I know how you feel.  I haven't been gaming as much this past year, a lot of things in life haven't been going well for me at all--and I really know what it's like to need insurance and not have it.

And plus, I know what it's like to be absent from here for a while.  My last blog post was from November, and logging on just a few minutes ago my inbox had 365 messages in it.  So trust me, you're not alone on (m)any of those points.

I don't think it's gay at all.  I find the series to be refreshingly gender-neutral in its presentation, and I think the "girly" (or maybe even "gay") reputation it's earned over the years has been more than a little unfair.  Home decoration has been a part of every Animal Crossing game, and having the option of customizing your appearance more with clothing is, I think, very refreshing to the gameplay (well, for as much as these games really have, anyway).  I'd hate to be playing what's really the fifth generation of the game and still have my clothing limited to a shirt and some pre-rendered shorts and sneakers.

Also, I got quite a kick out of the cross-dressing aspect.  While visiting a friend's town I visited her clothing store and considered buying her a skirt that was on display.  When I clicked to see the price, I saw it gave me the option of putting it on.  So I did.  But I enjoyed just as much Sable's somewhat bemused reaction to asking to try on a skirt--kind of surprised and describing it (to a male avatar) as "feeling adventurous," but also kind of like, "Hey, if you want..."  The game certainly has many humorous bits worked into the script, and I think it suits that particular situation quite well.

Her music is pretty bad...but man, Carly Rae Jepsen is easy on the eyes.

First Rule of Hideo Kojima: never believe a Kojima product exists until you're actually holding/playing it.

Actually, I think that's the only rule.  But it's a good one.

I got my arm cut open a few weeks ago!  There's a picture of my awesome scar on my most recent (or second-most recent) blog post.  Other than that...sadly not much with me.

Are you back on here for a while, or should we expect some more radio silence soon?

It is.  The discussion is something new, something "foreign," and there is a fear of that and a resistance towards it.  Therefore...

There's a difference between setting out to do something with realistic expectations and declining to do something - either from apathy or resistance - because failure is the perceived outcome.  I'll concede that, from an industry standpoint, marketing action games to females may be more difficult.  But that doesn't mean those audiences don't exist; surely you've heard of communities of female gamers who enjoy playing shooters or other action-oriented games.  I assure you, they're out there.  Just as well, one of the neat things (maybe the only aspect I like) about marketing is selling something to someone that they didn't know they wanted in the first place.  This is what drives innovation (and capitalism itself) in the first place--Henry Ford said if he'd asked people what they wanted, they would've said "faster horses."

But the industry is showing that wear as well, and a number of women who work in games have come forward with their stories of how it's still a predominately male business.  I tip my hat to Gabrielle Toledano, an executive for EA, who wrote this piece for Forbes saying that the biz (along with STEM fields on the whole) needs more women.  But just as well, it needs to be addressed that too much of the industry is still dictated by a "men only" culture, which certainly needs to change.  For years we've heard complaints about the booth babes at E3, and it really says something that not only has that not changed (at least not by much), but that these outcries come from both men and women.

I don't know if blaming the lacks of foresight, creativity, and/or innovation from the games industry on just cultural mores alone.  Yes, any system such as this is inevitably bound and as guilty as the larger society as a whole.  But we've been living in changing times, not just from the past five years, but for decades; and I don't think giving a free pass to any enterprise "just because" is exactly right either.  In the case of the games biz (and even to a number of gaming journalists and news outlets), there's some blame on them for failing to realize that, no, games aren't just for males aged 13-25.

For that reason, I can't exactly excuse them whenever attempts at putting in a female character come off as insincere, awkward, or both.  Just because there is a female present, in any capacity, doesn't mean that's "good enough" or that she's somehow a realistic or even appropriate depiction by any measure.  You can look through decades of popular media and find problematic portrayals of whatever group, really, including token characters--and NOBODY in this discussion wants to see any of those.

