PAX East is right around the corner, which means another fun weekend for myself and the thousands of people who attend the Boston Convention Center from March 22nd to March 24th. If you plan on going I hope you already got your passes. I just went to buy a three day badge, and they're already sold out. I'm not worried about it. Craigslist usually has 3 day passes for sale the week of the convention as does ebay. Just gotta look out for fake badges, but anyways I'm excited for PAX East 2013. There's some seriously cool videogames coming in the near future that would be perfect for this years PAX East. Here's some of the things that I think would make PAX East 2013 the best PAX ever.

GrandTheft Auto 5

A playable demo of Grand Theft Auto 5 would be AWESOME. With a Spring 2013 release window, I think it's very likely GTA V will be at this years PAX East. Rockstar was present at last years PAX East with a booth showcasing Max Payne 3. I can't see why they wouldn't come back for Grand Theft Auto V. The rumored May release date makes GTA V a strong possibility for being at PAX East..I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed for this. If GTA V is there expect long lines and cool free stuff. I really hope this game is there.

The Last Of Us

Another big title with a Spring 2013 release date. I'd say it's 50/50 we'll see a playable demo of The Last of Us at PAX East. Naughty Dog has been present at previous PAX East's but have only done panels in the past. I've never seen a Naughty Dog booth at PAX East before. Maybe Sony could showcase The Last of Us, but Sony has been absent from PAX East since 2010. With a May release date, The Last of Us would fit perfectly in the PAX East lineup.

Xbox 720 Anybody?

Wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft or Sony announced their next console at PAX East? I know it's a stretch, but why not? Everybody is expecting these big announcements from Sony & Microsoft at E3. Why not stay ahead of the curve and announce you're new console at PAX East? PAX East is supposed to be the conference for gamers which would make an announcement there cooler than E3. Chances of that happening are slim to none tho. I doubt we'll see that happen.

More Celebrities

I'm not saying we need Eminem & Jay-Z performing at one of the concerts (that would be awesome), but wouldn't it be nice to see more famous people in the gaming industry roaming the Expo Hall? Last year I met Suda 51, and it was awesome. I couldn't understand a word he said, but I was honored to take a picture with the guy, I heard Cliff Blizinski is going to be there this year. It'd be nice to see him at the Expo Hall. Imagine if there was a panel with Shigeru Miyamoto & Hideo Kojima? That would be dope.

Wii U

Another thing that was absent from last years PAX East was the Nintendo Wii U. It was still unreleased at that time, but that didn't stop Nintendo from letting gamers play the unreleased Nintendo 3DS the year before. I kind of just wanted to see a Wii U last year Now that Wii U is available, I hope to play it at PAX East. I don't own a Wii U, and don't intend on buying one, but a cool demo at PAX East could help change my mind about that.

I'll be tuning in to see what's announced for the show as we get closer to March 22nd. If you're going to this years PAX East what would you like to see? I'm hoping this years PAX East is better than last years.I think PAX falling on Easter weekend last year kind of killed some of the fun out of PAX, but I still had a good time. Maybe some of my wishes in this post will be granted. If they are I think this years PAX East will be one to remember. See you there.

Wow. Never really knew they had $60 billion to lose. Leaving them at a mere $423 billion according to the Huffington Post, they're still the top company in the U.S., with ExxonMobil a close second.

Again, wow...

But what's so awe-inspiring (and alarming) about such a realization is that it's all in the name of entertainment.

Not food, not fuel, not clothes or any other number of necessities humans need to survive. And ironically, most iDevice users probably spend the least amount of their time with their devices for phone usage or necessary functions. Let's tell it like it is: they're mobile-entertainment devices -- distractions on the grandest scale our species has probably ever known.

Anyway, the company took a big hit, evidently, in the stock market, but it's still a Goliath. Obviously, I love gaming, otherwise I wouldn't be here on Gamespot, and heck, I have spent more time gaming on my iPhone in the last year and half than any other system I currently own. But it sure is telling to see figures like that. We might need to re-examine our priorities as a global community.

