Have you ever played Mass Effect? Have you ever watched a porno? Did you know that the two seemingly-unrelated things are pretty much one and the same? Or at least they were in the mind of developmental psychologist Cooper Lawrence. Of course, sexuality in video games isn’t the only hot-button issue; violence is the most fiercely-contested one. Why is it that video games are looked down upon while movies, music and television seem to get by unscathed?

The first and most obvious reason is that video games are a relatively new medium. In contrast to other forms of entertainment, such as TV programs and feature films, video games have only been around since the late seventies. They are receiving the same scrutiny that those forms entertainment were receiving when they were first introduced. What we have here is simply history repeating itself as it always does. I recall reading a comment somewhere that actually made a very valid point: “In 20-30 years, the world will be entirely run and governed by people who grew up with video games and understand them.”

A common misconception is that video games have led to prevalent violence in youth. Although it’s true that some of the teenagers who have committed violent acts — school shootings for instance — did play video games, the overwhelming majority of kids who play do not commit antisocial acts, according to research done by MIT professor Henry Jenkins. Besides, rethink that argument: some teenagers who committed violent acts did play video games. Does that statement have any logic at all? That’s no different than saying some serial killers like apple pie, so clearly apple pie should be outlawed. All right, so maybe it’s not that extreme, but I think you get my point.

Many people believe that games can desensitize children. However, this myth is quickly debunked by research which shows that ordinary and mentally-stable humans can recognize the change between the game world and the real world. Eric Zimmerman, game designer and co-founder of Gamelab, characterizes this game world as the “magic circle.” Jumping in and out of the magic circle is no different than, as Jenkins puts it, “sweeping a floor as in playing house and sweeping a floor as in actual housework.”

Skeptics also suggest that playing violent video games damages the empathy that children feel for victims in the real world. Again, Jenkins responds to this with “a child who responds to a video game the same way he or she responds to a real-world tragedy could be showing symptoms of being severely emotionally disturbed. Here's where the media effects research, which often uses punching rubber dolls as a marker of real-world aggression, becomes problematic. The kid who is punching a toy designed for this purpose is still within the "magic circle" of play and understands her actions on those terms. Such research shows us only that violent play leads to more violent play.”

Going back to violence in video games and how it “affects” young people, the foremost risk factors for school shootings, according to a 2001 U.S. Surgeon General’s report, are mental instability and home life. This means that people that are just generally insane or people that were abused as children are more at risk to commit acts of violence than, say, that dude who sits in his basement for days on end playing World of Warcraft. You know, the guy who has all the zits and never fails to have a bag of potato chips out of arm’s reach.

Ultimately, the real reason video games are ridiculed more so than their movie and TV counterparts is that people feel it’s much easier for children to get their hands on them. In reality, it’s the parents who are buying these games for their kids, so the responsibility of monitoring what’s going on falls on their shoulders as always. The problem isn’t with the video games, it’s with parents. Parents need to hold back on using games as a scapegoat and take things into their own hands.

It goes without question that Microsoft’s idea of Achievements and Gamerscore is nothing short of genius. Rewarding players for completing difficult tasks makes perfect sense, right? But what should be more rewarding, adding some imaginary points to that magic (yet meaningless) number in your Gamercard or having an enjoyable videogame experience? This is where things start to blur, especially with some of the games that have been released as of late. It seems as if Achievements are set in place to push gamers through a game, but shouldn’t gamers want to play through a game’s campaign because it’s a fun and compelling experience? Well, that might just be the problem right there. Games these days, for the most part, aren’t fun and compelling experiences. They’re generally repetitive carbon copies, maybe with a new outfit to differentiate themselves just enough to sell a few copies. The FPS genre is where the finger should be pointed towards most of all. Take a moment and think of all the different shooters you have played recently. There’s a good chance that the majority of them involve aliens threatening the existence of the human race, World War II, or zombies.

Yeah, yeah, so what’s this all mean? It means that we need a monumental game that involves World War II, aliens and zombies all at the same time, right? Wrong. Although that would be epic, what it really means is that we’re living in a new world of videogame “generic-ness.” Take titles like the classic Half-Life or Deus Ex for example. These are far from being generic, but, unfortunately, these types of games are hard to come by nowadays. I know what you’re thinking: “Half-Life (both 1 and 2) involves aliens killin’ ur dudez! It must be generic!” That’s just not true. Although you’re correct in the sense that the games do involve aliens “killin’ ur dudez,” they’re far from being generic shooters. This is because they offer up some of the most immersive and jaw-dropping experiences you will ever encounter in a videogame. Both contain an enticing single player and an intriguing back story. Half-Life 2 is one of the few games that made me stop and say “whoa.” You want a more recent example? Try Mass Effect on for size. Mass Effect has some of the most brilliant dialog I have ever seen in a game.

These days it’s “Halo this and Gears of War that,” and I guess this Call of Duty 4 thing is all the rage. But when should the line be drawn? Don’t get me wrong, Halo 3, Gears of War and Call of Duty 4 are equally-strong titles (as sales have proven) and the first two are, fortunately or unfortunately, the lifeline of the Xbox franchise, but let’s be honest; would they be so high and mighty if it weren’t for their multiplayer aspects? Of course not! The games arguably feature the most run-of-the-mill single players you could possibly ask for! In fact, Gears of War’s back story is more interesting than the game itself!

