Concept Art - Mixing the sterile, scientific environments of Portal with the grit and gore of Gears of War.

Introduction: You’ve seen the movie; now experience the savage tension of trust and betrayal in the video game adaptation of Cube‘s fight for survival. Take part in four separate campaigns of deadly co-operative puzzle-solving where nothing can be trusted–not your teammates, not even the chamber walls. Communication is the key to survival in this gruesome First-Person physics-based Puzzler that tasks four total strangers with escaping a mysterious cube-shaped structure constituted by countless chambers of death. But can anybody be trusted to divulge everything they know when their life is on the line?

Background: -Conceptually influenced by the movie Cube.
-Separate narrative campaigns influenced by Left 4 Dead‘s structure.

Description: A brief cut-scene at the beginning of each campaign introduces that campaign’s unique cast of characters and makes one thing clear: nobody knows how or why they got to where they are, but the only options are to escape or die. The four players begin together in a safe room but must each take a separate chamber route to avoid any of the unpleasant surprises demonstrated in the cut-scene.

As players venture onto their own paths, they’ll have to maintain voice communication with each other in order to solve collective puzzles and progress. All puzzles will require at least two players to manipulate variables in harmony in order to open doors for each other, unlock additional puzzle pieces, or just plain keep one another alive. But that won’t always be so easy. Even if all four players co-operate perfectly and make it to the end unscathed, the final person to arrive will receive a welcoming present…to die for.

So this is where things get interesting. Players can co-operate honestly and completely, ensuring a greater chance of survival for everyone but leaving their own fate up to chance, or they can take the initiative. Certain chambers will provide certain players with a choice between individual security or team loyalty. Should you send one of your teammates down a more hazardous path for some protective gear that might save you from a puzzle gone wrong? Should you go so far as to guarantee another player’s death for an extra life? Are you willing to bet that your actions will leave enough players standing to progress through the labyrinth to safety? Or do you put yourself at risk for the good of everyone?

This is the struggle that will haunt everybody’s mind in Cube. With no way of seeing other players’ actions, there’s no way of proving who the betrayer is. Will your desire for individual survival lead you to emulate such behavior? Will you let it destroy all trust amongst the group and act on your hunch in the periodic safe rooms, where players are safe from everything but each other? Or will you have faith in your fellow human beings to guide you through this sick and mystifying experiment? The choice is up to you.

Key Features: -Co-operative puzzle solving that requires all players to communicate and work together.
-Inter-team competition that fosters a tension of trusts.
-Narrative and gameplay mechanics that examine the dark side of human nature and group dynamics.
-Creative and gruesome deaths worthy of the Cube name.

Genre: First-Person Co-op Puzzler

Platforms: Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC

Share/Save

In an unprecedented move, Valve is releasing downloadable content that will function the same in two different games: Left 4 Dead and its even more popular sequel. It doesn’t matter which game you get the DLC for because somebody is dying either way.

“The Sacrifice” add-on, as it’s being called, stars the cast of the first game in a cross-over with the heroes of the second. 1UP reports that it “will explain the death of a character as established in The Passing [previous DLC pack].” But we won’t be restricted to the series’ canon. No, that’d be far too upsetting to let such a beloved character go not so quietly into the night! Instead, we’ll have the choice to sacrifice any of the characters from the original crew (sorry, Francis).

The new pack “will contain stages in Campaign, Versus, and Survival modes, plus it will add the No Mercy campaign from the first game into the second.” So if you’ve got a hankering for some emotionally heavy Left 4 Dead then go ahead and sacrifice the $7 come October 5th. Or just download it for free if you own the game on Mac or PC.

Share/Save

Since coming to college two weeks ago I’ve come to realize that not many people share my passion for video games, or if they do, they’re doing a very good job of hiding it. It’s understandable, though–games still tend to be viewed as childish toys by the general public. But even those who acknowledge the average age of gamers (32 as of 2010) still assume video games to be a strictly male pastime. To be fair, adolescent male power-fantasies do make up the majority of content out there, but there is so much more that the masses just don’t know about. So my question, as a person with a passion for video games (and someone who is hoping to garner some more readers for this here website), is “How should gaming veterans go about introducing the uninitiated to this world we love?”