It is not often that a small-time blogger such as myself would risk his head by sticking it into the hornets nest that is the gun crime debate, but when American President Barack Obama introduced new measures to fight gun-related violence, a response was warranted. Among a wide array of new measures, Obama called for the US Congress to invest 10 million dollars into researching a possible link between gun violence and the depiction of violence in media, such as video games[1]. Unsurprisingly, the suggestion sparked outrage among gamers. The implication that their favourite pastime might be related to the recent bloodbaths is a tough pill to swallow for the millions that grew up on games such as Mortal Kombat and Doom without ever having hurt a fly. Though the vast majority of the gamers will have rejected the presidents words immediately, a more thorough analysis makes his proposal seem even more bizarre.

"It would be sensible to save the 10 million dollars for more fruitful scientific endeavours."

Should Congress heed Obamas call for more research, the subsequent study would not be the first attempt to establish a link between virtual and real-world violence. Those who witnessed the media coverage of the Columbine shooting will surely remember how the shooters affinity for Doom was presented as a possible cause of their violent actions. Even more recently, the fact that Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Breivik owned a copy of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (along with 22 million other people) spawned the rumour that he used the game to practice before he went out to kill 69 people. However, perhaps unsurprisingly, these and similar claims have never been substantiated, likely because they were motivated by the necessity of a clear scapegoat rather than factual information.


Do video game developers have blood on their hands?

Still, Obamas main argument in favour of more research we dont benefit from ignorance implies that a link between violent behaviour and violent games has never been taken into consideration before. Given that there have in fact been numerous studies on violent video games, it would be sensible to save the 10 million dollars for more fruitful scientific endeavours. Out of the countless studies that have been conducted on the subject, some found basis to speculate on (temporarily) augmented levels of aggression in gamers, whereas others saw no reason to further explore the hypothesis that violent games cause violent behaviour. At any rate, the ignorance mentioned by the President says more about his own obliviousness to decades of research than the existence of a scientific niche.

"One would think that there is no better time than now to stop beating around the bush."

Curiously, it is still unclear how serious the suggestion of Obama will turn out to be. The 10 million dollar research was but one of many ideas, and it could well be that it was solely intended as an attempt to appease vociferous opponents of gun control by offering a broad range of measures, as to demonstrate that the White House is taking everything into consideration. After all, in the wake of the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, the National Rifle Association was quick to point its trigger-fingers at films and video games[2]. Moreover, the Presidents desire for more research does not explicitly mean that he believes there is indeed a link, let alone that the conclusions of the research will lead to censorship. After all, the idea that virtual violence could be a decisive factor in Americas current gun crime epidemic seems far-fetched when you realise that the same games are being played all over the world without necessarily causing similar patterns of violence. As such, it is to be expected that the President of the United States is wise enough to realise that restricting the depiction of violence in video games is unlikely to contribute to a drop in gun-related crime.


Games such as Grand Theft Auto are often accused of promoting violence.

However, even if Obamas plans turn out empty shells, he has insulted not only gamers, but also the academic community. It is not without reason that Dutch video game researcher and journalist dr. David Nieborg described the words of the President as a slap in the face[3]. For to suggest that decades of thorough scientific research have resulted in ignorance displays a lack of either knowledge of or respect for the many academics who have dedicated their careers to investigating the possibility of a link between virtual and real-world violence. Moreover, now that gun violence is sweeping across America, one would think that there is no better time than now to stop beating around the bush and address the problem with measures that will harvest results rather than votes. A red herring may temporarily boost approval rates, but it will surely not prevent more lives being lost.

Draugen

Links and sources:
[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/17/obama-calls-for-10-million-video-game-study_n_2493716.html
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/12/21/nra-press-conference-blame-video-games-and-movies-not-guns/
[3] "Barack Obama begrijpt niets van game-onderzoek", nrc.next 7, no. 216, p. 16. 18-01-13

Also posted on System Wars Magazine.

