I'm really frustrated trying to play shooters on the consoles and being the slowest thing on the screen. I don't own a PS3, Wii or Xbox360 yet (yes, me and your grandma are still not caught up with the times yet) but after trying scads of games on the Ps2 and Xbox, and researchng what people are saying about aiming, reloading and cameras in shooters for the new generation machines - I don't have much optimism that it's going to change.

There have been a few that were okay, and to be honest, I felt of the three the most responsive was the Gamecube. The Metroid games were pretty much flawless in that respect, as was the Resident Evil games on Gamecube. The Punisher was very responsive as well - but the vast majority of shooters on the Xbox and PS2were just too slow, especially compared to the PC. Today I was continuing Black on my Xbox, and was reminded why I stopped playing it in the first place. The character just plods along, no running dodging, ducking for cover. But the worst part was it takes so long to get a good aim on the enemy that you can lose 1/3 of your life just trying to get into position. It was game over when I stepped into a room and someone opened fire on me to my right. I was inches away from a health pack - but was blown away before I could even get to it. I initially tried to turn to return fire - but it took so long that I lost most of my life before I could ever see who was shooting me. Pathetic and irritating.

I played Timespliters 2 on the PS2 and I could live with the speed up until the helicopter fight on the bridge. In this challenge, you must destroy a helicopter with a fixed gun, while in the meantime dealing with enemies flanking you on both sides of the bridge. I never got past it because by the time you get a bead on the helicopter, your are being shot on both sides with high powered weaponry. Trying to fire back meant that you have to get out of the fixed gun, and shoot them with YOUR gun. The fixed gun willnot turn far enough to shoot them. It takes FOREVER to get out of the fixed gun and shoot one direction, and painfully slow turn 180 degrees and shoot the guy behind you. I didn't have that much of a problem, though - because I never was able tu turn around - and I tried many times - I was dead before even getting to 90 degrees.

Like I said earlier - I've heard the same things are going on with the new generation consoles - maybe not the Wi, but I'm not into chucka-stick-controllers. When their sales start to slide and they get creative enough to let you play with a REAL controller, maybe I'll go there. But in any case, I don't see them having serious shooters on the system at any time so I'm not even going to go there for that. I'm watching the other systems, but it looks like the good old PC is still needed to jump in when certain things, like decent cursor speed, is needed. The good news is that at least the PC is where it's at for shooters, but it would be nice if someone along the console chain would consider and optimize this genre of games so that they are playable on whatever system they come out on.

Just shooting off my mouth...

Well folks - here we are a couple months after Bioshock has arrived, and it's been very quiet regarding that game. just wanted to say...

I TOLD YOU SO!

Youv'e all had a chance to play it, and have found - among other things - that you CANNOT get al of the upgrades; that thereare only 2 endings; that no matter what you do, you can't "max out" or powerbuild your character; that there isn't anything to cheat or glitch in the game; basically, you have found that the game is a one to two play game with no "ex-game" options. It's undoubtably collecting dust on your shelf, while you are gearing up for the next big thing (Crysis or whatever)... Bioshock is now a forgotten memory.

While I may install some sort of Doom (original Doom games, not the over-the-top newer one) games and fire it up old ****- I will never have a hankering to replay 99% of these new games (like Bioshock). Number one reason being that Bishock was too linear. Doom (DOOM, Doom II: Hell on Earth, Final Doom, Ultimate Doom) required that you finish levels - but you never felt "locked into a story" like Doom 3 - and Bioshock. At least you knew that in advance with Doom 3 - with Bioshock the whole hype machine had people thinking it was going to be "free roaming". What a rip!

In any case - who cares, it had it's 15 minutes and now its over. The only thing that will resurface interest in Bioshock is an expansion - and currently that seems to be "out of vogue" with publishers - so pray on for that one.

I just read that a new Might and Magic game has come or will come out soon - which reminded me of a waste of money still sitting there in it's box... Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. It's STILL sitting there, unpatched, unplayed, uninstalled after a terrible run-through. A patch was released December, 2007 which did NOTHING to fix the instability issues it was having - basically I feel like I've been told I can kiss off. My money was spent for nothing.

