At the very end of the contest, I've finally decided to make my first blog post.

 Feel free to retaliate with counter opinions, or your own "ten unpopular ideas". I'm always up for a good debate, and though I come off as rather acidic and stuck in my ways, I tend to be flexible.

1. Here's the thing: I love console RPGs, I love Dungeons and Dragons, so it's long been a curious thing that I can't stand most console RPGs that are basically... Dungeons and Dragons. It occurred to me recently while I was playing, of all things, 'Mass Effect'- a tight little game, all said and done except for one important thing:

I couldn't give a crap about it.

Space and politics and aliens and guns and all those other nerdy, delicious things that I usually eat up but my God, half the time it made me want to throw a controller at the screen because I hated the main character.

"Why Miss Jennifer!” you ask, “- how could you possibly hate the main character of 'Mass Effect'! The main character was.... you! You could make it a *GIRL* and everything!"

- except not. I'm certain this springs out of the same well of inspiration the Silent Hero of the JRPGs of old did, only the difference is in the majority of JRPGs, the NPCs didn't make it their prerogative to kiss ass to the main character unless he'd earned it. I could infer that Tir of Suikoden was a rich, spoiled brat based on how the other characters in my party reacted to him. The point isn't whether or not this inference was correct, but that it existed in the first place. All I know about my craggy, red-headed bad ass in 'Mass Effect' is that everyone thinks he's really cool and awesome and special and heroic and I can play him as a huge dick face and no one's opinion really changes because I'm a dickface who always says exactly the right thing in a suitably bad-ass Hollywood Hero voice over. Because that dickface is me and I'm supposed to feel AWESOME for having played the game.

It's narcissistic and unnecessary. What does an RPG have to lose from having a main character with a personality? One step back, what does it have to lose from having a main character where personality can be inferred, but the player isn't constantly reminded that their avatar is assuredly the center of the plot. That's the kind of thing that should emerge naturally in the text. Y'know, with good writing and stuff.

I'm not just complaining aimlessly here, though. Let me cite some useful, semi-modern examples: Gordon Freeman, a silent protagonist everyone loves. Planescape: Torment, a game where the main character has a definitive personality without sacrificing player-choice behind his motivations. Really, it's a work of art. And it's not hard to do.

2. Fantasy RPGs should NOT be a dying breed. Obviously, I feel strongly about this as I am a fan of fantasy and RPGs both. I admit that it's an overdone avenue of gaming, but I also resent the implication that this stagnation rests solely on the shoulders of JRPGs. The MMO mold of current Western RPGs is just as cancerous to the genre as the tired Final Fantasy/Dragon Quest model. There needs to be a fine balance between an intricate, character driven plot and a free-roaming world. As far as fantasy RPGs go, Western designers seem to assume these two factors mutually exclusive.

3. The industry's desperate need to appear "GRITTY AND REALISTIC.... JUST LIKE A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE" is pathetic and damaging. Okay, so games are beginning to pull away from their traditional cliches... only to fall right into Hollywood's favorite set of archetypes. These cliches are older, stiffer, more predictable and defeat the purpose of video games as a media to tell stories in new and innovative ways. A story doesn't need to be "REAL SERIOUS" to be meaningful. The majority of Western console games exhibit more style than substance.

4. Sports games need to be released less frequently. Not that I expect to be able to do anything about that.

5. Online play is good and all, but it should never under any circumstances have been deemed a *necessary* component of Console video gaming. A useful component, yes, and a fun one, okay, but if I read one more review that says something like: "This game is incredible! But I had to ding a few points off for the lack of online play." I'm going to... well, I'm going to finish reading the review and probably go about my day relatively un-phased, possibly forgetting the offending words moments later. But my point is: if the game is made with online play in mind, or if online play is an organic part of the experience then, yes! That's awesome! But the pressure developers feel these days to tack on half-assed online play to an otherwise sparkling gem of a game is just ridiculous.

6. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a linear game.

