Malice Song

That's a difficult one. I think the challenge is the part where you don't want to turn them off of games. Watching a classic movie you don't like is one thing, that's done in two hours. Games are a bit different, much more time consuming and also require a lot more from the player, you kinda have to be personally engaged for anything to carry on. If you factor in different tastes, very different genres and the speed at which games (or rather components like mechanics, graphics, etc) become outdated, it's a problem. I mean, I enjoyed Dune 2 as much as the next guy, that shit was amazing back in the day. It's borderline unplayable now. Now imagine forcing someone who'd be a lot more into R-Type all the way through an Ultima and this is tricky. Now I am not sure if you meant the OP this way, but considering that I probably would not want to torture my hypothetical kid unnecessarilly (there's a strong chance it'll have part of my genes, so the humouring would only last for so long), I'd approach the question from the angle of "An Education in Video Games she/he'd probably enjoy". Starting out with a very small selection of (mostly modern) games that showcase very different things the medium is capable of, while being short enough to be experienced largely in one or two days. Which is pretty much: Portal FTL Street Fighter II If they're still interested after that, I'd transition into: Mass Effect 2 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 4 This is considering our willing participant is already kinda interested in video games. If that's not the case, I'd start with Tetris first. After that I'd ask: "So, what did you enjoy and what was rubbish?" And go from there. This probably looks like a weird selection and a bit far off from a broad education, but these titles as a whole are imo game. And judging from what our adorable little guinea pig thinks about those, we can go more in depth, preferably first into a direction our participant feels a connection with. For example, depending on his impressions on Portal, we could lead him all the way back to Wolfenstein 3D. Or Myst. Or The Secret of Monkey Island. Or Sokoban. All of which were more or less important and strong contenders for universal must plays that might be considered crucial for a history lesson in games. Or in fewer words: there have been so many defining moments and achievements in so many different genres of games (and that's not even considering historical significance on a business level, which would qualify the Double Fine adventure or Duke Nukem Forever among others), that I feel it's pretty much impossible to come up with a generalized list of mandatory games that would work for everyone. And I think the latter part is important, because by Jove, otherwise that introduction to games would overstay its welcome significantly.

There's probably no way not to seem like the devil's advocate here, even though that's not my intention, but wouldn't that question be impossible to answer objectively?

Played it for a few days now and I have to admit, I am really enjoying it so far. I mean, downsides exist, of course, mainly the tested "pretend to do something important while in reality you just kill shit 24/7 'story'" progression. I can forgive them trying to push the cash shop, the game's f2p, after all, and in my experience Cryptic has always been fairly reasonable with paid stuff (cosmetics, utility upgrades, that sort of stuff, not really pay to pwn stuff). On the other hand I found the combat system to be fairly engaging. Unless that stuff is all the rage these days to begin with (wouldn't really know, honestly), it's fairly refreshing and even though I am generally not a fan of Hack'n'Slash, it beats locking on to something and cycling through skills again and again and again. Also I'm still shocked at how pretty this game looks. In a way it's a minor point, but I tend to walk at the slowest speed in these games and this time it pays off quite a lot. Transitioning often takes on a touch of majestic and for lack of a better description it simply feels good to walk around and inhabit that world. I wish there'd be more to do in that regard (walking is not even in the keybinds, you have to enable it with a console command; there's no emote tailored to sitting on a stool or couch; your basic and almost sole interaction with the world is "attack"), since the fun in this game, at least in my opinion, certainly doesn't come in the form of quests. Not entirely sure how long it'll keep me hooked, but that depends mainly on PvP, customization and guild features and how active the community of foundry authors turns out to be. Still, the foundation looks decent and there's some potential. Edit: Note to self: way too much use of "stuff". Read a book ffs!

Let me just say, regardless of reasons, I applaud your decision. For a while I didn't even care whether I was alone or not. It is nice to read about other people doing crap like that, since usually all you get is eyerolling and shaking heads. Some people never experience the beautiful rush of delusion. This can also be a lot of fun, when you wonder, if someone else is the only living thing in the universe and everything else, yourself included, is just an elaborate hoax of that dude's brain. It's also the point when you realize it doesn't even change all that much, which is kind of weird.