Are gamers ever going to get some insurance against lemon-games? There are some remedies for console users - because you don't "install" console games, they are played directly from disk - but PC gamers get the royal shaft when our games are glitched - especially if this "glitch" happens a good while into the game. Try taking it back to the store, you'll have to do some slick talking to get them to refund it. Regardless of your luck at the store - a publisher should be responsible to it's customers. If a game isn't working they should offer remedy and support to either resolve the issue completely or give you total recompensation. I'm still looking for either from the makers of Dark Messiah.

Here it is almost a YEAR since the last patch - and still the game has not been fixed. No patch, no workarounds - no nothing. That speaks volumes as to how much dedication this company (Ubisoft) has to the satisfaction and enjoyment of it's customer base. It's a shame that Ubisoft is getting so big, yet it would let the ball drop like this.

Thank God they aren't the only game publisher out there... I'll be looking for thier name the next time I make a purchase - that's for dang sure.

After reading an article highlighting how well Bioshock has sold (1.5mil so far), there was a comment made by the company about the release cycle of 3 years being reasonable - comparing it to the GTA series. I sya to that -

1. This isn't GTA. GTA is an open world game where doing the missions are optional. I have clocked in over 200 hours on GTA myself - and have completed only about 5-6 missions! Bioshock does not have that kind of play value - it is story driven, and a one to 2 play at best.
2. Bioshock, being a PC/Xbox360 game - at least on the PC side is not the kind of game that can hold a person's interest that long. I played it for three days - and I'm DONE. I will never play it again... that is unless...

THEY MAKE SOME FREAKING ADDONS!!!

Part of the PC gaming phenomenom is the extended playability of games through addon / extentions /mods - PC players aren't going to stay attentive of Bioshock without some "PC LOVE". That means start conducting yourself like you know our "Gameworld". We expect a game to have extentions, an if it doesn't we feel slighted - when we feel slighted, we react with our wallet. SO if you want to keep a part of your audience that also has cash to spend - be prepared to support you game throughout this "3 year cycle". Besides - Bioshock could use some additional stuff anyway - it certainly feels like half a game...And this isn't for just Bioshock - it's for all the lame companies who bring a game to the PC and then do not follow-up. I heard Far Cry was going to make a "sequel"... as great as the game was, they must have forgot how PC players were disrespected in regards to the expansion (Instincts) and basically nothing was made during the period after the game was made to keep it fresh - despite all the accolades and baited breath that was flooded upon it. It's going to be turn the tables time when they release FC2 - and regardless of the hype or quality of the game it doesn't meet sales expectations... you see, I HOLD THE KEY TO THE SAFE in my house - and BS will not be tolerated! Far Cry 2 will not be playing on any of my consoles OR my PC's regardless of how much the kids want it! And I will trash anyone of my family or friends who I even have a passing thought towards thinking about getting it. And thaat goes for any company who has shown disregard and thinks they are going to just make a sequel and get a warm welcome. There is just too much competition out there to have to put up with a drag-butt companies hal-baked efforts.Gone is the hardcore fan (YOU CHASED HIM OFF BY CATERING TO THE NOOB MARKET _ EVEN IN AREAS RAISED AND SUPPORTED BY HARDCORES- blame it on yourselves) - now meet the hard-headed, hard-sell gamer who will throw you away if you don't act right. Face it, Mr. Game Industry - before it's too late - despite your "copyright hostaging" and "intellectual property" lock-jamming, you have failed to stop QUALITY competitors from entering the market - and now you are expected to make some concessions in order to survive. Nobody is excited simply because your logo is stamped on the product! We want actual PRODUCT - not the satisfaction of knowing we got it first - or we are the exclusive group who paid more than others can afford to pay... we want actual PRODUCT and YOU WILL DELIVER... and you know why?

BECAUSE NOW IT IS A BUYER'S MARKET!!!

And if you don't realize that very soon - and act upon it accordingly, well... say hello to Mr. Tyrranosaurus for me... cuz you'll be sitting right next to the dinosaurs - basking in extiction. You aren't special anymore.. make yourself so... amuse me...

OR JUMP OFF.

This isn't a "review" of Bioshock - just some points I wanted to express based on my own experience and talk around the web. I finished Bioshock after playing it about 3 days straight, wrote my little review in the review section, and had to defend my review by someone who wrote me a very intelligent and civil protest letter (uncommon). None of that bothered me - just some things I have done. Now I'm waiting on the next big thing to come along.

