Talk about a genre that has been way over extended.

I don't know how many of you play first person shooters out there but I became a big fan back in the mid 90's. I remember this awesome game called Doom and Pathways into Darkness. Pathways was my favorite because you picked up real weapons set in the 30's to 40's. It was supposedly about a Nazi who was searching an old pyramid and finds aliens and other things. Wolvenstein was just this game but in a different environment. That was back when these categories were new. World War 2 games also were a new avenue to try.

Now, it is completely different. Every game company makes WW2 first person shooters. I am pretty sure the company pet even puts out his own FPS WW2 with expansions. Ok, maybe not every one but it sure seems like it. COD4 came out after a plethora of expansions and other Call of Duty games that were WW2 and Medal Of Honors type games and it did phenomenal because I think people are just tired of these. I am not saying I don't like World War 2 because that would be wrong. I watch about it all the time on the History Channel, movies like the Great Escape are my favorite movies, books about it are cool to but I just don't want every first person shooter to be located during it. I am at the point I get excited when a game is located anywhere else at any time; heck, even a game set during the World War 1 were you spend the entire game in a trench with a 1911 .45 sounds more entertaining.

I wrote this blog because COD 5 will be based in World War 2 times and so I probably won't play it. Please companies, pick a new era to set your game in besides late 30's to mid-late 40's. Do you think we want all race games to have the same track and same 3 companies cars; or only 1 variety or sports game; or all RPG's to be set in midevil times with dragons. No! We get variety with them, why can't FPS fallow suit?

*There is number of FPS that are set in different times but the majority is not*

I just read an article or blog if you will which I found to be very sexist. I am not saying that that's what the writer was going for or anything but they brought up some points I disagree with.

1.Sacrificial Catalyst

Yes, females have been sacrificial catalyst in games but are guys and non-gendered characters not catalyst also? Return of the Jedi had multiple catalyst that weren't female as did Empire strikes back. When the Ewoks were fighting and one of the ewoks gets shot by the chicken walker did that not make you want all stormtroopers dead or when R2D2 was trying to open the door to the energy room and is shot by a chicken walker just moments later did that also not make you? What gender were those two, I personally have no idea so they may have not been female. Or, what about when Han Solo is frozen in carbonite? I am pretty sure he wasn't female. That's just Starwars. I used a movie because the writer used a non game on their example. In the game Doom, you are given information that the protagonist pet rabbits death is the reason for the killing he must do. In Dark Forces, your killing the empire because of the death of your father.

2.

It talked about emotionless, cold, evil characters. Yes, some female characters are cold but still, I don't even have to mention many because you can probably think of some pretty easy. Heres some examples: Sephiroth, The male protagonist in the Strike games, all the millions of guys we have to kill in first person shooters.

3. Sexuality

Are you kidding me. Sure, Lara Croft had sex appeal, so did most damsels in distress but how many fighting guys took off there shirt to display flab and a beer gut; just the opposite happened in tons of games. Theres that new Conan game; the gauntlet franchise, Fabio even use to model for games (which thankfully stopped), Rambo, Contra, etc. So yes women are objectified but so are us guys.

4. The last one I am not even going to bother with because there is more villains in games that are guys than girls so just by shier numbers, a huge group should be equal or more evil than females.

So, my only thing I have to say is please don't be sexist in the video game industry. I am tired of hearing that females are treated poorer, portrayed worse or objectified more than guys because, that just might not be true. I for one though, am not for changing games because a few people object to certain aspects.

If your on this site you probably have seen the hate that the PS3 crowd has for the X360 or vise a versa. Their cut-downsare just getting old; I don't think the PS3 people need to hear about the "overpriced" system, which I don't think it is, or the 360 people with the infamous Red Ring of Death which I have yet to actually see. There are some of us on the fringes that wouldn't be playing games if it was only one system other than the one we own. Both the PS3 and the X360 people are trying to get others to buy their system (why though, are they getting paid by the company) and leave the old system behind. The problem is though, that if the PS3 didn't exist, I probably wouldn't own a console because Sega is gone and I'm not into the Wii type games. Your probably thinking, why don't you buy a X360. The problem for this has nothing to do with Sony loyalty or anything like that; the problem is that I can't buy something Microsoft puts on the market regardless of what it is. They could seriously have a system with a peta hertz drive, and I would still stick with my PS3.

Now, why can't I buy from them, thats easy, I am a long time Mac user. I have seen what happened when Microsoft stabbed Apple in the back nearly 2 decades ago (watch Pirates of Silicon Valley if you are unfamiliar with these events). This is the reason why I can't buy the other system and noamountof bashing my system would ever change that. Theloyaltywith Sony was lost after my 5 or so Walkman died. There is probably people who own a X360 that have the same issue, they hate Sony and because of the name of the maker they can't buy the system which I completely agree with. Now, say that someone such as Yamaha or Toshiba that I actually do have brand loyalty to makes the 360, well, I might just have to buy it but not until then. I doubt many if any people are changed by the belittling.