A good starting point is to examine how the game industry is presenting itself to the public. Ten years ago nobody would have imagined seeing video game commercials on television, let alone in prime time slots like the NBA finals. So it’s clear that video games are becoming more mainstream and culturally acceptable, but it’s important to note what kind of games are achieving this status. Generally, the only games with marketing budgets big enough to secure those prime time slots are Military Shooters or Sports games. The family-friendly offerings of the Wii also get quite a bit of exposure, but you’re more likely to find those ads on Lifetime than during the Super Bowl (hmm, there’s that male/female dichotomy again). The fact of the matter is these are the types of games that sell big and define the industry in the eyes of the public.

While it is true that games like Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (2009) regularly make hundreds of millions of dollars on the day of their release alone, there is still a vast and untapped market of people who’ve never touched a controller out there. Simulated war just doesn’t interest most 20-year-old girls or hands-on grandfathers. Those are some of the demographics that Nintendo has tried to tap into with the Wii, and that console’s staggering sales figures (74 million and still going) show that casual party games and cute mascots can be more profitable than space marines. The only problem I have with this representation of video games is that most the the Wii’s titles really are toys. Sure, a game or two of Wii Sports can be fun, but it just reinforces the notion that video games have nothing important to say. And frankly, the gameplay of these casual titles is so shallow that I don’t see anybody becoming truly passionate about them and showing them to their kids like our parents introduced us to Star Wars.

If I wanted to show scoffing non-gamers just how artistic video games can be I’d make them play BioShock (2007) (the original, because the sequel is just a cheap cash-in). Sure, the gameplay still boils down to basic Shooter mechanics, but the thoughtful and provoking examination of Objectivist philosophies is something most people would never imagine finding in video games because they still think it’s all about Mario saving the princess. The only problem with that is the very Shooter mechanics that made the game safe enough for a publisher to green-light it. If the developers couldn’t say, “It plays like this game or that game,” then the publisher never would have approved such an original vision.

Meet BioShock's Andrew Ryan.

So this raises an interesting point–how does someone who’s never played games before jump into the increasingly complex worlds that inhabit the gaming landscape today? Twenty-five years ago everybody and their sister played Super Mario Bros. (1985) because all you could do was run and jump. The gameplay was simple and intuitive enough to instantly pick up and play, yet it was fun enough to sustain interest. Today, most people have trouble moving their character and looking around the screen at the same time. What is second-nature to me through years of play time is completely foreign to non-gamers. Even if somebody wants to jump on the Halo bandwagon it’d be so difficult to learn how to play and have any fun in the ultra-competitive online community that it’s just not worth the admittedly pricey $60.

But at the same time, the rise of online gaming, social networking, Massively Multiplayer Online games, and so on demonstrates a clear desire for social interaction in gaming. As much fun as I can have in the 60 hours of solitude offered by a good Role-Playing Game, that experience probably isn’t appealing to everybody and might even come off as slightly unhealthy to some. So if people want social interaction with their games but the competitive online communities of said games are too inaccessible for them, then what’s the point in even trying?

I totally get this sentiment. Losing is never fun. The laws of the internet dictate that anonymity turns everybody into a total jerk. Put two and two together and you’ll probably never want to play that game again. So it seems that a new gamer’s only choice is single-player gaming. Personally, I prefer this type of gaming because I play for the interactive stories offered by no other medium, but as I stated previously, epics like Mass Effect 2 (2010) are probably a little intimidating to newbies. And I love me some First-Person Shooters, but on the whole, their narratives aren’t anything to write home about.