I was lucky enough that I had a graphic card that ran Bioshock - I purchased to play some other whack game only a few months after buying another (Nvidia) card for the same purpose. I am since hip to the hardware games that the industry is playing - and I wait before buying a game that a publisher is using to try and "hard sell" hardware. I think a game should be made to be so good that people who want to PLAY IT will buy it on the merit of it's entertainment factors - not on how it is so "revolutionary, realistic, or "on the edge" that you need to upgrade your whole computer to play it!

In that vein, I was disappointed - but not surprised - to find out that 2K games had made e deal with Nvidia not only to support it aesthetically - but that they agreed to re-program Bioshock to lock out Shader Model 2.0 cards. This little move made sure that Nvidia cards had an advantage - newer cards - and that ATI owners would get a rude awakening when they checked the specs. Let me clarify - BIOSHOCK had already been programmed to play on the ATI and older Nvidias as an option... 2K and Nvidia decided to REMOVE that option, helping themselves at the expense of consumers. 2K is not the first, nor will they be the last to pull these kinds of deceptions - but I for one have become savvy enough to sniff these tactics out - and refuse to surrender my pocket to the hardware upgrade game! But some people ... just can't wait (digital crackheads... software junkies... game tweakers...).

I'm looking at Prototype, Crysis, and that Assassin game who's name escapes me every time I try to mention it - oh and NFS: Pro Street, not to mention some others. I fully expect that some of these titles will be requiring the "next level" of whatever the median PC setup offers... like Rainbow Six: Vegas asking for 2 gigs memory - as if the developer / publisher didn't know that the median system of gamers is ONE gigabyte of memory - sure there are some freaks out there that have more than that (and actually if you know anything about XP you would know that your not gaining anything with more than i gig anyway) but that is not the norm, and makes no marketing sense to build a game for their system. that is unless you figure you can sell some memory for somebody - for a fee, of course. I'm not a Tom Clancy "Rainbow" game fan - but I was going to try and see what I had been missing when I heard that R6:LV was made in a FPS style (I'm not into squad-based strategy shooters so much). I don't think I'll be giving that series any attention whatsoever after that move - I'm on protest.

Hopefully, one of the upcoming games will actually be a "game". so far it's been a boring year for games altogether, except for a faint light here and there. Maybe they just want us veteran gamers to die off like the dinosaurs so we can stop telling noobs to stop getting so excited over the lameness that's being spewed upon them? Maybe developers / publishers realize how much cheaper it would be if they could make games primarily for first timers - thus avoiding living up to expectations and being careful not to go too far away from the core of a series??? As I play more games - particularly sequels - I certainly get the feeling that these games are not being made with the previous crop of fans in consideration. What business sense this makes is beyond me - just throwing away guarunteed money... I can't fathom how someone would dump the fans with money waiting to spend for unknowns - why not have both? How about making the same game enjoyable by both veterans and noobs? It isn't impossible - it just involves WORK.

Maybe something nobody ever considered would come out of it - for instance, I have yet to walk past some of the kids in my family, while they are playing a game, and see some familiar (yet updated) characters. If I did, I would probably want to join them, interact with them, even buy my own "game stash" so I could play and see what's new happening with some of the game characters I played when I was younger. This isn't happening because game companies are on a noob hunt - so instead of making games accessible to veterans as well as noobs - they do everything they can to repulse veterans. They think it will open up a new market for them - but it is backfiring because now veteran's aren't in the game craze loop - and some of us are older brothers, sisters, cousins, aunt's, uncles and PARENTS of this new crop. WOuldn't it make more sense to impress us so that your machines will be firmly in place without having to wait for the nag factor to take effect? Wouldn't it make more business sense to make the market attractive to all of us - so that there's alway someone buying? Don't you want your game machine in people's household whether they are youn, old, crippled or blind? (this can all be applied to PC upgrades as well) Well, right now that isn't happening - and that's because you aren't giving the people with the money anything that THEY can enjoy out of it - and YES... we are that selfish, that if we cannot enjoy it too - we just won't purchase it...

I love Need for Speed. I started liking it with NFS: Porsche Unlimited, and the Underground series just did it for me. What I like about it - and I've tried many, many other racers - is that the driving control is damn near flawless. There's no "floating", the response is predictable and the tracks aren't stupid.I like the customization ("pimping rides" if you will) and the vareity of vehicles... although both of those could be beefed up even further, it's okay enough.NFS is just the pinnacle of racing, IMHO.