To tell you the truth, there really is no escaping those common shooter game-premises, but the premise of the game isn’t necessarily the issue. The issue is the way developers manipulate that premise. Don’t panic if your head exploded after reading that. What I mean is developers need to focus on captivating gamers with their games, not making a quick buck by throwing aliens and, for lack of a better term, dudez into a pot and producing yet another typical shooter with a lackluster single player (and in many cases, multiplayer). It’s when you’ve given a player that “whoa” moment that you’ve succeeded. Otherwise, your game simply won’t stand out, and you might just need Achievements to push the gamer through the game. If that still doesn’t make sense, panic.

But how do you captivate the gamer? We’ll use the shooter genre since it’s what we’ve been discussing mainly. By definition, the answer isn’t simple and contains a handful of things: immersive story, interesting weapons, realistic and interactive environments, constantly-changing situations and unpredictable, yet intelligent AI. A bit of uniqueness never hurts either. By combining these things along with others that go unmentioned, you will have a game that is not just entertaining, but is really good. Sadly, most games lack these very fundamentals.

However, all has not been lost. We still have recent titles that offer up first-rate experiences. The games that primarily come to the forefront are BioShock, Mass Effect and The Orange Box. Games like Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway, GTA IV, Left 4 Dead, Huxley and Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell: Conviction all seem like favorable candidates as well. Hopefully, these games will hold true to their promises, and, assuming they do, we may possibly see a recess in this dark, dank and depressing world of generic-ness, if not an end to it.

So, the next time you’re picking up that new game, take a step back and make sure you know what it’s all about before you drop your hard-earned clams. There’s a good chance it sucks. There’s a great chance it’s like the last game you bought, and there’s an even greater chance that you’ll be better off spending the money on a rather large cup of tea and some scones. Because, in the end, scones are pretty damn good, plus, we play video games to have fun, so what’s the point when we’re fighting through mediocrity in order to gain a few worthless points?

Valve Software is one of my favorite developers. That’s why my excitement for The Orange Box was nearly on par with my hype for Halo 3 (I think I can already hear fanboys yelling “blasphemy” in the distance). It goes without doubt that the Half-Life franchise is one of the best in its respective genre. Despite this, many of Half-Life’s followers questioned Valve’s decision to take the episodic content route. Was it the right thing to do for both the developer and the fans? Let’s take a look.

Following the release of the critically acclaimed Half-Life 2, Valve originally intended to release an expansion pack entitled Half-Life 2: Aftermath. Later on in the development process, they decided to create multiple episodes rather than a single product that, together, would extend Half-Life 2’s storyline. This was a clear nod to the company’s new episodic-distribution structure, headed by its successful Steam platform.

The primary reasoning for episodic content was that it avoided the issue of painfully long development time, but many argued that it was simply a money-farming scheme because Aftermath was supposed to retail for around $30, and they speculated that it would cost more to buy three separate episodes. However, it was argued that, in reality, the cost of the three episodes Valve planned on releasing would be equivalent to what Aftermath would cost, considering each episode would retail around $10.00. This proved to be false as Episode One originally sold for $19.99 (it was later reduced to $9.95 on Steam), but it was also argued that the value of the episodes shouldn’t be disputed until all three are put into perspective.

Despite the controversy, Episode One was well-received. Among its immense success came immense anticipation for its successor, which appeared in Valve’s most recent title, or rather, compilation, The Orange Box, which appeared on PC, Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. The Orange Box includes Half-Life 2, Episodes One and Two, Portal and the long-awaited Team Fortress 2. It is, according to Valve co-founder Gabe Newell, what grew out of the experiments they’ve been doing with episodic content. It was intended to allow smaller, easier-to-manage projects to be developed, which further enabled them to “take some of the risk out of the financial side and the project-scale side and put some of the risk back into game design.” This grants them more room to try more experimental things, such as the cartoon-style art direction taken in Team Fortress 2.

“Some of the challenges of having, you know, in the case of Orange Box, five different games going into a single box, it actually ends up being easier because having smaller teams that are really focused rather than having to spread their attention across years and years of development, it’s just a lot easier,” Newell mentioned in an interview. “It’s easier on the team. They have more fun; they can feel like they’re getting things out to customers sooner, so it’s actually an easier project for us than, say, the five years that we went through on Half-Life 2. I think it’s the most exciting set of products we’ve put together since we’ve been a company.”

The idea of episodic content makes sense, but the question still remains: are people willing to switch over to this new concept just yet? PC gamers have been dealing with this style of distribution for years, so there’s no doubt that they are ready. Console gamers, on the other hand, have always been used to owning a hard copy of everything they buy, that is, until the addition of integrated online services such as Xbox Live, PlayStation Network and Wii Shop. Not only do these platforms open up new opportunities for consoles, but they introduce the downloadable-distribution method. Despite this, full-fledged episodic content has yet to really be encountered on consoles. Sure, games may have a small expansion here or there available for download, but we’ve never seen a regular occurrence of expansion installments.

A primary concern for distributors is price point. Providing small pieces of content is something that’s never really been done before, so price is something that has to be experimented with before it can be set in stone. If you’re an Elder Scrolls fan, you may recall the ridiculous cost of downloading horse armor in Oblivion. This was something that caused quite a stir in the Xbox Live community for how insignificant it was. But in reality, it wasn’t insignificant. It was an event that, at least for Bethesda, set the bar (albeit in the wrong spot).