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy we've seen numerous people jumping to blame video games as contributing to violent behavior. People familiar with gaming know the criticisms are unfair and unfounded, so why do they continue to be leveled against our hobby? The answer is the video game industry has an image problem and so far it seems to be almost completely unmotivated to work on changing it. A big part of the problem is misinformation and myth propagation on the part of people who are either uninformed or using the image to promote their own agenda. The latter group includes politicians and the NRA, the former includes almost anyone who doesn't play "core" video games.

However, the other large part of the problem is the immature and counterproductive attitudes that go into making and promoting violent games. It seems like a large contingent of decision makers are motivated to up the ante on over the top violence because they think it's cool and a good number of their customers think so as well. You end up with marketing like the "your mom hates Dead Space 2" where the key point is if the violence repulses someone, it must be cool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4lP5oA6_G4

Then there's the bloody limbless torso promoting Dead Island 2 that was apologized for within a day of it's announcement. You have Mortal Kombat devs focusing on how extreme their fatalities are in previews. And of course we have countless games touting how cool it is to kill enemies because you get a slow motion close-up, blood sprays everywhere, limbs and heads come off and rag doll physics send corpses and parts splaying all over. We've all read and seen previews thay play up these things and I'm guessing I'm not the only one who thinks 'Seriuosly? Are you deliberately TRYING to make games look worse than they do and invite backlash?'

"As it turns out the brothel is a fine playground to show off Manhunt 2's new environmental executions, which as the name suggests has you using the environment to send badguys towards a very bloody end.

Not wasting any time the death toll begins with the receptionist, who is easy work thanks to a carefully placed telephone, now smashed through his face with scattered pieces of flesh littered on the floor."

Manhunt 2 Preview,

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/162841/previews/manhunt-2/?page=2#top_banner

I'm not saying violence is evil nor that it should be eliminated from gaming, but gaming industry leaders need to stop pushing it as if it were the best part of their games. I honestly think there is a strong element of man-boy immaturity motivating too many people in their design and marketing decisions. I'm surprised no one has yet done a research piece for some news outlet pulling the worst of these marketing attempts to show the public how warped game developers are.

On the positive side, the games industry needs to actively promote what's good about games. They teach all sorts of things to players other then death and destruction. Action games develop hand-eye coordination, strategy games develop logic and planning, RPG's and The Sims teach a bit about social interactions and multiplayer games feature actual social interaction. Most games feature some kind of problem solving, the basics of which can translate and aid in real world situations. Most importantly the deep stories that are integral to gaming now that can reach people with all kinds of ideas on a level that simply watching or reading a story cannot - there are still too many people who dismiss gaming as mindless button mashing. Almost everyone alive has played some sort of video game, and before anyone shouts that mobile games aren't real games, I would say that if Pong, Mainframe Star Trek, Pac Man and Space Invaders are games, then mobile games that are far more complicated qualify as well. The industry can point to the fact that the vast majority of people enjoy video games and somehow resist the urge to do violence.

It should also stress the fact that the games rating system was set up by the industry itself, it fairly and accurately indicates what sort of content a game has. It allows consumers to make educated decisions on what kind of games they're buying, especially when buying them for children.

If the industry continues to ignore it's image things will only get worse from here. There is no sense feeding the bad publicity and making gaming an easy target for people who want to deflect blame like the NRA or promote themselves as crusaders against violence "for the kids." Gamers have a role to play as well. Too many people have a knee jerk reaction to criticisms against violent content where they will simply vilify the complainer as an ignorant fool. Much as it may be justified, we should consider the message glorifying over the top violence sends about our hobby. We can't ignore the damage that is done by promoting graphic violence as the main appeal of gaming.

In the days of yore when Japan was the epicentre of game development and buying a PAL PS2 was how you played weird Japanese rhythm games region locking was more of an issue than it is now. In this enlightened age of the twenty-teens you'd think limited access due to the mere geography would be a thing of the past, but of course Nintendo has other ideas.

As some of you may know I'm the recent owner of a Nintendo 3DS and am currently traipsing about the British Isles. It should be a match made in heaven.