Third-Person Action-Adventure games like Uncharted 2: Among Thieves (2009) or Assassin’s Creed II (2009) seem to offer a good middle-ground between an FPS and RPG’s lengths while letting the player learn the intricacies of gameplay at their own pace. And the freedom offered by Sandbox games like Grand Theft Auto IV (2008) or Red Dead Redemption (2010) is very appealing to just about anyone. The only problem I see with starting in these genres is that Action-Adventure games typically lack the social aspect we’re looking for. As for Sandbox games, there’s almost too much choice. Just look at a casual player enjoying a session of Grand Theft Auto–”Oh, you can nail a hooker before brutally murdering her and taking your money back? Awesome!” I appreciate that these types of games allow for so much player freedom, but most people seem to resort to the digital equivalent of dick-drawing without narrative structure and guidance. GTA is supposed to be a social satire and commentary on how easily a person can fall into the thug life, not a game about how fun it is to run old women over.

"Look at all that open range...now what do I do!?!"

So returning to my original question, how should I go about introducing someone to video games? RPGs are too long and solitary. FPSs are too competitive. Sandbox games throw players into the wild without teaching them how to properly appreciate the beautiful game-world that’s been crafted. Action-Adventures lack the social side of things and are such a mixed bag in terms of quality and innovation that I wouldn’t want someone’s first impression of games to come from that field. Casual titles like Rock Band (2007) are fun but misleading when it comes to how far video games have come. That applies to Sports games too. This essentially leaves Platformers, Puzzlers, RTSs, and MMOs. MMOs like World of Warcraft (2004) are so different from the rest of the industry’s content that I’d just steer clear of them in general. It doesn’t help that they’re shallow and boring. Real-Time Strategy games are way too complicated to jump into blindly and are probably more competitive than FPSs. Puzzlers can be a lot of fun but are generally just time wasters, with the exception of a few narrative gems like Portal (2007). So that leaves Platformers.

Fiendishly fun titles like Super Mario Galaxy 2 (2010) prove how healthy the 25-year-old genre is today, but the 3D worlds they inhabit are undoubtedly more confusing than the side-scrolling 2D adventures of the past. Luckily, 2D Platformers have experienced a phenomenal resurgence over the past few years thanks to digital delivery platforms such as Xbox Live Arcade and PlayStation Network. Not only are these simple games fun and easy to pick up, they’re also cheap (usually $10-$15). Most importantly, there is a great deal of artistic expression and experimentation going on in this genre right now, largely due to the inexpensive development costs which have allowed publishers to give developers more freedom in taking risks. While there generally isn’t a social component to these indie-darlings, the low cost and short length make them prime candidates for introducing people to single-player gaming and the narrative possibilities that come with it.

So this is what I would propose. Start the new recruit off with a 2D Platformer like Braid (2008) or Limbo (2010). These visually stunning games set the tone right away and let the new player know that games are making an effort to be more than ultra-realistic looking Military Shooters. The gameplay is simple enough to learn quickly and the narrative themes will force the player to reconsider any notion of what they thought video games were before.

The colorful visuals contrast starkly with the dark story.

From there, it could be a good idea to transition from 2D Platformers to 3D Platformers with the PS2 classic Shadow of the Colossus (2005). This utterly unique Puzzle-Platformer left a friend and I discussing its thematic intricacies for hours after beating it and I would hope that it would have the same effect on new players. It’s also relatively simple to learn and is old enough that it can be found on the cheap.

Now that the gamer has some experience in a 3D plane it’s time to learn how to control a character from the first-person perspective. I wouldn’t push them right into a Shooter, though, as that would just be too much to take in all at once. This makes Portal (2007) the perfect candidate. Technically speaking it is a First-Person Shooter, but rather than shooting bullets at hostile enemies the player shoots space-altering portals around elaborately designed levels as they solve physics-based puzzles. The slower pace would allow the player to become comfortable in the more difficult first-person perspective and the devilish puzzles would convince them that games can require quite a bit of thinking. Not to mention, the sarcastically monotone robot who claims to be your friend but is actually trying to kill you is just the sort of thing to demonstrate how much personality and character games can have. This game too, is short and can be had for under $20.

