The Steam Box: My Thoughts

So here it is, the fabled Steam Machine.  The biggest news in gaming last week was Valve's announcement of something we've all been expecting: a Steam based console. 

Here's a quick recap.  Last week, Valve announced a three pronged strategy to dominate the living room.  The same space taken over now by the big three console makers.  Valve announced:

1)  A Steam OS, which will be running games on…

2)  The Steam Machine.  Basically a console which will play games on Steam and…

3)  A brand new controller designed specifically for the Steam Machine.  Not just any controller, but something actually NEW.  And we're not talking about motion controls either.  I have no idea how it works, but can't wait to try it out.  Best you Google it if interested, though, because I won't be talking much about the controller in this blog…

So what is Valve trying to do?  Basically, they want part of the console market.  Will they do it?  My answer, in short, is… no.  The reason?  Folks like me.  I believe people such as myself SHOULD be the target market for this new machine.  I'm basically a pure console gamer, who prefers a controller to a keyboard, and a big screen to a monitor.  All this is pretty much covered by Valve and their strategy.  An OS targeted specifically for the living room?  Check.  A console like machine?  Check.  A new controller?  Double check.  Seems like all they need, right?  Not really.  They forgot one thing.  It's not something they don't have, but rather something they do.  They forgot to take the PC out of the console.

What I mean is…. Take the OS.  Please!  Okay, that's an old joke.  The thing is… in the history of console gaming, not a single manufacturer boasts about their OS.  Not Sony, not Microsoft, not anyone.  And you would expect if anyone wants to boast, it would be Microsoft.  There's got to be a reason for it and simple common sense tells us that console gamers simply don't care.  So long as the game works when we stick the disk in, it doesn't matter one iota what kind of OS it uses.  The fact that Valve makes a big deal out of it tells me that they aren't using the right message to target their audiences.  On the other hand, what kind of OS a machine uses is huge for a PC gamer.  I've known a couple in my time, and most PC gamers get a kick out of configuring their system to play games as much as they do playing the game.  Not so console gamers.  We just want the game to work, period.  With as little fudging around as possible. 

Any piece of software would be useless without hardware, and here too, I find Valve's message to be lacking.  They basically announced this a little too soon.  There's no hardware specs, or pictures of how it would look.  Quite unlike the other console reveals, which pretty much have everything finalized.  From what I've read on the actual machine itself, it appears that Valve is willing to let anyone make their own hardware specs, so long as they all use the Steam OS.  This is similar to Android, in which anyone can make a phone for it to use.  Would we see a Samsung Steam Machine?  We could.  And here's where the problem begins for a console gamer like me.  I want to be certain that the machine I buy can run all the games, all the time, for as long as the hardware cycle lasts.  Valve already went and said that the hardware for the box is customizable, and different tiers can be made by almost anyone for any purpose.  This is just like the PC market, where you have everyone from HP to Dell making anything from weaker netbooks to full on gaming rigs.  As a console gamer, why would I want that?  The biggest advantage of getting a PS3 is that I know I can play any PS3 game on it from now until forever.  Or until the system breaks.  If anyone can make a Steam Machine, then what stops manufacturers from making a new iteration of consoles every year?  So every year you have to shell out more money to keep up?  No thank you.

The only thing these announcements tell me is that the Steam Machines are nothing more than PCs desigined to be hooked up to a living room TV but I still don't really understand why people like to do this.  The technology has been around since forever which allow users connect a PC to a TV if they wish, but most PC gamers don't.  They are perfectly happy with their smaller monitors.  So I don't really understand why Valve is importing the whole PC centric culture into the living room when their own customers see little point in doing so.

P.S.  I wrote all that in the paragraphs above last week, but didn't get around to posting until this week.  Today, the theories were pretty much confirmed.  The Steam Box, or Steam Machines, are basically PCs designed first and foremost to work with your TV.  It will be manufactured by anyone who is interested, and the OS is open sourced to any one who is interested.  They also came out and said that the high end boxes can cost as much as $1000.  So basically, I still don't get it.  Who will buy this thing?  Not the diehard console gamers who prefer ease of use and not the need the have to upgrade every year.   Certainly not the price sensitive people (not unless they are willing to go with 'lower end' builds).  So who?  I have no idea.  And that's why I think this will go no where.