Going back to Half-Life, with the release of Episode Two, people are already wondering about Episode Three. “[With Episode Three], we know how the trilogy ends, says Newell, “and there are a bunch of loose ends and narrative arcs that need to come to a conclusion in Episode Three, so that’s going to be a big focus for us.”

On the Xbox 360, Episode Three will certainly appear as a download on the Xbox Live Marketplace. It’s supposedly the final chapter in the Half-Life story arc, but with Valve’s expansion into the console scene and its new push towards episodic goodness, we may be seeing more things like this in the future.

I caught up with GamerZines' Dave Taylor. We chatted about the new endeavor, its current success and its future plans. GamerZines is an online multimedia gaming magazine that is free to readers. Take a look!

Tyler Treat: When did GamerZines start up, and why was it created?

Dave Taylor: GamerZines: GamerZines were started because the three of us on the management team (Dave Taylor, Duncan Ferguson and Dan Hutchinson) wanted to launch a set of videogames magazines, but no longer saw the opportunity in the print magazine market, which is where we’d all worked for about fifteen years. I’d already created a digital magazine called Home Computer Magazine back in 2005, which did well, but had been put on hold while I worked as Publishing Director for a videogames magazine publisher. So we had a basic concept, but knew we wanted to develop it considerably before bringing it to the videogames space.

There are two sides to the GamerZines business, the first is contract publishing and the second is own IP. We launched our first contract GamerZine, called PES Fanzine, for Konami in August 2006 and we launched our first own IP magazine, 360Zine for Xbox 360, in October 2006 – there was a lot of behind the scenes work that had to go on for the own IP, such as discussing the idea with games companies, which meant we couldn’t launch them together.

TT: How many readers does GamerZines average?

DT: Our initial target figure was 30,000 readers, which we achieved comfortably. So far we have hit every internal target we’ve set ourselves, which might sound like we’ve aimed low, but we live by the mantra “under promise, over deliver”.

TT: All of your emagazines are free to readers. What drives you to offer this?

DT: Altruism. No, it was the business model we developed based on our own personal views on how we use the internet which we then discussed with several advertising agencies. Basically, we talked about how people use websites and we all agreed that firstly, content is free online. That’s a painful truth for media owners – as magazine publishers, you’re used to being able to charge £4 for a videogames magazine, but you can’t try and bring that business model to the internet. Secondly, any barrier to downloading would seriously deter users, so we decided to not even require registration. We run reader surveys regularly so that we can gather the information we need to feedback to advertisers, but these are also optional for readers.

TT: What can subscribers expect from your magazines?

DT: First and foremost, quality videogames journalism. We use a collection of the best videogames journalists in the UK. They deliver insightful previews, reviews and interviews. What we don’t do is news – websites are far better for news. We’re there for when you’ve got the time to immerse yourself in your passion for videogames, just as you would by picking up a print magazine.

Next, and this is very cool and the thing we get the most feedback on, our magazine pages aren’t static. They include games videos, and animation, plus multimedia, such as interactive quizzes, graphs, feedback, etc. So the magazines themselves come alive. One reader described it “like walking on the moon for the first time” and another told us we’d fulfilled his childhood fantasy of pages coming alive. I’m not sure I’d go that far myself, but there’s no doubt that, having launched many print magazines myself, the ability to combine different forms of media on a magazine page is probably the most exciting media evolution I’ve been involved in.

TT: We know competition is rough, so what do you do to keep your readers coming back for more? What sets you apart from other gaming magazines?

DT: Being completely unique. Nobody else has got the sophistication of multimedia in digital magazine that we have. It’s the reason we selected PDF, because while it has its downsides, it’s the only format that combines legible text and constrained layout with the ability to embed multimedia. No other digital videogames magazines use the quality of journalists that we use either. There are several amateur digital magazines out there and I read some of them regularly, and I love that the internet allows this form of publication, but by using professionals and because of who is involved at a management level and the contacts we’ve built up over the years, we get a level of access to games that non-professionals can’t get. So, with GamerZines, you get all of the quality of a print magazine, with the additional benefit of living pages, as it were. If that doesn’t sound too grandiose, which of course, it does.

TT: How is the downloadable magazine format working for you? Do you see emagazines overtaking conventional magazines in the future?

DT: It has been brilliant. It liberates you in an editorial manner, even down to the simple fact that if you want an extra page for a review, you can simply add one page, whereas in print, you need to work around section sizes (magazines are printed in 16, 32 or 64 page sections, so you can’t just add or remove pages).

The future for digital magazines is undoubtedly exciting. I think that what we produce today is better than what was originally created as a proof of concept, and we have some ideas of what we can do to push it even further, but more than that, digital publishing (as opposed to website publishing) is still in its infancy, so I’ve no doubt that what we’ll be producing in two or five years time will be even more advanced.

TT: What does one need to read one of your emagazines?