Unfortunately, I've run headlong into the solemn realisation that Nintendo has spent the last six years with its head buried in the sand in stern denial of the existence of the internet. My 3DS is a US model, which means that UK 3DS games are unplayable due to the region-locking firmware baked into every 3DS console. This wouldn't be a problem if the Nintendo eshop could provide games via the miracle of the internet but sadly Nintendo have screwed it up on that front as well.

You see prior to my spint in the UK I was living in Singapore and thus have a Singaporean credit card. The way the eshop works is that you can't buy anything unless the postcode your card is registered to matches up to the region you've chosen for the eshop. However, Nintendo is convinced that only the US, the UK and Japan buy games via the eshop because the Singaporean eshop front is a joke. There are no games available for purchase, only a selection of game pages are up telling you to go buy said game at retail. No virtual console, no Pushmo, no nothing. Although funds can carry over from adding cash then switching to another region, the region from which all my money plastic originates prevents even the addition of e-money to my account.

Singapore isn't a swamp anymore Nintendo. It gets the internet there too.

Unless you hadn't realised Nintendo, the 3DS is a portable system. It's a platform designed to be taken, for example, on a trip to England. Perhaps someone who was undertaking such an expedition would want to purchase a 3DS game, both physical and digital, during his/her travels? It's not what one might call an unlikely scenario is it?

Of course I understand the reasons behind region locking. The internet gives players an uprecedented access to online delivery services that allow them to avoid the mark-ups on game prices in their region, thus undermining the profitability of a branch of a large publishing company. Nintendo obviously wants to protect its cut of every game sold for its platform and the lack of region-locking on the DS caused them no end of problems.

Nevertheless Nintendo has done an atrocious job of populating the eshops for each country with games to compensate 3DS owners for this inconvenience. It's also hard to condone region-locking in general when Sony has opened up the PS3 and the Vita to games from all regions and hasn't exactly suffered for it. For the limited number of consumers who actively exploit price differences in different countries that region-locking combats there are hundreds of consumers like me who are prevented from having a optimal experience. If Nintendo insists of using anti-consumerist measures then they need to provide sufficient digital services for every single region where their handheld is sold.

Luckily DS games aren't region-locked and I seem to have missed out on a generation of handheld games. I'll probably buy them used. I'm not feeling benevolent enough towards Nintendo to pay new game prices to reward their backward approach to the eshop, digital services and ensuring that consumers such as myself who would happily support Nintendo and its partners have the opportunity to do so.

I realise this a gaming website, but there was one huge response to my top 5 films of 2012 blog. It was, where is Django Unchained? Well Django Unchained only came out yesterday in the UK, and for that reason (being a UK resident) I hadn't seen it. Now I have, and I feel that I owe you guys my take on the film. So here goes.

Review:

Django Unchained is a highly entertaining movie; its brilliantly funny, sharply written and well acted. If you have an affinity for Tarantinos sensibilities there is no way you wont enjoy your time with this film. However its also tonally quite confused, leaving it as a fun movie but one with no lasting impact. Its classic Tarantino b-movie style revenge, in a way it feels like Tarantino making a Tarantino movie, aping his own style rather than doing anything different. This isnt really a problem, the man has made some exceptional films, but Django doesnt reach that level, it has high points where the film starts to excel, but as a whole it merely manages to entertain. Of course entertainment is something we want from a film, but the reason why this is somewhat of detraction here is because Django shows a clear want to be something more than entertaining. It wants to say something, it wants so give a lasting impact, it wants to expose a part of history for what it was and make you think on the past. It wants to do this, but it fails to do this. This is due to an imbalance of tone and how self referential the film is, Tarantino has caught himself up in a web of his own tropes and is determined to peddle out the sharp witty dialogue he is known for, and the bloody violence, at any point. All of this is done well, but it doesnt gel with the films other ambitions.

