It wasn’t until I experienced the freedom that comes from putting “Viva Pinata” on my GameFly Q that I truly realized what a “serious” gamer I’ve become. Looking back on the past six months, the only games I’ve played have been major releases and “critically acclaimed” titles. Don’t get me wrong, it’s been a stellar lineup(Dragon Age: Origins, Uncharted 2, Mass Effect 2, Bioshock 2, Heavy Rain,  Final Fantasy XIII, Dragon Age: Origins – Awakening). However, looking back on it all, solely playing these AAA titles has been very exhausting.

Partially, this is a result of the “Second Christmas” effect which comes from so many top titles being pushed into 2010′s Q1. It used to be that there was a welcome lull after the holiday rush subsided. This slow period once offered gamers the chance to pick up games that might be old or overlooked. It seems that with the growth of the industry and the resulting boom of AAA titles that the release schedule is spreading out to take up the entire year. This is awesome because it means more great games. It’s also somewhat draining.

The “sequel syndrome” also plays a key role in this phenomenon because the gamer has more and more franchises to follow. I, for one, feel a certain responsibility to play the newest title in a franchise if I’ve already played its previous entries. It becomes a given that when a new Zelda comes out I drop the 60 bucks/hours necessary to experience the series’ latest. I suppose we as gamers feel compelled to do this because of all of the time/commitment we’ve already sunk into the world of that particular franchise. There is an established bond, and thus, there isn’t the couple hours of meet-and-greet present in a new IP. Likewise, it’s much easier and cheaper for game developers to create a new story in an established world. Indeed it seems as though developers green light sequels for any game that sees even moderate success. This cycle results in the market being flooded with established franchises leaving little time/money for developers to spend expanding their horizons.

With this year-round flood of “must-play” titles, it becomes harder and harder to find the resources to experience more casual games. This is why GameFly is so great. It allows me to experience a ton of more underrated titles without having to actually purchase them; my wallet remains committed to the never-ending string of “must buy” games (a problem/subject for another day). I can’t wait to play through Mad World, Deadly Premonition, Boy and His Blob, Silent Hill, and all the other titles on my Q.

That being said, I wonder if this sort of quasi support of underrated titles actually encourages developers to take risks. After all, while I might rent Okami, at the end of the day I’m going to buy Super Mario Galaxy 2. Perhaps my dollars might be better spent if I flipped which games I rent/buy. Sure, I might end up with a lemon on my shelf here and there, but maybe if more gamers took risks with their purchases, developers would be able to experience some freedom from the shackles of the sequel.

So what? A mario game turned out to be wildly popular…big surprise. However NSMBW (as it will now be referred to) with it’s incredible December sales vaulted past Super Mario Galaxy’s sales to date! This, despite the fact that Galaxy has been around for over two years and was much more popular among game critics. Having played both games myself, I also feel that Galaxy is far and away the better title. While NSMBW can be a blast, I think it’s hard to find a balance between boring (the singleplayer) and completely out of control (four player)…more than that, I’m tired of Nintendo repackaging gaming experiences from years ago and reselling them with a pretty nostalgic bow. Don’t get me wrong, I love the mario franchise along with its platforming roots, but generally speaking I play games to break away from ordinary experience. But with NPDs such as this, what is Nintendo supposed to do? It’s hard to innovate when the same old thing consistently makes more money. When a parent goes to buy their child a video game, they’re obviously going to make a b-line for the tried and true looking title.

That being said, Galaxy still did incredibly well while also breaking some interesting ground in the use of physics within the different galaxies (not to mention it’s unique use of the Wiimote to control the character AND a free moving cursor at the same time). While the game was a definite break from the classic Mario experience, it still sold quite well. In fact, this seems to be the case across the board when it comes to classic game franchises. From The Legend of Zelda and its first foray into cell-shading via Wind Waker to Halo’s recent departure with Halo Wars, tried and true franchises seem to be fail-proof when it comes to trying new things. In an industry which is ruled by sequels and often averse to new IPs, perhaps these classic franchises should be responsible for making forward progress simply because they can.