Of course, we've all heard of those famous Steam sales, and half off any game is a great deal.  It's just that….  If I wanted to put up with all that PC nonsense I might as well buy a new PC…

What's in a Name?

Back in the days when JRPGs were the kings of the hill, there was a neat little innovation taking place.  PC games probably had this about 10 years ahead but it was the console space where I had experienced this first.  I'm talking about the simple act of choosing your character's name.  I still remember the thrill I got the first time a game (probably Dragon Warrior/Quest) asked me to enter my name as the name of the hero character.  There after, every time my name pops onto the screen, I would get chills.  I mean, there it is, big as life.  My very own name.  Since then, I've entered my name on dozens of occasions and watched with a smile as NPCs praise me for my courage, stare in awe at my power, and call me out as a hero by name.  It really felt good putting a piece of myself into the game world, and as a kid at the time, it went a long way towards building my self image.  It didn't really bother me how none of it is real, and that I'm just an armchair hero.  The fact is, there's someone in the game with my name, under my control, in another world inside the TV and every time he did something, I felt like I had done it.  Now back then, in the days of Final Fantasy 6 or Dragon Quest III, the character with your name can't really do much.  Most games are linear, and it doesn't seem like you're affecting the world other than the way the game wanted you to.  Not like Oblivion or Knights of the Old Republic.  Not even multiple endings like Shin Megami Tensei IV.

Ironically enough, by the time these games came out, I was no longer putting in my own name.  Somewhere along the line, I deviated but don't know why.  Maybe I got tired of identifying myself with characters who are not really me.  Or maybe I just felt a little self conscious using my name in a game.  But either way, I stopped.  Or rather, I used a nickname.  For the longest time after ditching my real name, I began using the nickname 'Lashaar'.  'Lashaar' was actually a name I had used for one of the characters in Tales of Destiny.  In that game, you're not limited to just the ability to name your main character, but you can rename every character in your party the way you see fit.  Games like these are fun because you can use your friend's names in place of defaults, and pretend that it's your friend acting out the roles as prescribed by the game.  But for Tales of Destiny, I didn't use friend's names.  I just made names up as I went along.  It just so happened that 'Lashaar' was the name I used for the character of 'Leon' in Tales of Destiny.  Leon is a classic tragic figure, and I felt his plight in a very real way, making a connection between myself and Leon/Lashaar.  Since that time, I started to use 'Lashaar' as a way to be me yet without naming myself.  So it's like a nickname.

'Lashaar' worked, until recently when I got tired of that too.  This time, I think it's because I'm already an adult.  And don't really need to relate myself to game charactes anymore.  I'm more comfortable with the distance between my real self, and any virtual self I see on my TV.  In a way, I've grown up a bit, realizing that I have a place in this real world just like how I have a place in the virtual one, and there's really no need to co-mingle the two.  In this sense, even using 'Lashaar' is too much like using my real name.  So I ditched it.  Now it becomes a problem.  What do I call myself now?  There are no default names when playing games like Fallout or Skyrim.  I had to enter something.  So I named myself as a concept.  More specifically, I call myself 'Beingness' now.  Strange, yes?  But that's the point.  It's not a name so much as it is a concept, which is perfect for my needs since it is not a name which needs to refer to me.  Indeed it's not a name at all.  I chose 'Beingness' because I enjoy the idea of having a name which makes no sense.  What is 'beingness'?  Being what, exactly?  This reminds me of some spiritual tenents some of you might have heard before.  How there  can be something that is an embodiment of nothing, but at the same time, everything.  Light and dark.  Here and there.  Male and female.  Beingness as a name, kinda has that quaility of being this or that, but neither this nor that.  In otherwords, it's perfectly neutral and so perfect for my needs. 

