level design for the first few levels is fantastic and build up tension, but even for all the bells and whistles added the later levels become nothing more than linear, narrow corridors and blocky movements. In 1998 that was the ritz but now as a gaming community people are used to an openness not unveiled here. There are many good moments in the level design that speak volumes to how games should be done nowadays, but with everything being so beautiful it becomes jarring. And OH GOSH lets not forget the platforming. No one liked it then, and no one likes it now. 1st person platforming ought to be outlawed, especially whenBlack Mesapunishes failure with death every time. So having at least an hours worth of platforming is evil. The game is much more challenging than most of todays standards, and while frustration occurs I found that okay considering I at least wasnt ducking under boxes and becoming Wolverine just to pop up again at full health.

These arent nitpicks in a game, either. These are flaws that have been fixed within the industry ages ago, which is why it becomes jarring to find them again in a game of 2012. I dont think Id argue either except thatBlack Mesaobviously takes a bit of liberation with its methods, adding and cutting to levels. To change some of these things would have been easy, but then again I dont know if it would be a good interpretation then of such a retro, classic game. I guess thats up to the gamer to decide. But for those flaws, it more than makes up with what it adds.Black Mesais a game that should be kept in your library next toHalf-Life 2,and the developers should be hired by Valve to stay on their team.

Notes: Did I mention its free? Just download Source SDK 2007 and you are good to go. Also, the Xen levels are MIA but they are to be added in an update later.

-JediLegacy (aka TheRaptorFence)

Well folks this semester has come and gone. Thank goodness, too. Id probably shoot myself if I ever had to take those classes again (Whats that? Fate says as it sharpens its irony). I had a vlog ready to go on Sasha, my desktop, but I totally didnt upload it because Im lazy. So thatll have to wait till I get back in January. But thats okay because I still have plenty to talk about.Starting with airports. Which I happen to be in. Airports literally sicken me. The thought of travel does not make the stomach go well, and airports epitomize everything I hate about the human race, starting with terribly overpriced food that gives you the runs, moving to the huge amount of people that are constantly flocking about, and ending with the fact that I feel like Im going to get sick from the hive of diseases these people are spreading. Which I already am, so I guess I can check one off.

But Im not here to rant about airports. This isnt stand-up comedy, and youre not here to enjoy yourself. Instead, lets talk more about comic, cause who knows what HOLY CANOLE DID A SECURITY CART MADE OF CANDY CANES JUST GO BY???

So after reading Watchmen I decided to have more fun reading comics. It has been a while and I decided what the hey, itll provide some good geek fun while Katie and company are doing Criminal Minds marathons (is there a time that showisnton?). I decided to do D.C. The reason is because:

A.) Though Im a Marvel fan, their one-shot and comics are complete piles of stick. Except another word that rhymes with stick. Like sick. Though they have great story arcs they just dont know how to put together something that has more than BOOM BAM PLAM written all over hastily scribbled drawings of pubescent teenagers inSwan Lakedropout costumes.

B.) Because CAN YOU STOP TALKING RANDOM LADY IN THE SKY IM TRYING TO WRITE A BLOG HERE I DONT CARE HELEN ABOUT ON BOARD CARRY ONS and

C.) Because I love Batman but havent read his comics. Thats a shame because as far as I can tell Batman comics are basically the gold of most graphic novels. Though the recent movies know what theyre doing I thought to go ahead and look into a few Batman one-shots and story arcs.

Batman: Year One- This is the one I started with. Boy was that a good idea! After Watchmen I prepared myself for a load of stick to wade through, but Year One most certainly deserves a top spot in the top ten of graphic novels. It was a gritty, if short, retelling of Batmans origins stories and his first year in Gotham. What really makes the story is the tying in of Gordon and Bruces story together: in all honesty, this is as much Gordons story as Batmans. The fact that there is no rouges gallery also was a welcome addition, adding a flavor to the stories as the script had to lean heavily on making its heroes interesting and believable rather than its villains. I would suggest it as a good entry-level Batman comic, as it was drawn heavily from for Batman Begins and can be relatable.

Batman: The Dark Knight Returns- This small story arc of about 150 pages was longer than I expected, and was also much grittier and darker. It tends to be held up by critics as the same level of Watchmen, though I would not take it so far. However, it is a welcome addition, and Im sure would hold up better to a second read-through. It turns the idea of Batman on its head by showing a dystopian 1980s with a 50 year old Batman coming out of retirement to take down a gang that is terrorizing Gotham and all the repercussions that follow. If you have read Watchmen you will not be as surprised, but the change it created by radically altering how comics would be written makes it at least a necessary read, if not a pleasant one.