Saying that any criticisms are invalid because "games are art" ducks into a very contentious gray area; I think most would agree that they are art, but they're still bound by their conventions as an interactive media, as well as the executive/marketing meddling which may befall them.  Like films, there's also that angle of, while art, is it actually sincere in its presentation?  Apocalypse Now and Air Bud IX: Not What I Had In Mind When I Went to Film School sure were products of their respective creators, yet by no means did they set out to accomplish any similar goal other than being pieces of film.  Likewise, just because something is bold doesn't mean it has a larger, deeper meaning to it.  Suda 51 makes some pretty outrageous games (I am indeed a fan of No More Heroes) and no doubt are they sincere reflections of his vision(s), but I don't think anyone could try affixing some pretentious themes or messages to them (least of all he himself).  The film Hollywood Boulevard described that best: "This is not a film about the human condition, this is a film about tits and ass!"

What lies at the heart of your post is the same xenophobia that's persisted throughout this entire discussion.  It needs to end, not for the sake of saying any party is right, but because it's completely unnecessary.  There are some changes, yes, if only in what we're talking about and how we discuss them.  Yet writing these kinds of posts doesn't make you or anyone similar a vanguard, the last line of defense against the marauding armies of "feminists" you so demonized who are coming to certainly destroy your way of life.  I assure you, there is no battle, such invaders exist only in your mind, and you have very few allies from the start.  So please: lay down your arms and open your mind.

Oh wow.  It's like I just entered straw man (or maybe straw woman) country.

Myth 1: I've never heard, seen, or read anything stating that says, in any terms, that men and women play games on an equal basis; what I have read is that females comprise more of the gamer market than many previously thought or still believe.  Those figures, from what I recall, also indicate that there is indeed a divide in the genres of games either sex predominately or typically play.  However, that alone doesn't justify any of the culture's "NO GIRLS ALLOWED" stance in many, many situations, either in-person or online.  Anecdotal tales of harassment online, look up the story of Capcom's Cross Assault; gender roles aside, I think that's pretty damning proof of why some women might be turned off to certain genres.  If a certain group of people is discouraged from participating in an activity, they'll be less likely to take part in it.

Myth 2: You hit a bit of a fallacy yourself.  For one, the games you listed all came out within the past five years--not exactly a wide swath of games history (although to your credit, I'd put Sheva from RE5 on equal footing with Jill from RE).  Secondly, just because a female protagonist is strong or "feisty" doesn't invalidate the fact that she may possibly be a sex symbol, an object; Tomb Raider pretty much defined that, and to my understanding even the most recent installment didn't fully grow out of it.  Lastly, you're insisting there are "too many" strong female protagonists; not only is this a wholly subjective claim, you're saying this in reference to characters of action games.  Asking for "kinder and gentler" in that genre is like expecting a Michael Bay film to ease up on the explosions.

Myth 3: Having previously addressed the market share misconception, I wish I could say that the economics of this point are the most troubling part.  But they aren't.  By saying that something - in this case, an opportunity for something a bit more equal, even just a bit more new for the status quo - doesn't exist, therefor it shouldn't exist, speaks less of sexism in gaming and more about sexism in the whole society.  You do realize that same rationale discourages people from following their dreams, because it's used to keep those certain people out, right?  It's the same reasoning why certain career fields are so terribly male-dominated, and guess what: it's not quite working to anyone's benefit.  Wouldn't you know it, STEM happens to be one of them, and that's just one part of this bigger discussion.

And really, how can you comfortably call yourself a gamer with that kind of resistance to change?  Is a game somehow inferior if it stars a female protagonist?  Do sales figures of titles like Beyond Good & Evil really speak to their respective qualities?  I admit that I'll end up playing as a male in any choice-based game such as Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing, but I assure you that they're the same game regardless.  But even without that choice, looking at a game with a female protagonist and judging it based on that is a great disservice to its creators and to the hobby itself.

Myth 4: I've never heard anyone - not even Sarkeesian herself - say that tropes are "evil."  I've only seen the first episode of her series, but even that was more informative than anything, least of all condemning of any particular audience.  Tropes just are.  But they really suck when they portray a certain group of people (especially your own) in a less-than-glamorous light.  You opened this whole entry with something that clearly criticizes stereotypes affixed to gamers, so why the double standard?  (he asked rhetorically)

This whole discussion needs to take place, even if it's not self-evident and especially if it makes some of us uncomfortable.  Has it been a topic abused by outlets too eager to cash in on its controversy?  Yes.  But these kinds of responses aren't just delaying the inevitable, they're back-tracking on larger issues that need to be addressed in our culture.  Judging from this, the only reason you feel you're being put on a guilt trip is because you've got a reason to feel guilty.  Look: no matter who writes, says, or thinks whatever, games will always be games, and boys and girls of all ages will want to play them.  But saying females in games and playing them has to be handled "with realistic expectations" isn't building a bridge--it's putting up a wall.