Are we all still here? Take a deep breath and say it again:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. WRONG WITH A LINEAR GAME.

Yes, we as aspiring video game writers should respect and strive to exploit the fact that games are pretty much the only form of storytelling where "choose your own adventure" is actually a *good* idea, but there is still value in A to Z storytelling. It's entirely possible to make tell a meaningful story with near-infinite narrative paths, however for the most part non-linearity dilutes the story if only because game writers seem obsessed with free-will over delivering an emotional punch. Slow down, you're only trying to tell one story at a time here, and if you aren't? Well, that's a problem in and of itself.

I'd be sad to see non-linear games die. A non-linear game can deliver a pure experience in the way other games can't. If you're doing your job correctly as a writer, the coveted replay value comes *from* the purity of that experience. Start there, work your way out.

(My little pipe dream in game writing is this: to have my cake and eat it too. I would love to write games that, upon the first play through, offer you very few world or plot-effecting choice, thus delivering you the "canon" story and ending. But upon a second playthrough? You're suddenly offered the chance to mess things up as much as you possibly can- hey, what if you kill that NPC who bails you out of jail later in the game? What happens if you make a pact with this villain? Hey, since you KNOW this is a trap, what happens if you don't walk into it and just randomly sail to the other side of the world instead? Any possible outcome, disastrous of life saving, you could not only theorize what "might have happened", but play it as well).

7. I honestly believe that a good 85% of the gamers who claim to hate Final Fantasy go home at night and lock themselves in a dark room with some cocoa, a box of Kleenex and their old SNES copy of FFVI (sorry, I mean *III*). The pain of denying their nostalgia, of denying their roots is just too much!

I'm exaggerating, but what I mean is this: you don't have to dump all over the older games to make yourself look progressive. Yes, they're formulaic in, oh, the same way Gandalf the Grey is a *stereotypical wizard*. Shitting all over the games that laid the groundwork for the things you currently love just makes you look like an idiot who can't look back and appreciate how far we've come.

8. No, giving the player the option of being female does not make games in general less sexist. Both the Japanese and American game industries are *incredibly* sexist, but American trends have always made me feel notably less welcome (perhaps on account of, uh, being from the Western world and thus being able to identify and relate to our sexist tropes with greater ease). I'm not calling for a great feminist movement here, guys. There's no need, really. Girls don't need to have different games marketed towards them. *All* you need to do is write female characters as, uh, *characters*. And maybe acknowledge once in a while that girls are, have been and always will be playing the same games the guys are.

9. Good graphics do not detract from a story, shut up old school fans.

Good graphics do not necessarily *add* to the story, smarten up new school designers.

10. Explain to me again why we appear to be actively AVOIDING marketing games towards children these days? Anything worthwhile and original is aimed at adults and older teenagers first and foremost and maybe, like, twelve year old boys third or fourth if mommy and daddy are really nice. The only exception seems to be the library of the Nintendo DS.

I'm not speaking out against adult games. Hell, I LOVE adult games. I love Survival Horror and I don't know where we'd even BE without GTA, but seriously? Hasn't anyone learned anything from the comic book industry (it's a sordid place with a lot of valuable life lessons!)?

Game writers, I ask you: why did you want to write games in the first place? Is it because you got into this new wave of "GRITTY HOLLYWOODISM" in your late college years and decided: "Hmm, gaming sure seems like the newfangled thing to do!"? Or is it because you picked up Mario or Sonic or Zelda or that ridiculously brutal Ninja Turtles game on the NES or Civilization I or that watered-down PC DUNE game that you never truly figured out the mechanics of 'til you were fifteen and by then you'd finally read the book so the whole thing was kind of weird and who the hell is that green family supposed to be? Or maybe you used to play Tetris and Pac Man at the local laundromat and they had one of those Space Invaders machines that looked like an air hockey table and when you were five years old that was the most absolute *awesome* thing in the entire world and you've been in love ever since?

Yeah, that's what I thought.