The Killing Joke- Okay but seriously before we get started, I will drug every single child I carry with me onto a plane. Thats just terrible. No one likes Jeffrey screaming at a pitch just high enough for dogs to discern but just low enough to make humans ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL. Nyquil people. Or a bat. Whichever works best for you. Speaking of bats, The Killing Joke was the comic used specifically for the creation of the Joker inThe Dark Knight. It reads like it, too. Its a short 75 pages, yet one of the most shocking reads Ive had yet. The retelling of Joker in this is written by none other than Alan Moore. What a freak that guy isdid you know he wrote an erotica graphic novel about Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, and.you know what, never mind. Just wiki his picture. Ugheither way, The Killing Joke is a great pair withBatman: Year One, especially in the shock value that it brings to the table and the question of how insane Joker really is when lifting the mirror to Batman. As usual with Moore, if you want thinking in your comic this is a great one-shot. The retelling of Jokers origins are fantastic.

Batman: The Man Who Laughs- Another Joker comic, this one being the sequel toYear One. However, its not even close to being as good as that, and doesnt live up to it. However, it does tell the first meetings of Joker and Batman, and again is downright creepy. It does not paint him like the Animated Series did. Lots of deaths abound in this. The one place I believe it really failed is that they brought motive to the Joker other than anarchy. Why, writers, why? Joker isnt cool unless he is totally batstick crazy (pun intended).

Batman: Arkham Asylum- No, its not about the video game. If anything, the video game is loosely based on this one-shot. What a fantastic one-shot it is, too. Its drawings are detailed, yet post-impressionistic. I feel truly insane reading it, and even better is the writing itself as Batman must spend a night with the inmates who have taken over the asylum. It is short, and does not have the action that the video game has. Instead, it writes about the origins of the asylum, and the inmates have a tinge of realism (for instance, Mad Hatter is close to pedophilic). For a trip through the looney bin, look no further than this one-shot.

The Long Halloween- Oh what a fantastic story arc! I loved this. It was around 400 pages, though with less writing thanDark Knight Returns. It is the inspiration for the newest Batman-Nolan trilogy, and is fantastically created. It has a touch of a noir or post-noir grittiness, and follows a murder mystery as someone murders on every holiday of the year. Maybe its Calendar Man. Maybe it isnt. Who knows? Either way, if you want to see the rise and fall of Harvey Dent, this is the place. If you want to see the rogues gallery come out in full force, right here. If you want to actually remember why Detective Comics is called Detective Comics, look no further. Paired withBatman:Year OneandThe Killing Joke, this is my favorite Batman graphic novel.

I am in the process of reading Dark Victory, Knightfall, and other one-shots so Ill get back when I can but oh no the flights starting an-

-JediLegacy (aka TheRaptorFence)

If you know me, you know I love post-apocalyptic literature and media. Its like candy for me. Zombieland, Brave New World, Half-Life, theyre all favorites of mine. If Katie would allow me to stock up on guns, Id have one for each number key with zero reserved for grenades (instead, she ops for the 2000s FPS genre and ops for only 2-4 guns. She didnt number my grenades, come to think of it) So as of late Ive grabbed three games that fall under that loose category: Prototype, Dead Rising 2, and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Ill start with the most popular, Dead Rising 2. At first I was thinking Yeah, reenact the generic mall zombie flick! Its violent fun for sure. Finding new weapons to bash heads in with is fun, as is the creation of new weapons by putting two together. The storyline also does very well with taking a different turn than most zombie media does, and I found myself actually sympathizing with the protagonist in a way I normally dont in zombie films. However, its major flaw comes in the restraint it takes on you, which is a death knell for it. From the get-go you can go just about anywhere and do anything, but then it restrains you by giving a time limit to your fun and a very frustrating chain quest that honestly hems in the killing spree. Look, if you want to make a sandbox game where you want to do anything, you build it around the fact thatyou can do anything.Just Cause 2 is the best at this. They dont even have a story really, just a lot of quests and a small main chain, but the rest is about blowing the crap out of everything you can. GTA IV doesnt do this well at all. Which one would you play? The restricting ones or the ones that give you a match and throw you out of a plane (literally) to do what you want?

Prototype does a lot better with this, mixing well a story-based game with solid sandbox gaming and nice third-person brawling mechanics. It takes place in New York City that is slowly being infected a la I Am Legend. If you ever wondered how that might have looked from the start, then this is the game to play. The actual action is visceral, and Alex Mercer is a fun character, blending Spiderman with Altair. Acrobat-flipping and slicing people in half is awesome fun, as is the slow-motion effect that happens when you change powers or hold buttons to charge up attacks. For a nice romp in M-rated superhero territory, its the name of the game, and far surpasses any other superhero game Ive played (except Batman: Arkham Asylum. Nothing yet can do that).

The best game Ive played though of these three is S.T.A.L.K.E.R. If you always wanted to know what it feels like to try and survive during post-apocalyptic life, this is the right game. It is an MMOFPS, but not like Fallout 3. In fact, quite the opposite. Everything is real-time, and there is a living breathing world that interacts whether you are in it or not. Food, weight, sleep, medicine, and real-time physics are all there, along with the most impressive A.I. Ive ever seen. I mean, this is ahardgame. Expect to quick save often. But the game itself really is like a simulation of something like The Book of Eli. As long as you put a good mod on it (like Complete 2009) to update the graphics and fix the drastic amount of bugs involved, the game will play like you really are part of a messed-up world.