I'm playing NFS: MW right now - and of all those redeeming features, the one thing that it doesn't have that really makes it fall out of the loop is predictable control. In contrast to the rest of the series, it seems to be made to force you to barely win races. you need to have a darned near perfect trip to win. It isn't easy to have a perfect trip, either - because one little slip and the opponent(s) catch you. Once they pass you - good luck getting a lead back. The WHOLE GAME ATTACKS YOU whenever you are close to the leader or are actually IN the lead yourself. Traffic will suddenly increase. Cars anf Trucks will either turn right into you at the last millisecond, block the way completely giving you no choice but to crash (and stop), or just appear right in front of you suddenly where the road was completely clear just an instant before. The road gets noticeably slippier, and it becomes a controller-wrestling affair to keep your car from slamming into a wall or barrier; those barriers that you slam into suddenly become suoer magnets - causing you to stick to the wall like a fly to flypaper. Cars who you are racing against - who should be trying to get to the finish line - will either be sitting right in you path, or will slow down to bump into you. If you get bumped, btw, they stick to you - and I've never seen their car affected! YOU will spin and hit the wal, and they willl keep going at warp speed, unnaffected. If you touch anything, 9 times out of 10 your car will spin around and point the opposite direction. there are sections where cars will pass you no matter how much of a lead you have. I was racing Blacklist member #3, Ronnie, on the first of three boss races. On the last lap, he had crashed and i had a near perfect trip - untilI hit the tight turn to a freeway tunnel. Sitting in the tunnel was a cement truck - big enough to nearly close off the whole tunnel - yet in a position where you can not see it until it's too late. But i wasn't worried because I had a 21 second lead at that time. Now, I don't know what EA thinks 21 seconds is - but I counted from my hitting the truck to recovery as about 4 seconds... Ronnie passed me before I was halfway through the VERY SHORT tunnel. After that, the whole game attacked and would not allow me to catch up. I lost by 15 seconds! Mind you, I was driving a Viper, with all ultimate parts... Ronnie had a crappy DB9. My Viper never goes faster that about 155mph... although it should be going 240+. I had to conclude that the problem is with the programming... unless I'm just a complete dud-bomb (which I haven't ruled out either). This artificial "challenge" just made the game frustrating, irritating, and near unpleasant to play... but I like NFS, and since I'm so close to the end I figure I'll tough it out... maybe.

I'm hoping that ProStreet won't have the same style of play. Hopefully they will go back to the Underground methodology, or at least fix what they did to MW. The upgrades having an actual effect is very attractive to me - but that's not going to be enuff... if they go with the Most Wanted formula, that's a formula I least want, and I'll be rejecting that bottle...

Lets see what they do.

If you go here -> Gamespot Two Worlds PC Pageyou will see that there is a new patch for Two Worlds (v1.5). The once notoriously buggy game is now fixed (or at least that's the claim). By reading the changes, which are extremely numerous, it looks like SouthPeak Interactive has made a heroic effort to make their game the best it could be. I must applaud them for their hard work and integrity for their product. Their are a couple of duds that should take the same steps, and I hope they wake up to this.

Bethesda Softwork's Oblivion and Aspyr's Gothic 3 are two games in this genre - and two companies - who need to follow the new kid on the block and find out where he's getting HIS candy. Both of them blew it big time, especially in terms of gameplay, and almost as bad; misinterpreting the willingness of the consumer to upgrade to "Oblivious" levels on the "hype and anticipation" of one game. But that isn't the worst mistake, that's reserved for their follow-up actions - NONE. Bethesda released a patch which did not address the major issues of the game, (they probably just added a hidden "Nvidia character" - or some "Xbox360 armor") and Aspyr didn't release anything to fix their UNPLAYABLY BUGGY GAME. If fact, to further add pain to the slap - they had the nerve to announce an upcoming Gothic 4! Am I the only one who knows that they are not going to be able to sell another Gothic game unless they first fix Gothic III? I must be a savant or something... cuz I sure ain't smart about nuffin' else - A-S-P-Y-R... that spells "moon"... and their probably mooning all the people who bought that waste of disk space right now... I see the same fate for the nextElder Scrollssequel. I hope they can see it too... but it don't look so good right now...

I can't play oblivion - but at least I have a shiny new graphic card that retailed for the low low price of $399.99... you know - the one they PUSHED to get you to "fully experience the wonder that is Oblivion"... yeah - I just purchased a graphic card only 3 months before - but it was only $199.99 - not nearly enough money to run a game like Oblivion...