Next up on the road to becoming a gamer would be a traditional FPS. But frankly it might still be too early to throw the player into the shark-infested waters of online-competition. The previously mentioned BioShock (2007), a single-player FPS, might be a good stepping stone for someone trying to familiarize themselves with shooting mechanics. But regardless of how many Shooters a person has played, the online world is always at another level. That’s why the new wave of cooperative-focused titles is so great. Games like Left 4 Dead (2008) or Gears of War 2‘s (2008) “Horde Mode” have players working together against computer-controlled opponents instead of mindlessly killing each other. When your level of skill directly benefits other gamers, they’ll be much more likely to help you learn.

At this point our hypothetical new gamer is probably prepared to leave the bridge of cooperative gaming and jump into the direct competition of games like Call of Duty. If they’re anything like me they’ll get sick of all the online jerks and move on to other genres. By now the gamer should be versed enough to handle the learning curve that comes with any kind of game and they’ll probably want to expand their tastes. RPGs like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (2006), Stealth-Action games like Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots (2008), Survival-Horror titles like Resident Evil 4 (2005), and so on.

There is more to gaming than this.

The point is that games have become very complicated and inaccessible in some respects. New gamers today should start in the same place that veteran gamers started 20 years ago. They should try to experience a little bit of every genre so they can decide for themselves what they like, if they’re a solitary or social gamer, if they’re cooperative or competitive, if they just play for fun or if they look for artistic expression in their games. Video games are here to stay and you’re just denying yourself a profound entertainment experience if you aren’t willing to give them a chance. Many of the games I’ve mentioned in this article are cheaply available and can run on most new PCs or laptops. Embrace the medium of the 21st century.

Share/Save

There are so many things wrong with this.

After spending a fair amount of time with the Halo: Reach beta last week, which I had a pretty good time with, online multiplayer has been the focus of my thoughts for the first time in a while. And really, when I think about online gaming, I tend to think about how little of it I do these days. Back in the days of Halo 2 and maybe even extending into my time with Modern Warfare 1, I generally paid a visit to the virtual killing fields on a daily basis. But a lot has changed since then, both in my personal life and in the industry. Rather than wasting your time with an exploration of why I can’t seem enjoy the competitive online scene for more than a month at a time anymore, I’ll just go with the easy answer and say that all the kids I used to play with no longer play games online and that I’m not entirely interested in meeting digital friends. So for me, the novelty of a new game and primal competition can keep me satisfied for maybe month, but as soon as I pick up a newer game I have no interest in returning to the never-ending massacre that I had been contributing to. How can developers change this behavior?

Well, it’s probably a good idea to examine the online games that I’ve gotten involved with over the past couple years. I’ll only bother to list the ones that managed to draw me into public matches with the rest of you strange weirdos for more than a week–BioShock 2, Modern Warfare 2, Battlefield 1943, Left 4 Dead, and Gears of War 2. My motivations to suffer through BioShock 2‘s multiplayer were pretty much achievements and the need to properly review the game. I also enjoyed the Big Daddy twist applied to your run-of-the-mill CTF game in the “Capture the Sister” mode.

Modern Warfare 2 genuinely had me hooked for a while with its immense customization and class-balance. Not to mention, persistent leveling is always one way to keep a player going for one more session. But ultimately, I just got sick of running around and shooting things for no apparent reason other than to release stress (or build it, depending on how you’re playing).

Battlefield 1943 is a game that I enjoyed the hell out of in the down months of summer and pretty much played just for the sheer joy of it (remember when we used to do that?). I also really liked the effect vehicles had on the battlefield and how they essentially created different classes of play-style.

Left 4 Dead is probably the one game out of this bunch that I still come back to from time to time, although I haven’t bothered to touch it since Left 4 Dead 2 came out and likely destroyed the first game’s player community. But I think it’s the necessity of team-work paired with the intensity of fighting off an undead horde that makes that game so consistently fun. I actually talked to strangers when I played Left 4 Dead.

"Pills here!"

And lastly, Gears of War 2 entertained me for a good long while with one of the best online experiences of this generation. But unfortunately, Epic may have created a monster when they introduced the irresistibly fun Horde mode. They need to find a way to make the competitive element of multiplayer just as addictive as the cooperative one in Gears 3.