DT: All you need is Adobe Reader on a PC, which is a free download from Adobe. In order to ensure that the multimedia plays correctly, we advise people to install the latest version 8, which includes some security enhancements, so it’s a sensible upgrade. Additionally you need the Internet Explorer Flash plugin (which is already installed on 96% of PCs) and Windows Media Player 10, which is also part of Windows. Basically, if you install Adobe Reader, you should already have the other 2 bits installed.

TT: Can readers submit feedback about GamerZines? Do you publish any letters to the editors?

DT: Absolutely, we love getting feedback. We have a form on the website, but every magazine has a letters page where we publish the best letters. Each magazine has a feedback form built into the letters page and the key previews and reviews, so readers can tell us what they are hoping for on a game, or tell us what they think of a review. Several ideas for improving the magazines have come from readers.

TT: How can users stay on top of all the latest issue releases? Is there a subscription system or an email update?

DT: We have a voluntary email subscription service for all our magazines, so readers can add their name and email and then select which platforms they are interested in and we email them when a new issue of interest is published. We send out one email when a magazine they’ve subscribed to is published and one monthly update to let people know about what is going on with enhancements to the site, launches, competitions, etc.

TT: What influences, such as other magazines, have made an impact on GamerZines?

DT: Well, Dan, Duncan and myself have all worked in the UK specialist magazine industry (the industry name for videogames and tech titles) for over a decade, starting as writers and salesmen and working up to senior management positions.

As a team, we’ve been involved in many, many magazine launches, from the Official Windows XP Magazine, Official Xbox Magazine to the award winning Digital Camera Magazine and X360. We’ve all worked for both Future Publishing (UK market leader) and Highbury Entertainment (as was, their main competitor) at senior levels, so we can’t deny that our experiences there, and the talented people we worked with, shaped our views on what makes a great magazine. It’s that level of experience that has allowed us to create what we believe are mature, engaging titles from the start.

Our view was what makes a great magazine offline makes a great digital magazine too, which is why you’ll see all sorts of print ideas in our magazines that you would not see on a website.

For example, we often use boxouts to break up the body copy and put interesting, self contained bits of information in one place, common practice in print magazine design, except that in GamerZines we can go one step beyond and add interactivity, so if the boxout is on the different factions in a game, you can click on each faction name to see a screenshot and read about their abilities.

I think anyone who has read a videogames magazine in the past ten years will feel at home with the GamerZine’s layout and style.

TT: How many different emagazines do you offer?

DT: We currently have four monthly magazines: 360Zine for Xbox 360, P3Zine for PlayStation 3, PCGZine for PC games and HGZine for Handheld (DS, PSP and Mobile). In addition, we have contract magazines that are published on a less regular basis. All of them are free to the readers.

TT: How many contributors are involved in GamerZines, and what kind of experience do they bring to the table?

DT: Gosh, that’s almost impossible to answer. It changes every issue depending on what games are covered. We made a conscious decision when we started to ensure that games are covered by the experts in that field. There’s no point giving a FPS to an RTS writer, so if there are more games of one sort in a month, it will skew the number, but I guess in total about 20 different writers are used.

In terms of experience, they are all very established writers, which gives GamerZines great credibility with the readers. We do give breaks to new writers, though that’s down to Dan to decide what he feels he’d like to try out and see if he can help develop a writer. In this way, GamerZines are exactly like all the print magazines we’re used to working on.

TT: Are there any exciting thinTT we can expect in the future from GamerZines? Any future plans?

DT: There are lots, but I suppose I have to be careful what I talk about. We have just won another contract to produce a magazine on the amBX gaming technology for Philips. That’s a very exciting idea, to extend the gaming experience beyond the screen and speakers, and a digital magazine can bring that idea to readers in a far more useful manner than a flat print page could.

We’ve also got some ideas about how we can enhance the multimedia in the magazines further, but that’s still in the testing stage.

The other area we’re working hard on is delivery, to ensure that users get the best possible experience, which means upgrading the server structure (just done) and offering new ways to get the content. We have just launched an affiliates’ section, which allows webmasters and bloggers to embed the latest issue of a GamerZine, automatically updated, into their own pages, so rather than send people to our site, they can actually enhance their site with a free magazine for their readers. That’s proving very popular and we’re looking at ways to expand that.

We’re a long way from finished with our plans; that’s for sure.

TT: Anything else you’d like to add?

DT: Only that gamers should check us out, read a couple of our magazines and if they like them, subscribe so that they don’t miss an issue. If they really like us, they should tell their friends, and if they run a site or blog, they should write about us! Getting the word out is the best way to ensure that we can continue to grow and offer readers more free magazines, and recommendations are incredibly important to us.

The sci-fi genre is a favorite among many developers. Why? Because there are, in essence, no rules. You want a hyper blaster in your game? Go for it. On the other hand, modern day warfare games require detail and accuracy to acquire realism. EA/DICE had just about depleted the modern and historical warfare genre with Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, and other various expansions. That’s why it decided to take a step into the future. Was it a smart choice? We think so. Was it a successful choice? Not entirely.

2142’s plot leaves the majority of the world covered in a new ice age. Wars erupt between two factions, the European Union and the Pan Asian Coalition, for the last remaining bits of habitable land on Earth. As to why there are only two factions is a mystery to us. Your battles will take you to the now-frigid European landscape to the hospitable deserts of North Africa.

Battlefield 2142’s game engine is a slightly enhances version of the previous BF installment, Battlefield 2. Thus, the graphics, physics, lighting, and so on are only marginally better than Battlefield 2’s.