Yes, it's really strange having characters in the game call me Beingness.  Sometimes I wonder how it all sounds so weird but have since grown used to it.  In games where the space for the name is shorter, I would using 'Being' instead.  This makes it less awkward sounding, so for most games now I go with 'Being'.  It captures the essence of 'Beinginess' while at the same time, making it easier to get a handle on.  Right now my charater in SMT IV is called 'Being'.  I still identify very much with the character, but it's not because of my name.  I do it because I choose to.  Because it's a good game.  Otherwise I'm happy with using a concept in place of having a character.

PS.  I won't use a name like 'Beingness' in an MMO though, prefering a normal sounding name like 'Sofia' instead.  This is simply a practical consideration.  I would rather meet up with real players without the burden of having to explain my name.  Greases the wheel of social interaction.

An Accidental Collector

Several weeks ago, a friend told me that a copy of Earthbound for the SNES with box and book is selling to upwards of $600.  Of course, it's not that easy.  The North American copy of Earthbound also came with it's own full sized strategy guide and I'm fairly certain it won't be worth that much unless everything - including the guide - is accounted for.  That was back then.  Today, games being bundled with guides or statues or any number of knick nacks are considered 'collector's editions'.  Back in the SNES day, there were no such thing.  A game which came with it's own strategy guide was simply a game that came with it's own strategy guild.  Nobody thought to collect the darn things.

And ironically, that's why it's worth so much.

After a bit of thought, it came to me that most of these so called 'rare' games which are worth a bucket load of cash on Ebay are collected accidentally.  That is, someone buys the game, plays it, puts it away for 20 years and then finds out it's worth hundreds of dollars.  This person, I'm betting, never thought to put the copy away so it could be worth something one day.  In the same way, I too am an accidental collector.  A few (very few!) of my games are worth 'something' (something small) but that's because I buy an abnormal amount of games so one or two of those purchases are bound to pay off.

One such game (and the crowning jewel in my collection) is Panzer Dragoon Saga for the Sega Saturn.  Not many copies were printed of the North American release of the game (this is the only version worth something) and that's no surprise considering it's release at the very end of the Saturn's life cycle.  It's also the very first game I have ever pre ordered off EB!  (My second is Magic Knight Rey Earth…. I wonder if that's worth anything…)  And now it's worth a couple hundred bucks and is also considered one of the rarer games.  Still I never meant to collect it.  It was bought, played, and just sat there for 20 years.

Even today, this still appears to be the case.  My friend also told me about Xenoblade Chronicles, which apparently is worth more than it's sticker price, because of limited quantities.  Again, this is in reference to the North American version, which was only availiable either through Gamestop or pre ordered from Nintendo.  It's no surprise that quantities are limited.  Not THAT limited, however, because I hear there are around 300k copies of these floating around but unlike Panzer Dragoon Saga, it's still fresh in peoples minds and, being a newer game, people might actually want to play it.  So I'm quite happy I own a copy, but again, it wasn't because I planned on a rising resale value.  It just happened that way.

This is why I'm very skeptical of all these 'special editions' floating around out there for just about every game.  Yeah, you get statues, soundtracks, art books and the like but it's highly unlikely it'll be worth anything.  Or maybe it will and I'll eat my tongue but I do have a bit of an example for what I'm talking about.  So I mentioned Xenoblade, right?  It's not crazy rare or super expensive but it's deifnitely more than you would have paid if you pre ordered.  Following the release of Xenoblade is another JRPG:  The Last Story.  My friend says that's beginning to crawl it's way up the value ladder and I'm sure plenty of people missed the first collector's run (with the artbook and box).  People who have been burned by one or both titles aren't making any more mistakes, so when another JRPG comes out, a game by the name of Pandora's Tower, people started to snap them up…  in doubles.  Which is kinda ridiculous because now you've got two copies out there for every one person who wants to play it, and honestly, that isn't going to make the game any more rare.  When people start buying games just to collect, ironically, is also when the value of these games take a nose dive.