So the recurring theme I’m seeing here is that games which require some degree of team-work tend to last a little longer than the lone-wolf bloodsports. That’s not to say a game can’t hook me with rewarding progression systems or good old-fashioned gameplay, but I definitely feel like cooperation is the best way to get me invested in a “community” of total strangers who belittle each other like it’s their job (and considering some of the CoD players I’ve had the pleasure of gaming with, unemployment isn’t really that big of a stretch). The question now becomes, “How do developers convince gamers that we want to work together to accomplish objectives that don’t revolve around simple body counts?”

The first thing that comes to my mind is the system in PS3 exclusive MAG, which I haven’t had the pleasure of playing myself. But from everything I’ve read and watched of the game, it seems that Zipper Interactive incentivized team-work by rewarding players with more experience for completing tasks assigned by their squad leaders and things of that nature. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but this rational-self-interest model doesn’t necessarily equate to true cooperation. In my humble opinion, voice-chat is essential to real team-work and convincing people to actually problem-solve with strangers takes more than a few stat bonuses and arbitrary experience rankings to accomplish.

So this is the part where I reveal my master plan that will surely leave you in awe. I hope you’re ready. Leagues. Allow me to elaborate. See, in my experience, when you’re split-screening on the couch with your friends or siblings, it doesn’t even matter how good the game you’re playing is because the company you’re in makes the experience fun. When you’re gaming with people you actually know, everybody’s more willing to abide crazy rules for made-up games, everybody’s slightly more competitive but never begrudgingly so, friendly rivalries develop when you’ve learned another player’s tendencies. And maybe I’m crazy, but I get the feeling that if we actually got to know who we were playing with on a first-name basis then maybe we’d show them a little respect and cut all the BS that comes with online anonymity.

...Or it could just breed more hate. At least then we'd have teams to root for.

How would these leagues work? How would they be any different from clans or dedicated servers? Well, to be perfectly honest, this idea is mainly about transferring that real sense of community found on PCs to consoles, which have struggled mightily with the concept. Even games that have introduced clan features have failed miserably in implementing them. Halo 2‘s clan playlists were so underutilized that Bungie eventually cut the content out of the game in an update. Developers need to realize that console gamers just don’t have the dedication to pursue vibrant clan communities (hooray for ignorant generalizations!).

Community needs to be forced on us. The idear is that once we get a taste of it we’ll wonder how we ever got by without it. So that whole oppressive forcing part comes into the equation as follows–the developer creates tier groupings based on skill level. And when I say skill level I mean just that–not experience level. Games have recently gotten in the habit of inflating our egos with experience-based leveling, rather than the cold, hard facts of skill-based levels. I don’t know how Bungie determined my skill in Halo 2, but it seemed like a fairly accurate gauge. Anyways, the developer makes these tiers of level 1-10 players, level 11-20 players, and so on. Within these tiers, which would likely contain tens, in not hundreds of thousands of players a piece, small leagues of maybe 100-200 players would be carved out so each tier contains hundreds of small leagues within. If you’re still following me, we now have a system that ranks a player based on performance and accordingly places them in a random league within their skill tier.

Now that we are in a league, all of our matches will be played with the 100-200 (obviously these numbers are examples that would need to be fiddled with until a proper balance of familiarity and quick match-making could be found) fellow gamers in our league. Being stuck in one league forever certainly runs the risk of getting boring, so the developer could reset the league populations every month or something like that. But for the time spent playing with the same people, we would inevitably become familiar with our peers. Deep stat-tracking and highly visible leader boards would only serve to stiffen the competition. We’d make friends and make enemies, we’d become known ourselves, classic rivalries would form and make for some legendary show-downs. And even if all that stuff didn’t happen, I think everybody would be more receptive to actually talking to each other during games. And if you’re stuck in the same community for a month then you really can’t be a jerk-face or you could get booted from every match you play.

This is pretty much how online interactions work today.