The audio effects and music in 2142 are superb. Teammates are always calling out orders or asking for support. The voiceovers are excellent. The European Union forces talk with a strong English accent whereas the PAC forces speak Russian. The quality of the weapon, vehicle, and explosion effects is top-notch, especially when playing you’re playing with 5.1 surround sound. Lastly, there’s the admirable musical score. Each level having its own song as it loads (as slow as ever).

The weapons in the game are most likely not what you think they’d be in 150 years – assault rifles, sniper rifles, pistols, rocket launchers, what have you. There are no hyper blasters, no vaporizer guns, or über cannons for that matter. They’re simply “futurized” versions of modern weapons. The game features four classes – recon, assault, support, and engineer. This is a big step down from BF 2’s seven classes. However, DICE didn’t just remove some of the classes altogether, but rather combined them.

DICE blends the sniper and special ops classes together to create the recon class. Because the assault class is always in the heat of battle, it made sense to make it so it can provide medical support also. This new assault class can unlock the health pack and defibrillator kit.

The anti-tank and engineer classes have also been effectively combined. Now you’re capable of repairing vehicles and taking out enemy armor. The support class has not been combined with any classes. The support soldier is equipped with a heavy machine gun and an ammo kit to re-supply comrades. A shotgun can be unlocked later for use by the support class rendering them extremely lethal at close range.

As mentioned, 2142 contains unlockable weapons and items just like Battlefield 2, but this time around, there’s a whole lot more unlocking to do. There are 40 weapons and equipment items to unlock in the game. But it doesn’t end there. Each class has two individual paths it can take based on unlockables. This has to do with the class-combining we talked about earlier (special ops and sniper). For those of you who are not familiar with Battlefield 2, you unlock weapons and equipment by raising your score which is based on all kinds of stats – kills, deaths, flags, assists, etc. Promotions are also based off your score.

Battlefield 2142’s vehicles are also noticeably similar to today’s (minus the mechs) with added futuristic features. There are tanks that hover, APCs that can shoot infantry pods into the sky, and walking mechs. There are also flying-type vehicles similar to attack helicopters.

One of Battlefield 2’s great innovations was squad-based gameplay. You had the option of creating or joining a squad and working together to achieve objectives given by the squad leader or the team commander. You could also spawn on the squad leader’s position. One of the ways 2142 rewards squads is by giving “field upgrades.” These give you access to unlocks that you may not have had previous access to. To get these field upgrades, your squad must work together and accomplish objectives.

Of course the commander position is back in Battlefield 2142. He has the ability to call in aerial drones and satellite scans to detect the enemy, orbital strikes, which are the equivalent to BF 2’s artillery strikes, and an electromagnetic pulse strike which not only disables any vehicles within its blast radius, but also scrambles the helmet displays of infantry.

Probably the biggest addition to the Battlefield series is 2142’s new “Titan Mode” which accompanies the original Conquest Mode. The objective in Titan Mode is simple – destroy the opposing team’s Titan. A Titan is basically an enormous floating base. It also serves as an aircraft carrier. In Titan Mode, the flag points seen in Conquest are replaced by missile silos. The silos intermittently shoot up missiles directed at either team’s Titan depending on who controls the silo. Once the enemy Titan’s shield is crippled, your team must attack the Titan. There are two ways onto the Titan, flying over on an air transport vehicle or shooting up in an infantry pod. Once onboard, attackers seek to blow up the ship’s reactor located in the reactor room. To gain access to the reactor room, you must destroy the four security terminals located about the Titan.

BF 2142 includes first-rate stat tracking. It features the highly successful tracking system of BF 2 with added awards and statistics. This, and the profuse amount of unlockables, will certainly keep players addicted.

All previous Battlefield games have been buggier than a windshield. Unfortunately, 2142 is no exception. Dead bodies in the Titan begin to “fly away.” If there are many players on a Titan, things get so laggy that you cannot aim or even move. On the ground, vehicles vanish after a certain distance, even in perfect visibility, and mechs sometimes tend to slide along the ground rather than walk. There have also been some issues with installing the game’s first patch. Of course, most of these glitches/bugs aren’t really major and will most likely be addressed in future patches.

Few single player games intrigue me. Of the game’s I have played, the Half-Life series and Deus Ex are probably the best, in terms of shooters. They have interesting plot lines that really draw you into the game and keep you playing. For over a year, I’ve been really looking forward to BioShock because it looked like it would be a promising title that would be added to my favorite games list. Wow, was I right.

BioShock’s not necessarily good because of its pretty graphics or stunning sound, but because of its immersive and cohesive world. There’s something about anti-utopian storylines that sucks me in. The idea of something great gone horribly wrong is just a concept that always seems to interest me. I find myself listening to every recorded diary message I discover in Rapture to try to piece together just what happened, what’s going on, and why. The audio journals add a level of depth to the campaign that almost all games lack. They help engross you in the story, keep you wondering, keep you interested. Without them, the game would be that less interesting.