As far as hardware and many of the features are concerned, it's like I said: a natural progression.  I don't think any of the Big Three are exactly competing with the PC gaming market at this point as much as they're competing with one another, plus Apple and the smartphone market.  The Steam Box might change things up, but we'll have to wait and see.  That being said, the fact that the hardware specs of the systems are quite close to many gaming computers is, I think, more of a coincidence than anything else; I don't really see the PS4 or the XBox One trying to put Alienware or whoever out of business.  Instead, these systems just so happen to have really high-end, somewhat-PC-but-not-really builds.  Cloud-based services and always online functioning are also what I'd consider part of that natural progression.

As for the XBox One attempting to do other things aside from gaming--well, Sony's just as "guilty," really.  It's surely never downplayed the other capabilities of its hardware, from playing music to watching movies; if I'm not mistaken, the PS3 was the best thing to own if you wanted a Blu-Ray player, because it did some other stuff too (like play games!) which made it pretty much the best dollar-to-feature appliance out there in that respect.  Using a game console to update Twitter, browse Facebook, watch TV, etc., isn't my idea of necessary or even really useful, but it's nothing that should make the gaming audience think consoles themselves are on the decline.  So jokes about the XBox One reveal event aside, it's a no-brainer it'll actually get games.  Now, what kinds of games and for what types of gamers they might try getting down the line, we'll just have to wait and see.

I hadn't considered the Apple TV angle, but I'd say that you're on to something with that.

I can think of countless other ways the internet is a horrible place for gamers (and for just about anyone viewing it); I'll mention some of those ways eventually, but you're probably just as familiar with them as well!

Anonymous sources are, I suppose, one of those double-edged swords of journalism.  They're great for grabbing readers' attention and journalists themselves rarely want to turn down getting the scoop, especially if the stories of said sources hold up.  But if it's just rumor or speculation (or worse, an outright fabrication), the audience gets frustrated and at least one person may be out of a job.  It's dicey, for sure.

Thanks for the read!  Keep writing and maybe you'll have a future doing that sort of thing. :)

I liked the 3DS version!  It was like the original...but portable!  Some of the added content, like the Master Quest, is pretty cool too.

I think Phantom Hourglass does alright as a game you can play in bits.  The dungeons are a decent size, and there's even a feature (a character, actually) that reminds you where you're supposed to go if you've put the game down for too long.  That's one of the things that makes the game feel like a Zelda "primer."

Happy (quite) belated birthday!

I have a 3DS and like it a lot.  I need to buy some more games for it, but I've got a nice collection of DS titles, plus a few I've purchased in the eShop.  It's a keen little system, isn't it?

Also, I've got my Friend Code on my page if you're interested.

I don't think these sorts of changes are necessarily bad.  Being able to download software to the console, getting unique - hitherto PC-only - kinds of games to these devices is actually pretty great (even if some offerings are better than others).  Always-online may not be smart to implement just yet, but that - and some other features - are really a natural progression of technology.

I think what should concern gamers more is how our gaming devices are marketed and for what purposes.  From what I've gathered about the XBox One reveal, much emphasis was placed on things that the system could do, but ironically gaming wasn't really one of them.  Facebook compatibility, tracking software usage, being able to buy a dang pizza from your couch--see, those are great things if you're an outside investor.  Why?  Because in that case you're paying for the potential to move more kinds products than ever before imaginable.  At that point, the hardware in question ceases to be just a gaming device; it's a whole new creature, fed and groomed in part by marketing and advertising people.

Is it going to sell well?  I don't see why it wouldn't; after all, it'll still be the best damn FPS console on the market, if only because Microsoft has that audience buy-in.  Ask the kinds of guys who switch off between Halo and Call of Duty and see if (or why) they wouldn't buy the new machine with "XBox" in the name.  It's an assured brand loyalty to an assured demographic.  And with that sort of immediate attention, it gives Microsoft, its shareholders, and outside investors some ability to think of other ways to utilize that hardware--even if it fails to interest those looking to play games.