This idea that I’ve presented is very bare-bones and would require a lot of fleshing out were it to ever be applied in the real world, but I see so much potential in it. A developer could even add more depth by letting players pick filters on what types of matches they like to play, so you could join a league that focuses more on objective games than deathmatch or vice versa. I just think that if developers want us to continue playing their games and buying their DLC, and if gamers want to enjoy friendly competition in an online environment akin to your living room couch, then the only answer is to find a way to force cooperation and community on us. Games like Left 4 Dead and MAG are a start, but we need a system that makes online conversation something to look forward to, not dread. If anybody else has thoughts on how to accomplish this goal I’d love to hear them.

Share/Save

Being lonely and unwanted by the ladies sort of comes with the territory of being a gamer. So inevitably, we’ve all turned to the fantastical land of video games for hope. “If only I could find a girl like Jill Valentine. She’d appreciate me…appreciate me big time!” But would we really want to be going steady with gaming’s fairer sex? This list sort of makes being alone seem not half bad. Then again, I could have just listed off ten Fable II hookers and it would have been the greatest thing in the world. I mean, you marry those broads, and all they do is put out, take care of your neglected offspring, and shower you with gifts. And if you ever upset them, make-up sex is only a “Hat, Headband, Mustache” expression away!

Bridgette Tenenbaum (BioShock) – Let’s get past her looks and general strangeness and just assume you’re into eccentric girls. So you go out on a date with her. She’s smart, ambitious, and has some really interesting stories. So you guys start getting serious. But the more time you spend with her, the more you realize she’s just some granola-girl broken record. It’s always, “Save the kids, this” or “We’re part of the problem, that”. And if you ever manage to get her off that save-the-world crap, she just drones on about how smart she was as a child and how grand all those Nazi medical experiments were. But hell, let’s say you manage to put up with all of that because she’s got access to some really cool black-market stuff. Can you imagine if you ever had kids with her? My God! Think of the children, damn it! What torturous experiments would they be subjected to!?!

The Princess (Braid) – The Princess is one of the worst types of women, but one that you simply can’t resist. She’s the type of beautiful girl who flirts with you enough to boost your shattered ego into thinking you actually have a shot with her, when in actuality, she’s just working you to make her knight in shining armor jealous. All those lustful glances and unspoken words will have you obsessing over her in stalker-like proportions until that heart-wrenching day you see her making out with the other guy in the corner. Oh, and then there’s that whole thing where she’s actually an atomic bomb or something.

Because pictures of her don't exist...or maybe they're just top secret.

Aeris Gainsborough (Final Fantasy VII) – Because she’ll make you cry like a little girl. And you won’t care, you’ll just want her back.

Cortana (Halo series) – Okay, so the whole not really being a person thing sort of throws physical contact out of the equation, but that’s not everything in a relationship. Upon meeting Cortana, you’ll likely find that she has a good sense of humor a certain tom-boyishness that makes her fun to be around. But things will probably start going down hill on about the third date, when you’re wondering how prude could this girl possibly be, and she’s in your head, listening to your every damning thought. And when her data corruption psychological issues start showing, you’ll wish you never got on her bad side.

Zoey (Left 4 Dead) – Zoey will likely appeal to you at first as that pretty girl whose mystery keeps you coming back to find out more. And she’ll be a lot of fun for a while too, what with all the exciting situations she always ends up in. But eventually you’ll start to grow a little weary of her apparent zombie-magnetism and become a little more concerned with your life than her hot and heavy life-style. And if that weren’t enough, you can never seem to be alone with her for more than 30 seconds before those strange guys she always hangs out with show up. But the worst part will be the paranoia when you hear rumors about what kind of movies she’s starred in in the past (just Google Left 4 Head if you’re not putting this together).