2K Games/Irrational Games did a fantastic job creating an intricate and unique game environment. Taking place in 1960, it’s a collision of the past and the future and a combination of bright art-deco design and dark, dank grunge. Imagine walking through a decaying underwater city with 50’s music that, if it were being played elsewhere, would not be creepy. Water is leaking in from an ocean that’s been beating down on the metropolis for 14 years. The music stops. It’s dark. It’s quiet. All you hear is the dripping of water and a strange clinking sound that’s become oddly familiar, a Spider Splicer. You turn around to see him clinging to the ceiling, and you give him a fistful of fire. He drops to the ground and dives for the nearest pool of water to put himself out. Consequently, you switch plasmids and electrocute the water. As he convulses, you finish the mutated human off by firing two handfuls of bees at him.

How many games offer up experiences like that? Only one that I can think of. There are so many options. When there are multiple enemies standing in the water, use the electricity plasmid to take them all out. Got a single bad guy attacking you? Freeze him, take out your wrench, and shatter him into pieces or use telekinesis to throw objects at him. If someone’s throwing ice balls at you, simply use the incinerate plasmid to melt him. Because there are so many options, the possibilities to beat different instances of the game are endless. Two people will never beat the game the same way. Not only that, but the game’s objectives don’t even require you to explore some of the locations in Rapture. These two reasons combined with the fact that there are two different endings are enough to warrant playing through BioShock multiple times. Thus, adding an extra level of value to an already incredible game. The game already has 70 different plasmids, and 2K is planning on releasing more as downloadable content.

Some argue that the game isn’t worth their money because there’s no multiplayer and no co-op play. However, I feel that adding multiplayer or co-op would damage the game’s atmosphere. Unless it was done right, simple deathmatch multiplayer or co-op would detract from BioShock’s overall feel. Believe me, the game is well worth your money even without any multiplayer.

The game isn’t really scary per se (that’s not to say the game doesn’t have its pants-defiling moments), it’s just eerie and hair-raising. There are so many creepy subtleties that I’m sure many people miss. For instance, one time I walked into a room and saw what I thought were dead people turned into statues by a mad artist (long story – you’ll have to play the game to understand what I mean). I went down to the room’s basement. When I returned, the “statues” were gone, but it was very subtle. My guess is that a lot of people don’t even notice these kinds of things, which is sad because it adds that much more to the enjoyment of the game.

Bomberman is a classic series. Originating back in 1983, the game quickly became a hit as subsequent installments to the series were released. Bomb-throwing chaos sounds like a perfect Xbox Live Arcade title, right? After playing Bomberman Live, I can thankfully respond to that question with an enthusiastic YES!

Bomberman Live is all about free-for-all bomb-chucking madness, and it couldn’t be executed by developer Backbone Entertainment any more brilliantly. The game offers no single-player campaign, although you are able to play offline with up to seven bots. The object of the game is to navigate yourself through the maze of blocks, blowing up your unfortunate opponents. The last player standing wins the game. Blowing up bricks often times reveals power-ups which may increase your bombs’ blast radius, character’s speed, and tons of other crazy shenanigans.

The game features eight different arenas to battle in ranging from the Classic arena to Lost World, which has quick sand that, if the player steps in, keeps him or her from moving. Each level has its own distinct characteristics. There are also numerous gameplay modes, such as Paint Bomb and Zombie, each requiring a different strategy. This alone adds an incredible amount of depth to the game.

Although playing against the computer A.I. offline seemed to be a difficult challenge for me (the A.I. difficulty can be altered), the real party is online. The online interface allows you to join a quick game, join via custom match, create your own match, and create a private lobby. The options don’t end there, however. You can take up to four people online on the same console to do battle!

Another aspect that adds an extra layer of depth to Bomberman Live is the ability to customize your Bomberman. Unlock different swag items to deck out your character. Mine is currently wearing a green army helmet, an astronaut face shield, and a Roman warrior’s armor. This allows you to distinguish your character quickly when you’re in the heat of battle.

Whether you believe it or not, Bomberman Live actually takes some strategy. You have to learn how to utilize the various power-ups you’ll see strewn across the battlefield and how to avoid the enemy’s bombs. With up to eight players laying bombs all over the place, things can get extremely hectic. Players are able to customize the game right down to the different power-ups that appear in the arena and even save their settings.

You know when you get some really good ice cream, but it just feels like it’s missing something, like hot fudge or maybe cookie dough? That’s DiRT. It almost has everything, but it’s just lacking a few components. And although it doesn’t taste quite as good as ice cream, DiRT will be sure to please your gaming palette, nevertheless. You probably played the demo, and if you’re still on the fence about the game, hopefully this review will help you decide, for better or worse.

The first thing you’ll notice when you boot up DiRT is the impressive Windows Vista-inspired menu system. It’s absolutely one of the most spectacular user interfaces I have ever seen in a videogame. However, the eye-catching visuals don’t stop there.

DiRT is, hands down, one of the prettiest-looking racing games to ever grace the Xbox 360. Ranging from the lush, photorealistic environments and gorgeous lighting to the beautiful vehicle and damage modeling, DiRT is rather keen on detail. Nick something with the corner of your bumper while going 70 mph and it will be smashed in, go off a jump too fast and your exhaust pipe may take its toll, or if you’re like me, crash into a wall going 90 and see your car nearly explode, suffering terminal damage. The damage system isn’t just limited to the vehicles though. The environment is also somewhat destructible, such as the tires lining race tracks, the dent-able metal barriers, and the foliage flanking the roads which I’ve come to know so well. The only real problem in the visuals department is the framerate, which usually deteriorates when multiple cars are on screen at any given time.