If youve been following the film its hard to separate Tarantinos claims about it from the movie itself. They are very different beasts and linking the two can cause the film to be a disappointment. However, if you are to judge the movie on its own terms you have the net result of a superbly crafted piece of entertainment that gives you what Tarantino does but in a new setting. This isnt a Western film that just happens to be directed by Tarantino, this is a Tarantino film that just happens to be set in the old West. If you look at the directors claims though a different picture is painted, one of an important movie, an eye opening movie. Django Unchained is not that movie. Tarantino holds himself responsible for bringing the topic of slavery to the lips of the world, because obviously nobody even thought to tackle or talk about this before Quentin put pen to paper. He also claims to be drawing peoples attention to the reality of it all, he himself speaks of a holocaust that happened in the States that people dont know about and his aim is to show things for what they are. Noble aims indeed, but not ones he achieves. If you know anything about the world you will go into Django Unchained with a negative view on slavery, you will also exit Django Unchained with a negative view on slavery. As a society we are pretty aware that slavery was a bad thing and Tarantino does little more than re-iterate this point with little nods to look dont these slaves have it bad. Theres nothing special about it on this front. Now of course there is still the aim of showing a historical account, the point of exposing how bad America was. This is a separate thing, it expects you to know slavery was bad and then educates you by giving accurate examples of how the American people used to act, shaming us with history. Once again, a fine aim, but one not reached.

Fun Fact: Tarantino is terrible in this movie (thankfully not for long)

The core problem of Django Unchained is its tone. The film is so over the top and detached from reality that its hard to learn anything from it. Yes horrible acts towards people of a different race are depicted, but it never seems like something real, it seems like back-story for a B-movie revenge flick. This is a revenge flick that is excellently realised, but it is only this. The film goes for the ludicrous at every point, it plays for laughs throughout and even when it turns sincere it is a fictionalised sincerity which applies to a fictionalised world. The characters are brilliant, they are well acted and cleverly written, but they dont feel like real people in the slave trade, they feel like characters from a Quentin Tarantino film. Quentin plays to his strengths, but he does so at the jeopardy of his ambitions. Whats more troubling though is the films depiction of violence. The trouble doesnt come from gratuitous violence on screen; the gratuitous violence is for the most part highly entertaining. Its all unrealistic and laughable in a way that works for it, its not used to shock or to make you uncomfortable, it is used to entertain. For the most part its successful, when early on somebodys head oddly explodes from a gunshot, the scene is set. Violence is entertainment for the next few hours, and it is knowingly so. The trouble comes when Tarantino tries to have his cake and eat it. Not only does he use violence for entertainment, he attempts to use it for other means. He attempts to shock the viewer, unsettle them, and show them something real and gritty that they dont want to see or accept, and ultimately use this to show how bad the slave trade was. This just causes a large dissonance though; you cant go from comically over the top blood splatter to a very real portrayal of the whipping of a slave. It doesnt fit and it detracts from the film later. Something could have worked with this, he could have turned the table on the viewer and stuck with a you think this is entertainment, well lets see how it really is. The problem is he flits between the two and neither has an impact. A particularly excellent and suspenseful scene is ended with the threat of brutal violence, its gripping stuff and an unappealing prospect. However the very same scene is followed up with a lengthy and hugely bloody gun battle, once again featuring unrealistic amounts of blood spraying everywhere and clearly using violence as a way of amusing and entertaining the viewer. This falls flat though and the scene is off putting due to the carryover from before, its also far too long, the end result being a contradiction in tone. The film cannot quite decide whether it wants to seriously say something about slavery or just be a violent and really funny revenge film. In the end it is just a violent and very funny revenge film with a few weird forays into out of place sincerity that fail to make an impact.

Christoph Waltz however is superb, take note Mr Foxx!