It’s an interesting issue. What do you want from established franchises? Are you happy with Zelda: Ocarina of Time Part II or a riskier title that also features Link? Ideally, we could keep our most beloved game protagonists in their established worlds forever and save the “new experiences” for new protagonists…but perhaps burdening companies that are trying to break into the business with the extra weight of industry innovation while you repackage and prosper isn’t a policy that we as gamers should support.

I am first and foremost an RPG fanatic and, as such, I’ve spent the last month of my life playing Dragon Age Origins. It is an amazing game, don’t get me wrong. However, I am more than offended by the use of sexuality in the game.  I praise the game’s use of personal relationships with party members to further the game’s storyline. There is nothing better than directing a conversation with someone in your party in a way that furthers your involvement with the game.

Furthermore, it’s beyond cool that, with a bit of persistence, you can parlay these conversations into romantic, even sexual relationships, with some of your party members. In DOA there are four members you can charm into your bed. This isn’t a new trope in Bioware games as Mass Effect allowed you to do the same thing…with a few female characters. Dragon Age raises the bar by making several of the male characters options for your sexual advances as well. In addition, while in Mass Effect lesbian connections were available, DOA makes a gay relationship an option as well. As a “gay”mer myself, I was very interested in how this would all play out.

Sadly, I was very disappointed, and kind of offended after exploring the romantic options in the game. While most of the females in the game take quite a bit of coaxing to get into the sack, Zevran (the elf assassin, and the only male character open to same sex advances) is more than willing to hook up with the least bit of effort. Furthermore, while the other three characters are more open to the option of romantic involvement, Zevran accepts most sexual interactions and treats anything further as a joke. As such, while you’re able to find “meaningful” relationships as a straight character, the gay male warden is left with disposable hookups as an option…

I find this to be extremely offensive. I praise Bioware’s efforts to include all sexual preferences in the romantic options available to the characters, however, is it really necessary to deny those gay players any deeper connection? I realize it’s a stereotype (even if a deserved one), but I question whether it might be better to exclude the option of same sex hookups altogether rather than to use them to underline offensive stereotypes that  sadly exist.

I just want to have a loving relationship with Alastair…all I’m saying.

Sony's New European Ad Campaign

When I stumbled across this picture for Sony Europe’s new PSP advertising campaign I was at once both intrigued and confused. On one hand, it’s no secret that the video game industry has historically marketed to their male base with sex. Video game booths at conventions are manned by busty babes and female video game characters are overtly sexualized and scantily clad. As such, it would be more in line with tradition to see a bathing babe rather than this sudsy stud. On the other hand, the video game user base has drastically shifted in recent years. Female gamers now comprise slightly under half of the market. As a result, publishing company’s have had to change their tactics as well. So why am I shocked by the above image? Because, as other entertainment sectors have shown, marketing to women does not translate into pecs the way that male marketing equals more breasts. Game companies are in fact marketing to women, but not with sex; think of the DS commercials with Beyonce or the Wii Fit commercials showing women doing yoga for examples. Stephen Johnson in his blog on the Feed mentions female gamers as a possible reason for the above image, but I don’t think Sony Europe is shooting for the females at all. Johnson also mentions the gay gamers (“gaymers” for short) as an afterthought, but I would have to say that I think these men are their main target rather than a happy bonus. Their are more “gaymers” than ever before (despite what derogatory XBox Live chatter might suggest),  so it makes sense that video game companies should market to these men in the same way that they market to their straight counterparts…with sex. Perhaps I’m biased but this seems to be a likely possibility in my opinion. Either way,  it certainly caught my attention. Hopefully, video game companies in the states will follow suit and perhaps…PERHAPS one day I can be solicited by a scantily clad man at E3.