Once you get over the stunning graphics, you might actually start racing, in which case you’ll notice how awesome the gameplay is. DiRT mixes the styles of sim and arcade racers with astonishing success. It appeals to both the hardcore racer and casual racer with numerous difficulties and fantastic depth.

The game is composed of six different race modes: Rally, Rallycross, Crossover, Rally Raid, Hill Climb and CORR. These are spread across the career mode pyramid, getting more and more difficult at each tier. Most of the races are based on time trials. To win, you have to get the fastest time on the track. As you crank up the difficulty, each and every turn becomes even more crucial as your competitors’ times start to sneak up on you. That’s why making the perfect drift around a hairpin turn feels amazing, and it’s that feeling you achieve so many times in this game (or it’s just the feeling from your controller rumbling as you smash into a wall, one of the two).

DiRT throws in another sim feature in the form of an in-depth tuning system which allows gearheads to tweak just about every aspect of his or her car. This can really give a driver the much-needed edge in a race, especially if they tune their car in accordance with the race’s environment. Game narrator Travis Pastrana offers up an explanation for each tuning category incase you’re a little clueless.

Alas, DiRT doesn’t go without its flaws. Most noteworthy, of course, is the lack of true multiplayer, both offline and on. True, the game does feature 100 players online, but it’s only time trial-based. There’s no option to have multiple cars on the track at once, which is a major letdown. Thankfully, Codemasters, the studio behind DiRT, confirmed that this would be different in DiRT 2. It’s also unfortunate that the game offers no split-screen or local multiplayer.

Another issue with DiRT is the game’s physics system. Yes, it actually feels like you’re driving on dirt, mud, tarmac, or whatever you happen to be racing on, but at times, the handling feels a little “floaty.” Furthermore, the game sadly stays true to its Colin McRae roots with the central-pivot point still being used for turning. This is also a huge drawback. Hopefully, both of these issues are addressed in the game’s already announced sequel.

One thing that troubled me was the lack of a weather system. There was no rain, snow, sleet, fog, etc. (yet you can race on wet tracks?). My fingers are crossed that we see a dynamic weather system in the next installment similar to what we can expect in Project Gotham Racing 4.

Last, and probably least, is the annoying dialogue. Sure, it’s a racing game, and it features very little of it, but whoever wrote the dialogue for this game should perhaps reconsider their job. Whether it’s the “Yeah! You’re a winner!” or the “Enjoy that champagne! Mmm…all that champagne,” just about every line of dialogue is corny. I don’t know if Travis Pastrana is on too much pain medication or he just invented the cure for cancer, but either way, he sounds overly excited about something.

Mass Effect is caught in what’s more or less of a love-hate relationship. Kind of like a cute, fuzzy dog that drags its cute, fuzzy ass all over your new carpet. One moment, you’re cherishing the game’s brilliant dialog–and ultimately, its illustrious storyline—and another moment, you’re punching your own face as you try to fight through the painfully-low frame rates and the ubiquitous texture pop-ins. God, I love this game.

The game begins with the creation of your character, giving you the option of playing as male or female. Additionally, you will select your background and character class, both of which impact your experience throughout the game considerably. If creating as fugly a hero as possible isn’t your thing (or if you’re just lazy like me), you can use BioWare’s playboy Commander Shepard model.

One major gripe I have about Mass Effect is its utter-crap tutorials, or lack thereof. I literally didn’t find out how to change from my sidearm to my assault rifle or shotgun until after I completed the first mission. Yes, I went through the entire level using only a pistol, all the while asking myself when I would get to use my “real guns.” You know, the ones strapped to my freakin’ back! Not only that, but I didn’t figure out how to use my powers until, well, never mind.

Mass Effect’s combat is a bit like a crappy sitcom. It sucks. The combat is none-too-slow becoming repetitive and, at times, tedious. The game feels like a confused child, trying to decide if it’s a straight-up RPG or a third-person shooter. Also, the game’s horrendous frame rates can sometimes make combat feel like you’re watching a slideshow. After an hour of circling and trying to kill a Thresher Maw, which is pretty much a Tremor on steroids, you’ll quickly learn that vehicle combat is almost as painful as removing one’s own wisdom teeth.

The action is bland and uninspired, and your squad AI can’t tell the difference between shooting the enemy and shooting themselves (okay, so they don’t actually shoot themselves, but you get the point). There is a system in place that allows you to issue out commands to your squad members, but it just feels like it was something thrown in to make the feature list look longer. You can’t assign individual commands, and the only commands you can issue are simply to find cover or to move. Thankfully, the enemy AI is equally idiotic, so things balance out in the end.

You’re right. This is an RPG, not a tactical shooter, or any type of shooter for that matter. The game should focus more on the story, character progression and environment (no, not the one that you throw your empty pop cans at), and, for the most part, it does. Mass Effect’s storyline is simply fantastic, and the dialog plays the most prominent role in this. Each scenario can be played out differently, giving the player different results every time they play through. It also creates a series of interwoven sub-climaxes spread throughout the game, presenting players with impossible choices. Unfortunately, it seems that the choices made in these scenarios often times have no long-term impact on the game. There are no alternative storylines or even alternative endings.