The only thing that the people making thecut downsare doing is preaching to the choir because people like me can never jump ship.

While reading a few reviews of games I have because I was bored I came across some that are just ridiculous. Its like they were wrote by someone that didn't read any of the description about the game before they played it. The game that first comes to mind is Oblivion. Now, that is clearly a First Person role playing game and it says RPG right in the description. So, a few of the reviews, not just one person said that the game sucked. Ok, I can take handle different opinions on the game; now, I had to read why it sucked. Their reasoning was that it was a Role Playing game. I think one even stated that it should only be played by people who like Role Playing games. WTF.

How do you rate a game down because it is what it is. I don't play Madden and then give it a 4/10 because it is a bad sports game made only for those that like Football. What kind of logic is that. Seriously, thats like going to the store, buying chocolate, saying it taste horrible and is made only for those that like chocolate. When they saw Role Playing game, what did they think, that the box was lying to them; that a completely different game was in there and they would open the box up and find a game like Call of Duty 4; touche' Oblivion, i knew you weren't a role playing game.

All I ask is that people rate games fairly. Rating a game lower because you can't read isn't fair; it is funny though, so thanks for being retarded.

Grand Theft auto 4 just got a few parts of the game taken out for the Aussie audience. Its not that I didn't see this coming, its more of a wish that it wouldn't. Manhunt and other GTA's have been banned before so this comes as no surprise. But who are they it to tell me I can't have a game with everything still included in it. If I don't want to see a part of a game or think it is toviolent,gruesomeor sexist I should just skip that scene, not regulate the game so that nobody can see it.

There should be 2 versions of every game that could be considered for the chopping block. The first version will be for: the kids that aren't old enough to buy R rated games but still go to the store to get it, the violence will be nil, no sex, nudity, drug references, swearing, stealing, robbery, death, etc. Basically Grand Theft Auto that plays more like a Sesame Street game. So, unless it is a racing or sports game I wouldn't play it. It would be the ESRB's wet dream of what a game should be. The online play wouldn't connect to those that are older that bought the other version so I don't have to watch my language and attitude when playing it because someone under 18 could be playing.

Then there is the other version. This version of same game as before is un-regulated. Not a single line of code has been changed from what the people that created the game wanted in it. The only regulating in the game is done by me. I am over 18 so I want to see everything this game has to offer, no deleted scenes, chopped up dialog, filtered plots. A awesome game that everyone wants to play. Then, at the end of the day, we'll see which version the masses like better.

We all know the saying "if you don't study history, that it will repeat its self". Nothing is closer to the truth for the most part than in the video game industry. If something flopped before, why should it work out this time, or the time after that. But they do it anyways.

There is a game that is going to come out, actually it might already be in the works. That game is G.I. Joe. Why is it coming out, well, because of nostalgia; I am forced to go and watch it once it goes to the theaters (much like I did with Transformers) because it will remind me of being little and that movie may or may not be good. Then, riding on the success of that movie, Hollywood will sell everything about that movie to merchandise companies in so doing video game companies will buy the rights. This is where it goes from bad to worse. This game will be utter garbage; thats it. The only reason for me playing the game is so I can be a character I liked off the cartoon. I don't care about the game; I will just want to be Cobra Commander, Snake eyes, Sgt. Slaughter, Serpentor, etc. They theoretically could have no plot (some of the games may have been better that way) and I may still rent it, I won't buy it though. After the nostaga/euphoria of playing my favorite characters has gone away 10-20 mins of play, all of us who played it will noticed that that game sucked. The game will be repetitive, the story line will be close to the movie but far from the cartoon, things we remember from the cartoon will not be used correctly and it will be just an overall piece of trash. They aren't benefiting from making these games because I won't buy a game I don't like after 20mins of play.

Now, maybe your thinking that I am wrong. What do I have to back this up? We saw what E.T did to the industry as a whole (ok, so E.T wasn't a cartoon, but it was a movie then a game). Making a movie out of a game doesn't work much of the time either. Its not just G.I Joes. I have other shows I used to watch when younger and now I am in fear that they too will be turned into garbage. First they'll make a great cartoon a horrible movie and then a game thats almost mediocre. If your like me, you now fear for the life of all the cartoons on Saturday mornings you use to watch such as Smurfs, M.A.S.K, Heithcliff, Pirates of Dark water, Woody Woodpecker, Darkwing Duck, Count Duckula, Huckleberry hound, etc, etc.*

Ducktales, Ninja Turtles, and Kingdom Hearts are exceptions in a long list of flops.

*some of these may already be horrible games by now.

So, video game companies, when Hollywood ruins my childhood memories with a horrific movie about an awesome cartoon, don't help them do it by making a game thats worse.