This is kind of blowing my mind, although actually more the part before he goes invisible. Usually the process, at least how I always experienced it, goes something like "Look at next block. Decide where to put it. Rotate while moving horizontally. Bring it down. Enjoy success." - this is just constantly skipping to the last part. It's quite obviously a display of telekinesis or some sort of wizardry.

Just went through To The Moon. Recommended, although it's probably one of those games that should just be played instead of being talked about. It's beautiful.

Happens to me all the time. Horror games I don't even consider anymore. Amnesia for example is a game that is an incredible temptation to me, it seems incredibly interesting, but I just know there's no way I'd finish that on my own. What's worse is I think in my case all first person games are affected by this. To me it's just a different kind of investment in terms of immersion and the question "do I want to spend time in this world". For example, I spent quite a while (two or three years in fact) "investigating" mods for Fallout 3 in order to transform that game into a harsh, unforgiving survival simulator. Now it's gotten way too big and intimidating for me to expose myself to it again. Oh well, one of these days ... That actually sounds decently enough or at the very least a step up from the usual saint/devil stuff that is often going on. It's too bad I just didn't like The Witcher in terms of gameplay, but I just might have to reconsider at one point. Also just finished The Binding of Isaac. I think I finished it anyways. Saw an ending, that has to count for something. Anyways, this game is either devious or I got some sort of gaming specific gambling problem. I don't actually like the Zelda games, including gameplay, which Isaac seems to be very much in the tradition of. So I probably shouldn't like Isaac's gameplay all that much. But there are soooo many randomly placed shinies in this game. It's a bit of an Indiana Jones vibe going on, the wikia up on the second monitor, reading up on the artifacts you find in the dungeons. And that part is seriously horrifyingly addicting. Also speaking about emotional impact in gaming: no bombastic cinematics, no sweeping orchestra scores, but boy is this one a downer. I have rarely felt as much sympathy for a character in a video game as I do for Isaac. I'm not entirely sure how they did it, since the story of Isaac is presented in only a few rather simple images, but I just can't help but to think "man, that poor kid" pretty much all the time. Even if I manage to pimp my character to be an avatar of destruction, that little between-levels interlude makes it completely meaningless in terms of emotional impact, even then Isaac still feels like a helpless victim, no matter what happens in the game at that point. It's rather impressive, really.

Maybe it's this thing where the game feels the need to reward a distinct alignment (not entirely sure why that's necessary) and since you usually start out neutral in these kind of games, you'd start out with a perfect neutral bonus you could loose, which probably would be relatively frustrating. I don't know, I find that stuff a bit unsatisfying. Imo the consequences of your moral compass should manifest themselves in interactions with characters, based on sensible reputation. But that might be down to opinion. Also it's probably hard. On track, I've finished XCOM - Enemy Unknown. On Normal Ironman. Because I'm a baby. Game's propper brilliant. I'm trying Classic Ironman at the moment. It's ugly.

I feel like Fallout's Karma system does the job a bit better. But that might be mostly tied to the world itself being in a very desolate state and you as the player basically trying to get by as the hired solution to a problem. Iirc the narratives themselves very rarely imply that what you're doing is flatout saintly or despicable, you're just doing what you have to. Mass Effect feels similar in that it just paints you as good cop / bad cop (but, ultimately, space cop), but in that one the consequences feel less nuanced and as a player you're more aware of the definite benefit you gain from leaning to a particular side. So yeah, I can't think of a more compelling example. Which is a bit sad, since I feel like that gray area is often (or has the potential to be) the most interesting path. Although I might just feel that way, because that choice often isn't provided for, so its potential feels 100% intact, if that makes sense. To tie it back to KotoR 2, I went dark side on my second run and managed to turn Mira dark jedi. So this whole narrative came about in my head, how she's now practically my protege, whom I'd bring up in the joy of the dark side, where there's rivers of milk and cookies growing on trees. But that happened practically right before the end of the game and the whole ordeal ultimately was of no consequence. I don't want to spell it out too directly because spoilers, but that one actually bothered me a bit. Might have been some metanarrative that went straight over my head, but the whole theme of influencing people felt like I should be given the option to bring that to its conclusion on an individual per party member basis.