A perfect example of this is the comic industry in the 90's.  As everyone knows now, old comics in good condition are worth something.  You know it now, but back 30 years ago noone does.  So when these comics printed in the 60's and prior start to be worth something in the late 80's, people took notice.  In the 90's, comic book companies are churning out new '#1' issues by the dozen, just to attract speculator dollars.  Comic collectors would buy 20 copies of these issues hoping to make a quick buck down the line and the book publishers made a lot of money.  So many of these 'collector's issues' were printed that, unsurprisingly, the supply became over saturated and the issues ended up having no worth.  The folks who bought 20 copies of Supreme #1 lost out and these same people stopped buying.  Demand suddenly tanked and the great comic crash was the result.

Now I'm not saying the gaming industry will crash in the same way.  But what I am saying is this:  if you buy something hoping it'll go up in value, you better make sure noone else is doing the same.  And in today's 'collectable edition' mentality, that is much harder said than done.  I am still convinced that whatever is worth something now only got that way accedentally a very long time ago.

Microsoft Doesn't Care About Games

That's right, you read it here first, folks.  Microsoft no longer cares about videogames.

Oh, what's that, you say?  They had just officially announced their next console, so they can't possibly have given up on games?

To which I say, oh really?  Did you see any games?  Well… yes, you do, but you also see a whole lot more.  Like football.  TV.  Skype.  Halo TV show.  Oh, did I mention football?  Yes, there were a bunch of sports games.  Yes, they did show footage of the new Call of Duty and yes, it's still too early to show off their other games (namely the 15 exclusives they mentioned but did not name except one) but let's face it, most of the announcement were not gaming related and sports games are nothing to get excited about.

The thing to remember here is that this is Microsoft's 'big reveal'.  This show is supposed to tell the world what the Xbox One is all about.  And it did.  It's just not about games.  If it was about games, they would hype the systems gaming features.  Things like a list of developers on board, or at least, a list of titles slated for the machine.  They can save the game footage for E3, that's fine.  But at least show use a plan which actually involves games.  Show off what your new machine can do to help us experience games in a whole new way, and no, having Kinect built in does not count.  We want to see something new.  New games, new features, new titles, new exclusives, that kind of thing.

Instead, we were treated to a… well, a PC, really, with Skype, multitasking, TV watching, web surfing… pretty much the kitchen sink included but very little of that was gaming related.  At least Sony has a plan for bringing social connectivity to our regular gaming.  But the Xbox One?  Nothing.

So here's where I tell you Microsoft's real plan.  They plan to dominate your living room with the Xbox One; essentially an all-in-one machine (hence the name) to let you do everything you can dream of in the living room.  TV, web, games, etc, etc.  If you follow Microsoft's moves, this isn't news.  What is new is this:  Microsoft's new machine involves a lot of things, but if you consider yourself a gamer, then the one thing it doesn't involve, is you.  That's right, this is Microsoft's outright rejection of 'the gamer' and their embracing of everyone else.  Who is this elusive 'everyone else'?  People who don't consider themselves gamers.  People who play nothing but Call of Duty, for instance.  People who dabble in videogames only until Monday Night Football shows (which they can now watch on Xbox One).  People who would rather watch Halo on TV than play Halo.

The proof is in the reveal.  Just who was Microsoft targeting with their launch?  There were just too much 'mass market' in that show to be a conincidence.  Most of the tech and nerd speak of that show were glossed over by mass market offerings.  Sports, is a very safe, massively popular past time, and Call of Duty is about as mass market as you can get and still be called a video game.  And Skype?  Web browsing?  Those fall under a lable everyone does at one time or another called 'communication'.  Finally, watching TV is something everybody understands.  So, if you are a television watching sports lover who enjoys voice chatting while surfing the web and likes to dabble in a shooter or two (and only shooters), then the Xbox One is probably the best thing since sliced bread. 