Well, I guess Two Worlds is slated to become my next Morrowind (the life eating RPG... time just slips away when you play it). I'm glad it popped up, because if it were up to Bethesda and Aspyr - I would'nt have a thing to play... well there's S.T.A.L.K.E.R., NWN2, Titan's Quest (still gotta finish it)... ad infitum - but you get my drift. There's nothing quite like Morrowind... oh, yes there is - it's called Two Worlds (WITH the v1.5 patch, if you please).

I just wanted to sound off about companies who make us get all ready for "the sequel" and then break their little word. I DON"T APPRECIATE IT AT ALL. It's lame. It's unprofessional. It's disrespectful of your customers. The same companies break their neck to please everyone else, meet every deadline, fulfill every promise - but the end customer is an exception. We can be led on; we can be lied to; it's ok to let us down, apparently.

I'll cite a few cases briefly:

Square made public - shortly after FFIIX came out - that it had "finished" the FF series all the way up to XIII - and it was working on XIV. This was well before there was an announcement or any word at all of a PS3. AFTER Sony announced it was coming out with a PS3 - long before it even showed us what it would look like - (and in case anybody was not there, just after MS's shocking announcement that it would be releasing the XBOX2 (they weren't calling it Xbox360 just yet)) suddenly those games disappeared from public view. Square began making all those online versions - but no console versions. they finally got around to making FFIX, X, X-2, XII (XI was online only) but on the same schedule that they had said we would be playing FFXIV by. Now we have to wait until 2008 or beyond for a questionable "RPG" known as FFXIII. But cheer up folks - cuz another scam known as FF: Crystal Chronicles 2 will drain your wallet and fill the void until then...

Oh, and let me not forget to add in Square-Enix latest fiasco... I knew that Square would somehow screw up the one RPG that could give it a run for it;'s money: Dragon quest. And according to the latest press releases look what's happening - Square says DQ will be released for the DS... why? Because it doesn't want what probably is a finished game, to be released on the PS2. It doesn't want that because Square is a hardware hoe - they are chasing new technology. Forget the fact that there are millions of PS2's out there - and the PS3 hasn't even taken off yet... each year they get more and more blatant with their whoring... too bad Enix is going to be going down with them now. Look at what they did with their own games! They used to only care about Final Fantasy... they abandoned series like Chrono Trigger (no respect for the continuity of the series or it's customer base) - now their even destroying Final Fantasy - all in the name of hardware whoring! Of COURSE they could care less about an Enix product - what to expect out of a company that could care less about it's OWN products??? I think I just threw up a little in my throat...

Oblivion. Remember it was going to be released on the PC AND Xbox simultaneously??? What happened there. I want to be brief, once again - so I won't be including my communication with them... please don't MAKE me do that. I also don't want to vilify any high-ranking individuals at Bethesda who may have come off just a little condescending and "I think I'm a God, so bow down to me and accept what I say as the LAW"-like in their replies to me. Anywho -The gaming public was told that we were going to be playing Oblivion on our PC's and Xbox's, (oh and BTW - it was originally slated to be on the XBOX, not the XBOX360... hmmm, do I smell a MS / Bethesda backroom money deal here or what...?) suddenly - and unashamedly - DISHONORABLY - just a couple of months before launch, Bethesda decides "nahh - we'll make it exclusively for the XBOX360, and the PC users will get it "whenever". I flew some letters their way and after breaking through the baby talk (they start off talking to you like your some moron who will go for boiler-plate mumbo jumbo excuses like "we wanted to give the player the best experience - so we just won't make the game at all for them... blah, blah, blah..." What a bag of bull.) the guy, after getting mad at me - which is the only way i could get a "real" answer out of him, lets me know that it was all business - and they did it for "the money". Of course he means MS (and NVIDIA) money - cuz apparently OUR MONEY ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH. I guess money from sales is just pocket-change compared to what you can get from a deal with someone like MS... why not just GIVE the game away for free, then? And what good did it do? Oblivion was STILL late, was and is flawed and buggy (you can only adjust that on the PC, BTW) and hit the bargain bin so hard and fast that Bubsy had to nurse it back to life. Bethesda got what it wanted - people saying "look at the pretty details"... but I thought they made GAMES... not wall hangings. I'm still playing Morrowind, btw... a great GAME.