Actually played and beat that one for the first time, myself. Well, beat vanilla, tried the restored content mod, but got my savefile corrupted right before the end of the game for some reason. Very different experience from yours in terms of bugs and glitches on the whole. I have to say, though, there were some curious design decisions in that game and I wonder how much they merit discussion (or had been discussed, apparently i'm always five to ten years too late on games). One being your influence on your party members and their interactions among eachother being a bit of a theme, but then having that kind of thrown out of the window to a degree whenever the game decides you should go solo. Another being the game strongly encouraging you to draw yourself into a bit of a stereotypical corner. The run I beat the game on, for the most part I went for conversation/actions, which felt the most fitting and natural to me, which resulted in a somewhat even light/dark split - and consequently being denied prestige classes and an entire dungeon. Which is even weirder, considering your designated mentor rocking a perfect neutral alignment. Well, it has great music and a certain quality of flavor, a weird charme about it. Whether good or bad, it strikes me as very imaginative in a fairly wild way. Then again, everytime someone explains why they absolutely hate FF8, I find myself saying: "You know, you're really not wrong." Whether you should give it a chance, I'd say probably yes, but iirc you may need to suspend disbelief (and potentially common sense) every now and then something fierce.

Very much this. I was quite surprised by what a difference satellite coverage can make. Also this is a silly tip and probably a bit of a no-brainer for many, but you actually benefit a lot from building facilities in a 2x2 square and just having a look at your base and doing some planning first has been pretty helpful for me. My first goal is usually expanding one workshop to the right side, adding a second satellite uplink on the left side, adjacent to the existing one and then try to make my way to the steam tiles as fast as possible. Sprinter and Supression are really strong choices for Supports. Squad Sight so far seems absolutely invaluable for Snipers. I've yet to beat the game on normal (apparently I am kind of bad at this, so grain of salt to everything above), but man ... this is just a great game.

Yeah, I kinda have to agree here. Which is why I'm not going to elaborate on that list, in the end that probably is nitpicking and ultimately not very helpful. Point of the series for me as a viewer is to learn something afaik, not to go for the easy targets. Should try to do that. Follow up episodes should be helpful. Kind of easy to lose track of the main issue, thanks for pointing it out.

Wasn't it like 106 entries? Not sure where I got that number from, might be wrong. In any case, besides the point, I would not want to tell her to dig up every single example for the trope there is, that would be silly. Then again, it feels like that's what happened and where it fails. Haven't played all of the games on the list I still recognize a few cases that are quite a stretch at best, especially with the definition that was actually given in the accompanying video. The more I think about it the more ridiculous the latter part actually is. It doesn't help that in several cases the same character is listed about half a dozen times, either. I don't know, maybe I'm not getting something (again), but from where I stand that list looks as forced as it possibly could. Like The Thing, isn't it? I have to strongly disagree, though, this thread is brilliant and imo important. I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but from my point of view I'm male and like to think I'm somewhat modern and don't have a worldview set in antiquated standards. However, that also means that that the subject matter (misrepresentation of women in video games) is one that doesn't directly affect me. I think it's not that hard to become desensitized or flat out overlook a lot of that stuff and as a result take a defensive stance ("I never realized this, but I'm not sexist, so this can't be that bad, because if it was, it would reflect badly on me yada yada" - or something like that). The video series and this thread are imo important, because they make me confront a problem that i may or may not have been aware existed and thus encourages me to reflect on the topic and question my stance on it. I don't want to put words into your mouth here, but saying this thread is terrible implies to me that we shouldn't even need to have a discussion about this and that everyone who doesn't outright agree on all points is a bit of a sexist pig. Maybe I just misunderstood you (seems to happen to me a lot), but imo it's a rather positive thing that we can have a rather civilized discussion about that topic, which - at least in my case - is helping to clear some things up and reevaluate a point of view on the topic here and there in a positive way.