The clues are all there.  Microsoft is aiming the Xbox One to everybody, but what gets shuffled up and lost are all the gamers in between.

My First Person Shooter History

I used to hate first person shooters.

I consider Bioshock Infinite to be the best game of all time.

These two statements are a shocking contrast, yet, they also perfectly describe my journey into the world of first person shooters.  Like many, my very first FPS was Wolfenstine 3D.  This very first experience was pretty much just me trying taking five minutes to walk through that first door.  After that, I powered down the game, never to return.  Having gotten off to such a bad start, it was surprising that I never game up on the genre, but subsequent attempts have not endeared me to the first person perspective.  Hexen, the fantasy FPS hybrid, nearly make me puke with motion sickness and Decent was a confusing jumble of corridors going up, down, sideways, inside and out.

For a very, very long time, I hated first person shooters.  Which explains why I've never played Doom or Duke Nukem.  Or got into Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament.  Not that these last two would have made much difference, since multiplayer was never my thing.  You really can't toss a dead cat around without hitting a FPS, however, so there comes a time when I just had to go back.  My very last PC experimentation with the genre was Vampire:  The Masquarade.  That's when I figured out one reason why I hated first person shooters in the first place.  I hated mouse and keyboard controls.  It doesn't matter how much more accurate a mouse is compared to a pad, or how many keys a keyboard has comparied to a Dual Shock, I can never, ever, play PC games with the default controls.  This applies double to first person shooters.

But my console forays were rocky also, no doubt about that.  There was a period of time when I joined a group of like minded fellas and we played (on LAN) Xbox games like Halo and Castle Wolfenstein.  These were very fun times.  Yet, when I tried Halo as a single player experience, the whole enterprise fell apart.  I just couldn’t get into it.  It's not just Halo either.  I detested games like Half Life and it's sequel for which I passed on the PC to play on consoles.  These three games were just oh, so boring in the single player sphere.  To this day, it mystifies me how peple think Master Chief is a 'badass'.  He's not.  He's an idiot who left Cortana alone so she can get abducted and have the location of Earth compromised.  And don't get me started on that lifeless shell we call Gordan Freeman.  Not even the gravity gun in Half Life 2 can rescue that pointless adventure.

Yes, I hated first person shooters.  Even on consoles.

But one day, the light dawned on me.  And the game that finally opened my eyes was a shocking one.  It was Halo 3.  Everything clicked in that game.  Halo 3 itself wasn't the greatest.  But it was the first game where I understood how much fun it is to go running and gunning with just a hand holding a gun.  Unfortunately, the exact reason why this game broke my mold still eludes me.  However, I will always remember how Master Chief lept from the top of a high building to the back of a giant mech for which he proceeded to blow up from the inside.  In any case, I'm glad the streak finally broke, because after that, I went on a rampage of FPS gaming.  Battlefield Bad Company, Modern Warfare, Singularity, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Bioshock, Bulletstorm, Dishonored, Portal and Portal 2; I've played them all.  Even the RPG spin offs like Fallout 3, New Vegas and of course, Oblivion and Skyrim. 

Now, finally, the story comes to a head.  This time, with Bioshock Infinite.  This is absolutely the most memorable game I have ever played, and is absolutely perfect.  This is the Citizen Kane of video games.  The Mona Lisa of gaming.  The 'War and Peace' of interactive storytelling.  Bioshock Infinite is at once a game and a work of art.  It's story is as much a blockbuster as it is a metaphor.  The whole experience itself is like peeling back an onion.  The more you play, the deeper you go, the more you play.  It is perfection. 

And where would I be now, had I not finally opened myself to first person shooters?  Stuck in parallel universe.  A twilight zone in which the best game of all time would have passed me by.

A Very Long Response

This next blog is in response to Ironix's blog, but it's too long to post as a comment!  So here it is.

Alright, I read your blog twice over, so the debate ought to go well.