The character voiceovers and animations are so compelling that one might actually not skip over all the dialog sequences. Sadly, the quests that many of these characters are going to send you on are usually very linear. Even more straightforward than some of these quests are the actual storyline missions. Once you visit a planet, there’s one path and one path only to follow, and this path will take you straight to your objective. This leaves much to be desired for actual exploration, which is something that many, if not all, RPG’s try to focus on. Of course, there is an entire galaxy to explore, but there isn’t much substance behind that veil of sheer massiveness, just flavorless, unimaginative and downright boring environments. The different planets follow the same general design principles: barren wasteland of craggy rocks, barren wasteland of craggy rocks with snow or barren wasteland. When the designers were really feeling inspired, they threw in some mountains as well. To be honest, the only location that is truly awe-inspiring is the Citadel.

While the environments may not be entirely compelling, the characters are. Not just because of the aforementioned dialog, but because of the level of detail put into each character and his or her actions. Alien races are original yet classic at the same time, making you feel like you’re playing a Star Trek game, except actually having fun. Conversations are lip-synced with unbelievable precision and dialog scenes make great use of the camera; this creates very immersive, user-defined cut scenes.

Mass Effect does not, of course, go without its technical glitches. Not only are there the atrocious frame rates, but loading times can be arduously long and texture pop-ins run rampant.  All of these issues combine to detract from what truly is a top-notch narrative, and I can’t help but think that if BioWare had waited to ship the game a bit longer, it could have ended up in a much more polished state.

Bold - Questions (Evan Volmering)

Normal - Answers (Doug Zartman)

Explain your role at Wideload.

I'm a designer, which covers a lot of different roles. In the early stages of a game's development, pre-production, I come up with ideas for game levels, for different game types and rules, and ideas for characters. Later in the process, I'll work with artists to build a level in 3D, then place characters in it, write scripts to control them, and test the gameplay. I also help out with writing stories and dialogue, and editing text for packaging, ads, and other writing tasks.

How long have you been with this company?

I joined up in June of 2004, when we were in pre-production on Stubbs.

What has been your favorite aspect of working for them?

This is by far the leanest, most versatile, most unified organization I've worked for. Nearly every person who works here is a gamer (you'd be surprised how rare that can be at game companies) and there is an incredibly creative, playful atmosphere here, as well as a strong feeling of common purpose.

What is/was your least?

Our office is in a converted turn-of-the-century warehouse in downtown Chicago, and there’s a massive, ancient steel door in the brick wall near my desk. It never opens, but sometimes strange odors and noises emanate from it. I figure the other side is either the bathroom of one of our neighboring offices, or perhaps it's a portal to Hell. It isn’t easy concentrating with that looming over me, but I manage.

Where exactly did the idea of "Stubbs the Zombie: Rebel Without a Pulse" come from?

Making original, new types of games is a big part of Wideload’s identity and mission. The guys were looking for genres that needed a kick in the pants, and survival horror seemed a good candidate. The reason no one had made a game where you play the zombie is the obvious zombie limitations of slow movement, no weapons and no dialogue. If we could solve those problems, we would have something really new to offer gamers, at once familiar and novel. So that’s what we did.

I read in an older interview that Wideload has considered doing a sequel. Has a decision been made? If so, can you give some details? (If you can't, that's perfectly understandable)

It isn't time to announce anything, but it's safe to say we've done some planning for where to go next with Stubbs. But first there will be news about other titles.

Were you surprised by how well the game did in sales?

Why yes, I was. I think game buyers realized how much hardcore cred they get from owning a copy of Stubbs the Zombie, though I guess there are still a few who haven’t picked up a copy yet (you know who you are!)

How much of Halo/Halo 2 influenced the making of "Stubbs the Zombie?"

In terms of technology, a great deal, since Stubbs was built with the original Halo engine. The Halo lineage is most apparent in things like the vehicle physics and the excellent AI. Thanks to that AI, fights can play out in many different ways and encounters like the police station or the cornfields around the farm gain a lot of replay value. In terms of the content of Stubbs, there was less influence, obviously, though there are a couple of winks in the game to our pals and former co-workers at Bungie, like the character "Chief Masters."

Do you have any titles currently in development?

We have a few different titles in development. It won't be too long before we'll be able to announce a couple of them - I expect people will be surprised and intrigued.

What next-generation console will you be working for? Have any exclusive deals been made?

No exclusives as yet - our general preference is to have the widest possible audience, so we're interested in all platforms: next-gen, PC, handhelds, etc.

What's your opinion of the next-generation consoles overall? Do you favor any?

I think Microsoft has done a great job with Xbox Live, as a vehicle not only for multiplayer gaming, but as an easy way to get demos, low-cost arcade games and other content.

Last but not least, would you give some advice for someone thinking about a job in the game industry?

I’ll start with a bit of practical advice - experienced programmers can take a look at the Jobs page at http://www.wideload.com. Otherwise, an easily-accessible way to build experience in game design is to make a mod for a popular game, and get it out there so people can play it. That will add a lot to a resume. Beyond that, learn to write, learn to draw, learn to program. There’s an artist at Wideload who had no experience with computers when he got into the industry, but he sure could draw – that was enough.

Thanks so much for doing this interview!