If you ever played the original Shadowrun, you know at the end it says "See you in Shadowrun 2". Well as we all know - there never was a Shadowrun 2 - at least not the one we were all waiting for. I can understand that the company that made it probably wen't belly up - was it because Shadowrun became some kind of online game? Whatever the case, MS not being able to come up with another name besides Shadowrun for a game that had no relationship whatsoever with the original was and is a slap in the face for all of us who played and waited in vain for a sequel to a most excellent game. There are all kinds of words in the world - why pick that one to name your game? It was lame, and again disrespectful. And we never did get our sequel...

I could keep on going forever with examples - but I won't. I'll say here that the major reason actions like this are occurring on a wholesale, unchecked, unreserved basis and manner is squarely to be blamed upon US. We keep allowing ourselves to be disregaded, and many of us look upon people / companies who RELY ON US TO KEEP THEM AFLOAT as if THEY deserve some kind of IDOLATROUS FEALTY. They should be kissing our rear license plate and groveliing at our feet - sweating bullets trying to please US - not the other way around! They aren't feeling any pressure to give us what we want, to keep promises, to even PRETEND to listen to us. Can any other business do that and still get "kudos"??? Let's see - what if Skippy decided to make peanut butter without peanuts? How about Heinz making ketchup with oranges? Waht about Coke making Coka-cola taste like guava juice (no label changes - that's just what they decide to do)? I dare to bet that you won't see people supporting them, coming to their rescue, telling others "that's capitalism and it's their right to do so..." like I see people responding in game forums when someone complains about a game companies actions. People would RIOT if beer - which is much cheaper than a video game... and requires no "system" to enjoy - were suddenly made non-alcoholic; but let some game developer tell you "we decided to wait on the previously announced release until it's re-made into something that will require you to spend massive amounts of money to achieve..." and WE will defend them and support them to the hilt! Anyone who makes a whimper of discontent seems to get ostracized and attacked... forget the fact that you were lied to and manipulated by some company.. your an unpaid hooker for them... and are seemingly willing to pay them to do whatever they want to you... Until the game players get straight in their mind, and settle in on the fact that we are not part of the company - we are consumers - we will continue to be suffers and hapless victims in this game (no pun intended). We need to put ourselves back in the loop, AS CONSUMERS - I know there are a lot of you who want to pretend your some kind of "industry professional", and so your uncomfortable with that... get over yourself. We need to start using consumer power to offset the lure of backroom dealing. That's the only way we are going to regain the respect we once had, get the games WE WANT instead of the junk that's being created for totally non-gaming purposes (like "look at the wonderful special effects we made in this so-called game! Wanna hire us to do special effects for you???" or "We can help sell you video card, game console, or whatever; we have a great big customer base waiting for a sequel... we'll use them to make a game that will sell your product. We'll even optimize it for your hardware, and add things that have no business being in this series... all for your money... Oh, the customers, ahh, forget them - they will play whatever WE TELL THEM to play, and they will ask for more. They are like putty in the palm of our hands.. HAHAHAHA-HAAAA") - and fix the mess that is the world of video gaming.

I was reading a scathing review today about Area 51 (PC), a FPS from last year (one of the terrible 3 games that were supposed to blow up our systems, which included F.E.A.R. and Doom III as well). The review didn't have much good to say about the game, and maybe rightfully so - but what really burned my potatoe was the heavy slant of bias against the game due to it's omission of "multiplayer" mode.

This downgrading of games due to missing multiplayer or online mode has become "de facto" in just about every professionals review. I have to assume that a full point is taken away from a game whenever I see that it either is not multiplayer or if multiplayer is broken. The thing is - I could give a flying buttfish about multiplayer! I just want good games with decent campains, story, graphics, etc. If it has multiplayer, well that's fine - but that's not something I crave nor even judge a game by - unless it IS EXCLUSIVELY A MULTIPLAYER GAME.

I can't speak for everyone - so don't get the impression that I am trying to do so. This is just my opinion, but I do know that out of the hundreds of millions of game players around the world - only a fraction of us are online players. Why should we have to cater to the minority audience??? Why judge our games based on what the few desire. It isn't fair to us or the developers to judge our games based on something that most of the market isn't even interested in participating in.

What I feel is that there is an aggressive push to FORCE us all to be multi / online players. The only people who will benefit in that case is corporations in the industry. It's just another way for them to bleed our bank accounts on a consistant basis - and for us not to "own" what we are playing. And the media companies could care less - because they are slaves to the advertisement dollars.