Princess Peach (Any Mario game ever) – Once you’re stuck in this hellish relationship, you’ll wonder why you ever got in it. For starters, her family is ridiculously rich, so you’ll absolutely never be good enough for her in her father’s eyes. And considering that her family is royalty, the spotlight’s always going to be on them. Pairing that with her father’s hatred for you, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that every time Little Miss Perfect gets in trouble, enough strings will be pulled that you’re taking the rap for it. And believe you me, she’ll be getting in plenty of trouble. The girl must have some sort of sick fetish for getting kidnapped and bringing about terrorist insurrections. So you’ll be doing plenty of rescuing as well. And after you lay your ass on the line to save her for the millionth time, she won’t even give you any lovin’ because of her proper up-bringing. That or she’ll be uber kinky, I’ve seen it go both ways with royalty. Either way, you’ll just long to run away to another kingdom, but you won’t be able to because her very powerful family would have such a lowly street urchin murdered for braking their precious Peach’s heart.

Naomi Hunter (Metal Gear Solid series) – Easy on the eyes and always eager to assist, Naomi will seem like a hole-in-one at first. But just when things are going well she’ll stab you in the back and reveal that she was only dating you as an elaborate revenge ploy because you beat her brother up on the elementary school playground. Plus she’s always jabbering about tiny robots in our bloodstreams and trying to inject you with things. And then she’ll probably try to get with your best friend and play all of you and you won’t know if she loves you or hates you and she’ll eventually off herself to try and convince everybody that she was good all along or some such non-sense. Chick’s got some issues.

Samus Aran (Metroid series) – Samus probably comes off as a pretty cool lady at first. She’s a strong-willed and independent woman, but she always puts others before herself. She knows lots of cool stuff and travels to a bunch of interesting places, plus her awesome rolling abilities ensure that you’ll always bowl a perfect game with her on your side. All of that rolling could also make for some interesting exploits in the bedroom. So what’s not to like with this beautiful, charismatic, and successful vixen? Oh yeah, half the world thinks she’s a guy…

Ms. Pac-Man (Ms. Pac-Man) – I think that wide-open mouth says it all.

You would not believe some of the images that turned up in Google for this.

Lara Croft (Tomb Raider series) – “Lara Croft on a list of video game characters you wouldn’t want to date!?! Have you gone mad?” Well, no. Just think about it for a minute. I mean, sure, she’s smoking hot and rich and is pretty much the female version of Indiana Jones, but I have a feeling things just wouldn’t be as great as they sound on paper. For starters, she’s gone on business so much that you’ll barely have any time together. Just think of all the emotional stress you’ll have from worrying about her safety nine months out of the year. And when she does come back you probably won’t do anything more than have sex and listen to her emasculating stories. But could you really enjoy that knowing how hot she is? She’s bound to catch a few fish on all of her fancy expeditions with that body, and one of them might just be some burly tomb explorer with a chin more chiseled than yours and a butt to die for. The paranoia and jealousy would kill the relationship. She is just too gorgeous to spend that much time away from you, especially since her moral code doesn’t have any qualms with stealing from the dead.

Female Characters (Any fighting game ever) – Because women who can kick my ass scare me.

So there you have it. Video game girls really aren’t that great after all. But if you’re still holding out hope, I hear that Alyx Vance is getting sick of waiting for Gordon Freeman.

Share/Save

News Links

More Delays

DLC Announced

Share/Save

Turns out Valve wasn’t lying after all. According to Kotaku, Xbox 360 and PC gamers alike will be seeing a new campaign titled “Crash Course” this September. The new level, which bridges the “No Mercy” and “Death Toll” campaigns, will work with all game modes, although it’s being tailored to be “a complete Versus mode experience in just 30 minutes.” A recharge timer for infected teammates and tweaked item spawning are also part of the DLC in the effort to further balance the multiplayer experience. The 360 version will run you 560 MS points, while the PC version will be as free as a bird. It’s nice to see the promise of DLC support kept, although 30 minutes just doesn’t seem like a very long campaign.

Share/Save

Oh, and while you’re at it, check out the Left 4 Dead gang’s next zany adventure!

You got your Sims in my L4D!

Share/Save

Share/Save

News Links

Developers say interesting things

Command & Conquer 4 Announced

Eidos Publishing Merges With Square Enix Europe

Tomb Raider Reboot Rumors

Share/Save