Overall it is a really good film though, a great film actually, it's just nothing special. It's not a film to hold up against Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, merely another solid Tarantino flick. Personally I will take a solid Tarantino flick any day of the month, but there comes a point where it isnt quite enough, where his films become expected and pedestrian rather than seminal moments in cinema. Thankfully he still gets great performances out of his actors, Christoph Waltz is the standout as the hilarious Dr Schultz and Leonardo DiCaprio is almost as brilliant as Monsieur Candie. Jamie Foxxs Django fits the bill, but the morality of the character is ultimately quite strange and earns him the role of a well acted caricature. Samuel L Jackson is as entertaining as always, but is just playing himself once again. The problem here is that his character starts out as something slightly different, and just lapses into pure Samuel L Jackson when needed. This makes for entertaining diversions, but its stuff youve seen before and its mildly inconsistent. The bottom line is this, if you like Tarantino movies this will work for you as an excellently made piece of entertainment. Its a bit too long and can drag in places, but not aggressively so, its a self-indulgent movie but Tarantino just gets away with it (who knows, next time he may not). If you want something that excels, something with meaning to it and, basically speaking, any kind of lasting impact, Django Unchained doesnt deliver. It may set out to achieve this, but its attempts fall flat and are all half baked. Tarantino is too busy trying to do what hes known for and make his style of movie to commit to something else. This means you get a fun film with some great highpoints, but some out of place moments that detract from the picture as a whole.

We have been doing System Wars Magazine for over 5 years now, and it is so fun seeing System Wars user's reactions to articles written by other System Wars users. Although our little project has gotten a bit....tiny...over the past few years (only three of us left), we are always open to have more people join in the fun.

I want to thank Jynxzor for writing a Preview on Don't Starve, which the developers liked enough to put it right on the game's official website. Photo proof!

Also, let's not forget DraugenCP, who has written a ton of great articles from reviews, previews, and deep editorials on the art of foreign videogames. In my opinion, he should be working for a real website, not some forum past-time, but he's legit. Read his thoughts on the Dawnguard DLC for Skyrim and The Scorchers DLC for Rage.

I also like doing fanboy articles, which parody real fanboys while also exposing the flaws in their arguments. What's scary is that a lot of people actually think like this, and I simply just copy their arguments almost verbatim. This issue I did one on Wii U saving Gamestop and how Pokemon X and Y looks like an N64 game; both ideas are frankly ridiculous and terribly wrong, but the arguments are very much real ones that people use and believe.

So here is Issue 64 of System Wars Magazine!Hope you guys enjoy it!

With the recent bashing of DMC: Devil May Cry by fans on Metacritic, the question that comes to those who are on the fence about buying the game becomes this: who's opinion do we value the most? The critic's, or the user's? Do we take the professional opinion, or the fan's opinion?

It's a topic I'd like to discuss because I, myself have issues buying games when fan/critic reception is polarized as it is with DMC. On one hand, I really do trust critics; they will, more often than not, give a fair, honest, and balanced review of the game at hand. On the other hand, I like to look at what fans have to say about a game because it's nice to have that raw, uncensored opinion, especially with franchises that have lasted years and years.

However, in a situation where the opinion is so polarized, who do we look to for advice?

To me, the choice is and always has been critics. I know that's a bit of an unpopular opinion, so allow me to explain it:

When looking a review for anything...a book, movie, or video game, I always make sure to look at multiple sources. After all, different reviewers have different tastes and biases, so in order to get a full picture of what a game is, you need to look as many of these tastes and biases as possible. To ignore one reviewer's opinion on a JRPG because he doesn't like JRPGs is silly; his opinion is as valuable as everyone else's. In fact, I feel it's important that we frequent the reviews of such biased people.

For example, one such biased person is Yhatzee from Zero Punctuation. Yhatzee is famous for the way he berates most games that come to his screen, and therefore many people don't take his opinion seriously because, frankly, it seems that he doesn't like games. However, when Yhatzee does like a game, it means much more than it would if he praised every single game that crossed him. I am often on his page because when Yhatzee likes a game, it's doing something right (That, or he's just a banana and is getting old). After all, what does the industry learn if we praise everything thrown at us? With too much praise, nothing is left to improve, and games would become stale. That's why anti-JRPG or anti-shooter critics are important; they will nitpick at a game of a genre they dislike, and they will, at least, effectively point out a game's weaknesses even if they look over a strength. What's more, if they like a game from a genre they have an aversion to, it means so much more than if they liked a game from their favorite genre.