Next time you see something being jammed down your throat, even if it's not very popular - think about it... who's really benefitting here?

In some of my posts, I have used the term "Pure RPG" to differentiate between the crud that is being monikkered as "RPG" or some hyphenated term plus "RPG" (i.e. Action-RPG, Strategy-RPG, etc.) usually as a shameless way to delude RPG players into buying something they usually wouldn't, and a "real" RPG; which is a game based on some very specific criteria that earmarks it as an RPG in the most unsullied sense.

Although some of it is instinct, I will attempt to explain here what those criteria are - or at least as much as I can think of. These listings are in no particular order of importance, but rather, they should ALL be present in any RPG.

1. Interactivity. You should be able to interact with NPC's (non player characters) and objects. You should be able to get clues and information from these sources. Ideally, all NPC's should have something to say, relevent or not; and the more contextual information you get from objects, the better. You are playing a role, and part of this means the world should react like the real world inasmuch as possible. in the real world, you talk to people, you read documents, you play with things, you observe and extract information. The more informed you are in an RPG, the more immersive the game becomes. it also helps to fill up the empty spaces in the game, and the game feels more "alive".

1. Exploration. You should be able to explore AT WILL, as long as your not in the middle of a mission. The more exploration, the better. Of course, there's no guarantee that you won't wander into the wrong area and... game reset... but that's part of the intrigue of an RPG. Because RPG's are not "Fast Action", but rather "Secret Based", you should be able to spend massive amounts of time exploring, and hopefully stumbling upon secrets, or previewing areas that you may be going to in the future.

1. Alliances. RPG's aren't about this one person running around doing it all by himself, and never have been. Those are usually the "Action-RPG's", which is a cheap way of saying "We didn't want to put the effort into developing a cast, but we still want to use the RPG label...". No, in an RPG, you should be making connections with others that will help you in your journeys.

1. Branching Story. The story in an RPG should change according to your actions and / or choices. It is supposed to react to your cumulative input, and evolve accordingly. Even in the most linear of RPG's, there are things which can alter facets of the game which you can make the effort to acheive. Without a branching story, your just a button pusher, and that's not what an RPG is all about.

1. Vista. APure RPG will show you worlds and wonders beyond fantasy. You will explore new and varied places, cultures, technologies. You should not be locked in a dungeon viewing regurgitated patterns in a Pure RPG. How does that clue you in on the next facet in the story? that's appropriate for Hack 'n Slashers - not RPG's!

1. Relationships. In an RPG, it isn't sufficient just to TALK to other characters - or merely interact with them. You are supposed to be immersed in such a way that you get to know them. You get to know their motivations, their story, sometimes you feel for the villain at the same time you are working to destroy them. Relationships help to further the emotion in the game. Although this comes in differing degrees - there is a "bottom" point where it is not an RPG defining element - that is those games which say they have "RPG elements", based on the fact that every once in a while you stop and get info from somebody (like Kingdom Hearts). You cannot insert your game into the genre just because of one element. It is a totality of the pieces - not merely the parts themself that difine the whole. It's like my toe calling my whole body a foot! I'm not defined by my toe - I have one,,, but other creatures do too! you have to look at my whole body to determine what I am. The same is true for an RPG, or any other game for that matter - having conversation between characters alone does not an RPG make - but it is expected to have meaningful interaction, as well as tactile interaction between characters / NPC and even animals and other beings who appear to have life in the game.

1. PACE. No matter how active the action is in an RPG, except for special scenarios, the player should have some control of the pace of the game. Without this control, it merely becomes a ride-on-rails semi-action / detective game. From the days of Dungeons and Dragons - which is where RPGs originated, there has always been a methodical, usually slow, strategical pacing. This slow pace allows you to "stop and smell the Mythril". You can think, plan, strategize at your leisure. You cannot take that away and still call it an RPG; it isn't traditional, and it isn't serving the purpose of games in this genre. What if you turned on your new Need For Speed and instead of cars everyone rode a trolley - and you had to keep jumping from one trolley to the next to win the "race"? You wouldn't call that a racing game anymore - would you? Hey, trolleys have axles, cars do too - so shouldn't you call this a racing game??? OF COURSE NOT! In the same vien, you don't throw in a couple of "RPG ELEMENTS" and call an action game an RPG - it just as ludicrous as the Need FOr Speed: Trolley example.