Let's put a few things into perspective we both agree on.  1)  The price of $55 is just way too high.  2)  The best bet this game has of selling is, indeed, through it's already existing fans.  You made very convincing arguments on the second point.  I also agree that Namco must justify themselves regarding this decision.  However, I still do not agree with the main thrust of your argument, which is that Namco Bandai made a mistake.  They didn't, and here's a short list of why.

1)  The PSP is dead.  I know I beat you over the head with this but it's important for any consideration of the facts.

2)  The PS Vita is nearly dead.  As an owner myself, I'm saddened by this beyond words.  However, the dismal release list speaks for itself.

3)  The iOS platform is plenty healthy, and is spread over iPhones, iPads and iPods, which makes for a great market.

Now we both agree that the price is ridiculous and the fans are important.  So let's take a look at why Namco did what they did.  Put yourself in the publisher's shoes for a second.  If you were to put out Idol Master Fiesta, what are your options?  There are several, but I think it boils down to two general decisions.

1)  To localize for the PSP/Vita

2)  To localize for iOS.

In your arguments, you say that fans are the ones who will buy at the 55 dollar price point.  Yes.  Fans are the ones who will initiate other players into becoming fans.  Also yes.  BUT, this actually works against you.  Because the BEST way to attract existing fans AND to pull in new ones is through  option 2, the iOS.  Why?  Because you cannot grow the market using option 1.  Suppose I were to try to get a friend to buy Fiesta on the PSP/Vita.  It would be easy to do so if they already had the machine.  But not so much if they don't.  It would be very difficult to get anyone else to buy the game if they also had to shell out for a system they don't have but it's doubly so when the systems in question are DEAD!  So how do you intend to grow your fan base on dead platforms?  It doesn't work very well.  The iOS is a whole different story.  Not only is the platform evolving (iPhone 4, 4S, 5, etc.) but there are plenty of people who already have one variation of the machine, so it's easy to gain new converts through existing fans.  Yes, it's too bad for the folks who have a PSP/VITA but not the iOS.  But there are bound to be an overlap.  I'm sure a lot of fans who have a PSP also have an iOS device.  Put yourself in Namco's position and you can see that - if they are serious about growing their fan base - the PSP/Vita option is the more limiting choice.

This is the main thrust of my argument but your blog also points out a couple other issues I wish to address.  Now I didn't read the original article on this announcment, but you mentioned that Namco didn't give anyone warning regarding the iOS decision?  But isn't the warning the news piece itself?  It seems to me this announcment IS the warning you've been looking for.  Afterall, the game isn't out yet (am I right?  I'm not sure).  And of course, there are also the issue of price point, and their mismarketing (in your opinion) to their target audience (the fans).  But on that second point, I argue that there is no mismarketing.  Why?  Because this is their first attempt to bring any Idol Master title to North America.  So any marketing they do now is brand new, at least from Namco's perspective.  For you, who have been enjoying the titles since the beginning, it feels like a betrayal.  But to Namco, it's their first foray into new territory for a 'new' IP.  In order to launch successfully, they must not only balance existing fan base, but also to consider a new audience.  Which, I think, means taking a few risks.

Which is exactly what I think is happening here.  Let's consider several facts:

1)  It's easy to port games to Android, PSP, Vita.  Relatively speaking.

2)  It's easy to lower the price of a title on iOS.  Happens all the time.

Put those two together and what we have is classic risk versus reward.  Only, in this case, the risk isn't as great as you think.  If Namco localized for PSP, they are guarenteed a niche audience.  But why stop at that?  With the iOS, they have a potential hit on their hands beyond what can be provided by niche.  And here's where iOS flexibility comes into play.  What Namco is doing is simply this.  They are testing the waters.  That's it.  No more, no less.  They publish for iOS, not because they are shooting themselves in the foot, but rather because iOS is the perfect test platform.  If 55 bucks don't sell?  No big deal.  Slash it in half!  They are free to set whatever price until it's optimal.  Even if noone buys at 55, someone will at 45.  Then 35.  Then 25, and on and on.  And, if the game takes off, even a little, you can bet on an Android port and maybe a PSP/Vita version, too.  Now you say that price adjustments are easily done on the PSN.  Yes, however, I think, they are not just testing the price point, they are testing iOS itself.  It's no secret that console sales are down and developers are flocking to mobile.  What better way for Namco to get into the mobile action than to port over something with a small but installed fan base just to get it's feet wet?