That, in its continuous occurence, is actually the problem from what I've gathered. I think that is actually part of the point that is brought up. Whether it's in this case a valid point or not might be debatable, but (ignoring that regressive crap thing for a moment) simply stating the trope is used in that genre of game, quite regularly even, is quite accurate. Yes, it is. I've put perusing it off until now, but I agree completely, it's a desaster. That said, I think the list is meant to illustrate how widespread the trope is and while it fails on that front imo, the fact that the video series exists and women apparently feel misrepresented in video games, does not. So, considering that I am in a position where I am likely to just not see all the occurences, I can take the complaint at face value. If a woman feels like she is misrepresented in gaming, I don't think I'm in any position to tell that she isn't. So that alone probably merits a closer look. Also fwiw the video youmeyou posted was a bit of an eyeopener for me, would recommend viewing.

Fwiw I just rewatched and I didn't necessarilly get that impression. It's just that I am sure some people would classify Mario that way and at this point of the series it is hard to judge for me if that is the basis it operates on. Which is why I'm seeking the discussion to figure out, if I am at least in consensus with the community and where my stance on the topic is. It seems like we're in agreement. That video was indeed the best. I was catching myself thinking "does the protagonist's gender really matter?" at some point, which is quite curious. Since it obviously mattered to the girl. Quite some cause for reflection. Great video, great points. Also great dad.

There are potentially incredibly negative consequences to that trope and it is somewhat shocking to read you suggest otherwise. It's also a different topic, so let's leave it at that and agree to disagree for the moment. Well, that might be possible. From what I understand of our discourse, the problem is not one specific example, the problem is the sheer overabundance and dominance of those examples in spite of all the things games could say, but rarely do. My question, and it was an honest one, was whether the video was meant to be understood that way or not. You suggest that it is, all is well. I had been zeroing in on Mario because that was a main example and I got the implication that this series indeed was problematic because of the way it handles its characterisation of women, not because it serves as an example for the majority of games. I.e. the difference between "Women are objectified in Mario." vs "Women are objectified in Mario and this is how it works in almost every game in existance." You suggest it's the latter. I was hoping it would be. The presentation itself left me a bit unsure about that, though, so I felt it was important to ask, since there's a world of difference. However, it seems like that's more semantics and/or my inability not to scrutinize mere examples for validity or look at things through a cultural lense. Acceptable outcome, thanks for clearing a few things up.