For various reasons the PC gaming market has declined over the past ten years, but in part it's been for the "consistency" of console tech.  Generations can last a while, giving developers lots of time to really get to know the wholly proprietary hardware, which is often time comparable (or good enough) to PC specs.  Certain genres of games (especially shooters) have since found a new, more stable and readily-available home on consoles.  Piracy isn't nearly as big a problem for the consoles as it is on PCs, and DRM is usually built in to the console OS itself, saving developers and publishers lots of time and money.

With all of the bells and whistles and extra junk demonstrated to the audiences at E3 or elsewhere, I don't think it's exactly accurate to say that the consoles are on a path to being more like PCs, and to say that consoles are entering a sort of dark age is a little too "doom and gloom."  My conjectures aside, a sincere thanks for the good read!

Ah, don't worry about the language.  I'm the last one to be casting judgement on that kind of thing (in person, I tend to have a pretty foul mouth myself), and I'm not nearly so puritan.

I think it was on an episode of the Giant Bombcast not so long ago that they mentioned how the 360 and Call of Duty are almost intrinsically linked: apparently most, if not all, of the ads for the games feature gameplay footage from the 360 version, and it's become the de facto home for the franchise.  Microsoft has that consumer base pretty locked down for that series and for a lot of those kinds of games and gamers.  It's cross-platform, but the 360 is its real "home," and the fact that a new CoD was announced at the reveal demonstrates that further.  By comparison, look at Metal Gear Solid or Final Fantasy; those games have seen releases on the 360 as well, but they're linked - I'd even call it a natural "fit" - on the Playstation.

I may not agree with the sailor mouth, but at least your posts are to-the-point. :)

I've never had any version of XBox, mostly because their offerings weren't ample enough to justify paying for the systems or the online services, so I'm a bit out of the loop on their policies in general.  However, I'm vaguely aware that Microsoft hasn't exactly been friendly with indie teams for the 360.

I think looking at their strategies for the systems - how and to whom they market them - it may be disappointing, but it's hardly shocking.  Heck, the reveal presentation showed off only one game, and unsurprisingly it was a Call of Duty (BUT THIS ONE HAS DOGGIES).  The CoD and Halo series, perhaps along with annualized sport franchises, are the bread-and-butter of these consoles, and it's where Microsoft focuses their attention with the system.  It sucks to be an indie developer or even an indie fan with that system, and surely it's Microsoft's loss for not investing more into that market, but for whatever it's worth, at least those games are able to find markets on other platforms.

And maybe you're being too hard on the XBox One.  As a gamer, I think one of the most difficult parts of the hobby is that I can't watch TV.

I'm debating picking that up after finishing Phantom Hourglass.  I'd really love to play it as well, but the thing about Zelda games, I feel, is that you have to take a break in between them, or else you'll end up sick of them.

I gave Spirit Tracks about the same treatment I gave Phantom Hourglass: I played it for a bit and then shelved it for later.  But I do remember enjoying at least some parts of it over Hourglass.  If I'm not mistaken, weren't the stylus controls for Link tweaked a bit?

Plus, trains!

It's still pretty swollen, but it thankfully doesn't hurt that much.  I also forgot to mention in the post that the arm was numbed for an entire day; they had to put in a nerve block for the operation.  I couldn't move it on its own, and only then did I realize that my arm is really heavy.  And I'm not muscular, so I don't really have an excuse for that fact. .___.

While I'm not usually a fan of Kotaku, they are known to run the occasionally good article.  Ben Kuchera from Penny Arcade Report linked to this, another entry into the "holy crap games are scary and make people violent" category which is unfortunately never not scary to some folks.

Oh, and I'll proudly admit to being a pro-gun American (as in, I like shooting them and would like to have one or more) who completely hates the NRA and all of their agitprop and shenanigans.

I've read a few other blogs and articles about being "zombied out," so I know I'm not alone.  But for one, zombies sell.  For two, people like us are kind of in a minority, a pretty non-vocal one at that.