So that’s my answer.  Why did Namco do what they did?  Simple.  They are making a gamble, testing the iOS waters, and going from there.

 

To Shoot or Not to Shoot?

Several years ago, my boss at the time asked me a question.  This was around the time the first Black Ops came out.  Knowing what a big gamer I am and the hype Black Ops was getting, she asked me if I was getting this game.  I said no.  She ask why.  I said, 'because I don't want to play a game about shooting other human beings.'  She was surprised but impressed by the answer.

Fast forward several years, though, and what are my favorite games of 2013?  Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite, two games where there are plenty of human targets to shoot in the face (or arms, or legs, or stomatch).  Clearly, I'm no saint, but at the time of the first Black Ops, I meant what I had said.  And I still do.  So how can I say one thing, and do the other?  Because I WANT to play games with less violence rather than I MUST.  That's the difference.

You can call me a hypocrite or a player of semantics but in my defense I play plenty of other types of games.  Just in 2013 alone there's been Atelier Meruru, Fire Emblem Awakening, Metal Gear Rising, Resistance 2, Metro 2033, Devil May Cry and Pandor's Tower.  Not all of these games involve killing fellow human beings and some of them are barely violent.  Out of the ten games I've played listed here, half of them feature human beings as the enemy, the other half are monsters, demons or aliens.

So if I don't want to play violent games, if I don't want to shoot at other virtual humans, then why still do?  Because the violent games are....  Just.  Too.  Good.  Its' clear after the first 15 minutes of gameplay that a lot of blood, sweat and tears when into the making of both Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider.  Very high production values, lovely graphics, great story, and fantastic atmosphere make both must play experiences.  If I wanted to be a pacifist, I'd be giving up two of the best gaming experiences of 2013 and there's no way I can do that.

I do imagine what would happen if some of those great gaming goodness rubbed off on the other, less violent games.  If Pandor's Tower had just a tad bit better a story and more interactivity and benefited from a higher production value, I wouldn't be thinking of quitting this game.  If Atelier Meruru was just a little less focused on crafting I'd stick with that to the end, too.  Or, how come they don't just make Tomb Raider and Bioshock Infinite… and just tone down all the blood and violence?  Both games would still work extremly well without both.  At least, that's what I think.

So that's the delimma.  Give up on some great gaming experiences or stop complaining about game violence.  A stark choice, but it's a razor edge I've been living on for years.  Luckily, there is a silver lining.  A truly excellent game doesn't glorify violence.  Yes, there are blood and yes, there are shooting other humans but usually, well made games also come with a bit more… art to it.  It doesn't entirely justify the gore but it does put things into perspective.  In the case of Tomb Raider, it tells the story of Lara's rise from innocence to hardened survivor and in so doing, elevated this already iconic character to legendary proportions.  You can say the story and character benefitted greatly from what happened in the game, blood and violence being only parts of the whole, the others being determination, perserverence, resourcefullness and courageousness.  Though I have yet to beat Bioshock Infinite, it is already somewhat less violent than the first game and the focus of Infinite is decidedly away from blasting people to other lofty ideas, such as patriotism, facism, racism and the dangers of a personality cult.  Basically, more than just the shooting and the destruction, the game's atmosphere is the true attraction.  Though it helps that the action itself is quite top notch.

There will always be an effort on my part to avoid the truly gratuitous depictions of violence.  I will never enjoy Madworld, for instance, and I do try to stay away from most military shooters (the story never fully justifies the means, unless that story belongs to Spec Ops: The Line).  However, if they keep making great games I will keep playing them, shooting whomever needs to be shot.