Yeah, I was considering using the term "male power fantasies", but it's just not universally true, at least not to make it a blanket statement. I mean, okay, it is true, but a bit more nuanced. For example, I am German, which means for me that in a lot of video games (and movies for that matter) I am the bad guy. Now this is oversimplifying on my part, of course I am not, point I am making it is really easy to shoot Nazis in video games without much thinking about it, as historically inaccurate it may be to vilify an entire nation and every one of its soldiers. In that way I would say it is not necessarilly a male power fantasy but one that might pertain more to nationality than to gender. And I don't want to dive too deep into that one, it's probably not the best analogy and it's not something i see as an inherent problem. However, the whole reason I brought up that objectified characters play into power fantasies so easily, is because I considered (decieded against it initially, because I don't feel it is really a good point to make) bringing up the question what about that really is so terrible. What I mean is that I had to think about how putting the generic German Nazi into the typical WW2 shooter enables that sort of power fantasy, too, and if I were to ask myself, if I had a personal problem with that, I'd have to say "no, I get it, it's fine, just please keep in mind everyone, that this is historically speaking slightly shaky and don't let this game influence your real life perspective on the subject". This is probably not really pertaining to the subject matter at hand all that much, but comming from that mindset I sometimes look at games (and movies for that matter) and can't help but think in the context of this discussion: "yeah, sometimes the story is 'boy saves girl'. is that really so terrible?" Now in my mind no one actually thinks it's that bad (god, I hope so, at least), but the frequency of this story archetype could be a problem. Which is fair, imo, but then I think it is important to be aware of the examples we're using and whether those would be a problem in a vacuum. Which reminds me, she had provided "hundreds of examples", I still need to take a look at those. Yeah, I have to disagree here and hard. It's probably my fault, I was aware that my wording of that stuff was likely very suboptimal but couldn't really figure out a way around that (which might be telling in itself). Moreover, failing to take something seriously does not excuse one from criticism. Yeah, I wonder how true that is. Mario gets big and more powerful on mushrooms. But that is not a statement on the validity of drug abuse. Link runs all over towns smashing pots to find rubies. That is not a political statement promoting vandalism. Why then is the princess to be rescued a serious statement about the role of women? And actually, no, it isn't. I mean, I vaguely remember that time, when the reveal of Samus Aran, the idea of even having a female protagonist was a somewhat big deal and I absolutely think it shouldn't be, it should be completely normal. But, on the specific example of Mario, it's a bit weird to say girls got shafted by having the character they might want to (or feel like they should) identify with be the eternal Damsel in Distress, when the male equivalent is Mario - hardly a power fantasy, more like just fantasy. Now I am not sure how much these games actually did to cement this foundation of having the woman be something that needs to be rescued, how much games just iterated on that concept, prettying up that princess with more pixels and polies, and there might be some fault and responsibility there in not having provided a stronger, more diverse foundation. But personally, when I am looking forward to learn about disrepresentation in video games, it is in the context of games that actually feature/boast characters and character development, as I think there is actually potential to mess it up and to really disrepresent. Whereas Mario barely even has characters, those things are merely dolls without much of a personality and basing any sort of sociological observation on those strikes me about as valid as analyzing the representation of pilots in Airplane!. While it may look like it, it is not as if I want to dismiss this right away. I think I understand what you're saying and how the depiction of women as helpless abductees over and over again is problematic and the context/theme of the game itself not cushioning the blow of the trope. However, I think there are games which do put a good amount of focus on character interaction and it would be a bit more revealing to take a look at a female Shepard for example and whether her portrayal is something we could point towards citing a positive trend in the portrayal of women. I realize I just watched the 20 minute inaugural video, which can't possibly cover anything. It just feels a tiny bit frustrating having Mario in its stead as an example. And while Mario may not be excluded from criticism, it's also not running the danger of being confused with anything that tries to paint a faithful picture of the role of women, Italians and turtles in our society. Then again, I've seen girls in the process of identifying with Princess Peach and Mai Shiranui (of all things!), so maybe I am completely wrong and backwards here. Not to mention, if the concept of the Damsel in Distress is, as you write, so omnipresent that I wouldn't even fully grasp its ridiculousness, then I'd probably not even fully grasp its ridiculousness, which would necessitate a stronger, more objective look at my point of view here. Which I am generall trying to pull off, but I'll try to keep that in mind and be more scrutinizing of my opinions. So basically what we have on the market right now would be fine in principle, if we actually got the other side of the coin, too, or at least more of it. The other side being way more and/or better games that depict characters, regardless of sex/race/etc in a more balanced, believable and ultimately responsible way instead of falling back on tropes and stereotyping. I'd find myself in complete agreement with that. Although in that case i wouldn't see that much of a problem with the games/concepts that are there, but with those that aren't. But that is probably just nitpicking at this point. Though I feel like that in itself wasn't so much presented in the video. But that's something that's yet to come or it will become a clearer message between the lines. Ah and there it is. Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that. According to the definition of a Damsel in Distress laid out by Sarkeesian, I'd disagree on the account of Lara being one, but other statements from that interview are a bit problematic imo. That one is slighly saddening and if I didn't know about a problem with the depiction of women in video games, i guess here it is. PS: Apologies for any accidental rambling. I feel like at the core i might actually be agreeing with everyone and just get caught up in details. Thanks for indulging, I'll try to work on that.