These reviews are seriously entertaining and informative.

That all being said, I do feel that professional reviewers, in general, give a fair and balanced opinion on games most of the time. It's their job to play games, after all, and after playing so many I do not see why I should not trust their opinion. They've played hundreds of more games than I have in my lifetime; surely their perspective is inherently more informed and balanced than my own.

This trust in an informed and balanced opinion is important to my argument; professional reviewers have played a large range of games, larger than most of us have. Their decisions on what to play are determined by their work, our decisions are determined by our wallet and our interests. Reviewers don't always get a choice on what to play; they just play what they're given and review it. We get to choose, and because of that our range of games played will be naturally smaller than those played by the reviewers.

For example, I'm an avid JRPG player. With this information, which game would I be more likely to buy: Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch or Hitman: Absolution?

The answer is clear. I want this game. Now.

Now, let's say that, after a long period of time this year, I buy 4 JRPGs 3 Adventure games and 1 FPS game. Which genre would you trust my opinion on the most? The one I have the most experience playing, of course. If my only exposure to the FPS genre was, say, Medal of Honor: Warfighter, I might think it's a fantastic game. After all, with nothing else to compare it to, why wouldn't I? The game is extremely average, so I wouldn't find anything inherently wrong with it if I hadn't played games such as Half-Life 2 or Bioshock in the past.

This expectation of experience is where I find weakness in the reviews of fans: I will never know what games they've played before, hell I won't even know if they've even played the game they're reviewing. I could go give a review of Ni No Kuni right now, provided I do enough research, and bash the game without even having had played it before. Nobody would know I didn't play it, a fact that makes the entire review invalid. On the flip side, we have to expect that professional critics have played the game before because...well, it's their job. If you don't do your job, you get fired. Clearly a reviewer has done their job if a review is posted.

Of course, this is not to say that fans can't give as good of an opinion that a critic does. Sometimes fan reviews can even be better than professional ones; it's just hard to find those reviews and, honestly, there aren't that many. In a community where fanboyism and trolling run rampant, I take more comfort in a review by someone who I can expect to be above such things.

Given recent events, violent video games have been headlining a lot of news stories. Countless pundits have labelled them as a culprit for instilling violence in our youth. Most recently, even the president of the NRA, placed the blame of school shootings squarely on the shoulders of violent video games. Congress appears to be jumping on the bandwagon calling for bans or regulation of these dangerous products. On the other side, countless gamers declare that they have never been unduly influenced by their games. They claim that any such insinuation lacks merit. So which side is right?

Well, if we want to be honest, the best answer is no one knows. There simply isnt enough information to determine whether games contribute to violent behavior. Do they desensitive us to violence? Do they cause us to lose empathy and become more antisocial? It's possible but it's certainly not been proven. As such, most of the critics of violent video games are not basing their opinions on published research. They are going more on public perception or their own thoughts on the subject.

Most of the perpetrators of these mass shootings have been young men, and not suprisingly a lot of young men play video games. Hence, there is a correlation between those who perpetrate violent crime and those who play violent video games. But as we have often heard in these forums, "correlation does not imply causation". There are lots of things that are strongly correlated but have no direct impact on each other. One famous example - shown on freakonomics -, was ice cream and the incidence of polio (pre vaccination days). These two events had an incredibly strong correlation. So much so, that people back in the day thought ice cream caused polio. Both ice cream consumption and the incidence of polio shot up tremendously in the summertime and then dropped signficantly in the winter. But as we know now, polio is caused by a virus not food. When summer came around, kids played with each other and transmitted the virus. Given the hot temperatures, they also ate lots of ice cream. So the two events were correlated but had no cause and effect relationship.

Now this doesn't necessarily get these games off the hook either. They certainly may have deleterious effects on certain young and vulnerable minds. We just dont know. Rather than jump to unwise conclusions, maybe a little research is in order? However, psychiatry and psychology are incredibly complex disciplines. It may take quite a while to get any definitive data on this subject. The human mind is a very hard thing to study because you can't just isolate one variable.