-JediLegacy (aka TheRaptorFence)

Well, this is depressing. You know, when I decided to start up a blog because I wanted to complain to the whole world about my life, I imagined something closer to a Youtube comment section, with lots of ranting and raving on different sides about something I wrote. I suppose thats a bit egotistical, but then again, so is creating a blog. I mean, no one writes a blog because they dont want people to read it. No, you want everyone to talk about it and comment on it and have watercooler time over it because you must be the one scrap of sanity (or insanity) left in their dull average world. Youre either going to be the guy who cheers them up because you give them the hope necessary to get out of their garbage heap of a life or the guy who they look at when they think theyre situation is terrible just to remind them that at least they dont have a dead hobo, pop star, or baby intheirparticular garbage heap (the state of the garbage heap depends on the crime drama).

Well now I feel like some stay-at-home mom who types about her new piano lessons with that boy across the street while watching Spanish soaps. This is doing nothing for my now-destroyed self-esteem. How worthless is a blog if I cant be a total jerk on it? Back to the Steam forums, I suppose.

There is one thing good about this, I guess. Now I can let the people I want to know about the inner details and machinations of my life know about it without having to drown them in snot and sorrow (or sadistic glee) every time they ask how Im doing. And the key there is want to know. Because everyone knows that when Person A, the family member you dont like, or the churchmember you dont know that well, or the friend of a friend asks you how youre doing, the last thing youre going to say is Terrible, or Great. Youll give them the asinine Okay, how about you? in hopes theyll just shut up and leave you alone to go back to your life with people you truly care about, namely Person B, who you wish you could fill in with all those stories about your life, but you also dont want to seem like youre throwing yourself at their feet, so you cooly answer Oh, theres this going on, heres my blog address. Boom! Run-on sentence. Im getting this pretentious snob thing down quite nicely.

So, with that little bit, I turn you to a nice introductory quote on why I wrote this blog, because all humans between 9-25 have learned to start off every piece of writing with a quote in hopes that this will establish your essay as unique. This tends to have the opposite effect as every single essay now has a cheeky header followed by a failed attempt at being special. Nice try, education system, but the mindless drones are still mindless drones.

Always be wary of any possible item that weighs less than its operating manual.

Terry Pratchett did a fair piece of work here, and then followed it up with another 30 novels that i still wish I had the time to read. Anyways, when I read this my techno-savvy mind immediately fled back to those immersive RPGs or sims that people call perfect because they created a whole world from scratch (except Fallout 3. Think you could have gotten away with your post-apocalyptic update to Oblivion without anyone noticing, huh, Bethesda?) Games like Morrowind, World of Warcraft, IL-2, ARMA, and others can be fun games once you figure out how to work the bloody thing. Its like youre born at age 18 and everyone expects you to know how the world works. Here buddy, its dangerous out there, take this! And dont forget about tax season, or youllwishyou had looted the armory, har-har-har.

Look, those games were great, but I felt like I had to look up every five seconds how to do something on the nearest forum. I started spending more time reading than I was actually playing. Oh, so thats what a Welkynd Stone is, no wonder it sells for so much! And soon after reading up everything there is to know about the botany of Tamriel I was back in the game for five seconds until I got lost again. After two hours of reading and approximately five minutes of game time I eventually I gave up and went to the command console to cheat my way into having the armor that they left out of the game and placed 50,000 damage on my special magicky stick I whacked the monsters with (not gay).

You see, for those technologically deprived, the command console in computers is like your own personal Russian Mafia. If you know how to talk the talk you can take shortcuts anywhere you want and do just about anything you like. Your command console is that thing where instead of looking up on Wikihow what to do to get your Windows updates to stop nagging you type in the correct string of text and poof! No more nagging. Its better than a GPS. Its your Montgomery Scott before J.J. Abrams invented time-travel loopholes. You can do anything you want with a computer with it. Instead of breaking out your operating manual every time theres a hiccup you have your console to do whatever the heck you feel like doing.

Right, so if I wanted to create a blog I would hope people would get more out of it than a typical giggle. Thats why this is named consolecommands: you learn from my experiences and get some console commands stocked for when life has you looking for a self-help book.

As for my name, theraptorfence, those who are close to me know that I feel like the characters in Jurrasic Park when the raptor fence goes down just about everyday. However, life is sometimes simpler when the fences go down and the world is effed by dinosaurs, because at least then you dont have to worry about what to do about your exam. Until that does happen though Ill have to keep my trigger-happy fingers on the keyboard instead, which feels about the same as the poor Douglas Adams fans felt when the Hitchhikers movie came out. Really, couldnt you do better after 20 years of development hell?

-JediLegacy (aka TheRaptorFence)