Which I am very much still in for. So, I'm going to come out with this right away: I don't have an easy time getting what the underlying problem really is (representation of women in video games) on more than a superficial (the "a metal bra is all the armor I need" eyeroller) level, so I figured this video series is partially for people like me who could use some education on the topic. I think the entry video actually delivered, at least for me personally, on explaining what is so questionable about the Damsel in Distress, namely that it reduces a female character to the prize that keeps bringing the story of the protagonist along. See, that actually made sense, message received. However, reading through this thread, looking back on the video, all that good internal post analysis, what stuck with me the most is, roughly: "Representation of women in video games is off and problematic, here is a trope that demonstrates this. Let's look at the Mario games for example." Really? Now, as I said, I am most likely very uneducated on the topic, but I feel like this is an actual problem with the video. I can accept that at this point the conception and existance of the video series is important, if just to take a good look at the state of characterization in the medium. I feel like it's a weird subject, since video games are to a large degree power fantasies and objectified characters play into that so easily, which doesn't just hit women to be honest. So I am basically in a rather receptive position, where I am accepting that there's probably a problem and am just waiting to get hit with some education, so I can get a clearer picture on the thematic. And what I get is having pointed out that the portrayal of female characters is problematic in two series, in which the portrayal of everything is problematic - and as far as I can tell completely meant to be that way in an overstereotypical fairy tale sort of way, that doesn't take itself or its representation of characters and concepts even the slightest bit seriously. I don't just want to shit all over this, I am comming from a position of genuine confusion here. In my mind there's all sorts of possibilities, why she went with that trope and those examples in the first video. Could just be the most popular/visible franchises to lay the groundwork for future episodes and how those games influenced the more nuanced examples yet to come. I am definitely interested in future episodes and the points she's going to make. But I have to ask the readers, who have a stronger grasp on the topic and feel the video was well executed and spot on in terms of content: do you feel it is safe to say this was basically a primer to introduce a very deeply underlying concept, which doesn't hold much water within the examples she provided, or did I miss something very fundamental, if I still have a hard time seeing a problem with the examples specifically? Apologies if this is one of those "Dude, it's just an example!" moments, but I genuienely have a hard time telling how much stock to put into them or rather getting a clear grasp on what is actually perceived as problemtaic characterization and thus on what basis to form a personal perspective towards the subject matter. On a sidenote, imo it is fascinating to have, on one hand, this series trying to point out how female characters are objectified and aren't empowered enough to be anything more than object of the male protagonist's interest (and afaik we're basically all in agreement here that, yes, it is a good thing to point that out and drag the potential problem out into open discussion), while on the other hand, Tomb Raider, where a female lead has to deal with the gritty consequences of her empowerement to be the lead omgsexualizedviolence. I'm probably missing something important and I intend to recover it and become a better person, but in the meantime this is hilarious.

Really need to spread the love for this one. Mellow-ish prog metal seasoned with a bit of an electronic touch, i guess? Well, it's Jim Matheos and Kevin Moore.

You know, I was thinking about this and at first I thought the difference is that spending 60 bucks on a game comes from a different mindset than spending 5 bucks and with it being a more conscious and thought through decision would lead to more incentive to actually play the damn thing. However when I look at the games that fall into that category for me, I have to say that there's basically no chance I'd have bought them for full price. And the number of games I actually did play for an hour or so before figuring out that I simply don't enjoy them kind of backs that up for me, since they come from the same place: games on sale I thought I was supposed to play for some weird reason. Now all the games I was actually genuinely interested in before they went on sale for about 3.50? Totally different story. Still, I don't think it is necessarily depressing, to me it just means I can try out more games that may or may not be my taste for significantly less money. So basically for me it's Crysis 2 and Time Gentlemen Please. Got them together with their respective predecessors, played those for an hour and never came back, so chances are I am not going to play the sequels. It's not even that I think Crysis or Ben There, Dan That are bad games, it's just that I don't like shooters and adventure games. Which I was fully aware of, but both were in a place where word of mouth wanted me to at least try them out. If anything I feel good about them sitting in my library, barely played if at all. Means I took a chance on something which could have been completely my cup of tea. Just doesn't always work out.