DayZ looked pretty interesting, but I'm actually more drawn to its source material, Arma II.  I'd love to get that, but I don't think that my computer could handle it.  Not to mention that by the time I'd get a "dream computer" which totally could run it, Arma III will have had come out anyway.

Maybe they're on the decline nowadays, I'm not really sure.  I've tuned out zombiemania for the most part, so anytime they get mentioned I automatically put up a kind of mental "not giving a damn" block.

I hate them as a cultural fixation.  They're overused, overdone, played-out.  I hate any media in which the creators/director(s) said, "Y'know what this doesn't have?  Zombies."  If it wasn't there to begin with, it's probably for a reason.

But having said that, I don't think they're bad by design.  I enjoy certain zombie-centric things; even if Left 4 Dead has me mowing down hordes of the undead, it's still a pretty great game.  I flipped through parts of The Zombie Survival Guide and thought it's pretty cool, and it reminds me a lot of The Anarchist's Cookbook (DISCLAIMER: I no longer have that book, I'm not crazy, and I never had any plans on utilizing its instructions).  Even the CDC and some colleges have used zombies as a teaching method for pathology and medicine, and I think FEMA has used them for disaster preparedness drills and exercises.  Surely they can be used to make points about very real social issues like in George Romero's films.  But there are fewer "good" pieces than there are standard, trite, run-of-the-mill things, so even something trying to perhaps state a deeper meaning becomes "just another zombie book/movie/game/etc."

Heh.  That video series has some pretty good moments.  Glad you enjoyed the Troll 2 clip; I couldn't not put it in for that part.

Just because x happens and it's bad/wrong/questionable/annoying/etc., doesn't necessarily y is or should be exempt.  Personally, I've enjoyed the superhero films I've seen (Nolan's Batman trilogy, The Avengers and its tie-in movies), but superheroes haven't quite hit that status of cultural meme that zombies have.  Superman may be all-powerful, Batman may be craftier than all, but both are bound to the superhero universe's greatest limitation: COPYRIGHT!  (At this point, check out the "Figure Not Included" episode of Dexter's Laboratory, or at least just the ending.)

80s/90s nostalgia is extreeeeeeeeeeeeemely grating to me.  There's nothing at all wrong with nostalgia, but it's worn like a damn badge by way too many people.  It's not a special club, and "keeping it real" by caring about ONLY the original 151 Pokemon or because you watched 90s Nickelodeon doesn't make anyone special.  It's crossed the line from "remembering that cool thing from childhood" to banality.

Respond whenever or however much you like!  I'm not going anywhere.

Even though I haven't read the book, I've been told it was quite good.  The Wiki article (forgive me for my weakness) brings up its potential allegorical references to real world problems, as well as its basic synopsis (I read the elevator pitch).  So, the second of those is more egregious, but hearing that a book is good isn't necessarily my opinion.

Having not read the book, I'm even more limited in how to judge what little has been released about the film.  But I've read previously that the it appears to be straying too much from the book, at least to some fans.  Watching the trailer, it also looks like that may be the case as well, not to mention the fact that they've done some pretty extensive reworking of the finished product--re-shooting an ending ain't exactly cheap, and that's not all they've had to patch up.

I don't know how it's going to end up, if it'll be good or bad.  But so far it looks like Big-Budget Zombie Film 2013.  Nothing we haven't seen before.  It's more zombies; and if it screws up in that adaptation (which apparently is a hard task for Hollywood to carry out) by remaking what other films have already done, then I suppose it proves that part of my point.

"The basic vibe I get from Nintendo is that of minimilistic maximization, and when it works, it works."

Pretty much.  A lot of people have claimed that Nintendo doesn't think outside of the box nearly as much as they really should, or at least where it matters most.  Motion-based consoles and 3D-enabled handhelds aren't necessarily poor ideas, and they surely ended up working out for them in the end.  But their biggest problem may be playing it too safe with the software which moves that hardware off the shelves.  Mario and Zelda are sure winners, but Nintendo has been sitting on a rich, unique treasure of franchises and ideas that only they have.  They're finally releasing Earthbound over here for the first time in about 20 years, and I think that's a step in the right direction; hopefully after this they can learn to stop playing with their cards so close to their chest.