Fuuuuck, what a harsh reality that is. I mean, it's the kind of thing i'm sure everybody suspected all along, that a lot of the people paying into freemium games are spending compulsively. What makes this rather difficult to take a stance on imo is that at least to me it seems to come down to a very fine line between actual compulsive behavior and spending money on a hobby that gives enjoyment and seeing it for what it is. I think in the very first Idle Thumbs episode Chris brought up the topic of the semi-casual who buys one game every other year and proceeds to play the crap out of it. Now in that example I am sure that person would probably jump on the opportunity to prolong that experience with additional, paid for content. And I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In contrast, I personally think it's way over the top to buy all or close to all available consoles each generation to the point where I wonder if it's not just the mentality of "got to have it". In that case, however, I think I'm looking at a well informed purchasing decision from someone who is deeper into the hobby than I am and simply decided that that is what he wants to spend his money on. So then the question to me is, what is the difference between spending 200 bucks a month on 4 games and spending it on one game? The main one I could see would be developers' intent and the latter being consciously designed in a way to facilitate that spending. Right now I am just not convinced that actually matters, but that the more important point to look at would be consumer mindset. I think the comparison to gambling is rather worthwhile here. I've played cards for a while and within a small social circle we basically had one what the article might refer to as "sucker" who'd usually end up bleeding money on the table, though the amount was rather negligible in the end due to stakes. Still, it struck me as slightly odd, so I brought it up at one point and his stance on it was rather brilliant I think: he was fully aware that he'd pay most nights, the point was he enjoyed the game, the company and the thrill of winning every now and then and to loosely quote: "if I went to the cinema instead, all things considered, it'd cost just as much and I wouldn't have as much fun as I have doing this". Point being, while I don't want to underestimate the point about gameplay designed to being addictive and raking in more money, the line between being concerned about that and potentially telling grown men and women what they should spend their cash on seems a bit blurry to me at times, especially when enticing consumers to spend money on products is such a predominant thing in general, not just games. I don't want to deny that this type of game can lead to compulsory and flat out irresponsible purchasing habits, but the root of that might be a lot deeper than just gaming and maybe instead of pulling a white knight for a fraction of the customer base and potentially limiting options for everyone, the really ethical thing to do would be to educate the population in general about the psychological effects attached to money and instill some responsible spending habits. I can only speak for my country, but to my knowledge this is not something schools do around here and as long as that it is the case, the same ethical question applied to freemiums could (and maybe should) be asked in the context of a ton of other services, products and marketing practices and I am not sure I'd like to live in a scenario where all of those would be kept in check by anything other than society (and more prominently the targeted and educated consumers) itself.

Couldn't agree more. Conjuring up an army of Nazghul wannabees is strangely satisfying. I can't help but utter a quiet "get em, my pretties" every now and then. That being said (and I haven't finished the game yet), is it just me or does this game feel substantially different from the first outing? It's still good, but it's almost as if part of the charme is gone and something is missing. That may be the shitty wizard, but I can't quite put my finger on it yet.

So that's an endorsement?

This, so far it is considerably harder than the first run. I can't quite point my finger on the culprit, but basically I had to ditch my sweet set up of armaments within a few minutes, because it wasn't even close to getting me anywhere. I think it also may have something to do with the good old RNG, especially if your guns tear that much ass. For example I was playing Siren going into the game expecting to Lilith it up again and was looking for a decent SMG. Not only did none of this turn out happening the way I expected it to, my effectiveness was also largely determined by the gear I found. It was basically fighting through a horde of robots at times, slightly struggling, just to find a great corrosive sniper rifle along the way coupled with the thought of "it's on!". You know, that endgame glee you get when finding that last overpowered weapon in your typical game and I actually love how it's delivered here over and over again, but one of the downsides can be how it potentially affects your game and if you're actually looking for a challenge, running into a bunch of great gear in a row can hamper with that. As far as money goes, I don't know, it seems to me that money is more of a concern than it was in the last game, simply because there is more to spend it on (slot machines, tip jar) and simultaneously more incentive not to spend it (bad ass points). On the whole it is still in the useless territory, but I just think of it as another stat and so far that works out fine as far as accepting it goes. I could be wrong, but personally the story seemed to me deliberately not really concerned with any particular tone it was aiming for, but rather aimed at being one big trip through fan service land. Like "This is Borderlands, we can't have story in here, let's write fan fiction!". I guess it depends a bit on whether you played its predecessor. If not, Borderlands 2's story is a video game story. It's very typical and it's bad. If yes, it's awesome in a make-believe kind of way, where you see stuff you make up comes to live all off a sudden and it's awesome and beautiful. Kind of hard to explain. Also I am easily entertained by those things, so there's that. This, too.

Silent Hill, Castlevania and Bastion are excellent picks imo. These two basically nail the "memorable" part for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoSG3m4FHgQ