@Exia2004 Well, by "long dead", one would be led to think that PS3, Xbox360 and Wii weren't multi-million-unit sellers, and that PS4 and Xbox One aren't flying off the preorder inventories. Neither is true. So I would think consoles aren't really "long dead". As far as the Steam Machine goes: As a gamer, it is interesting to me and the curiosity makes me want to try it out. Gaming is fun, after all, and I am open to being able to play PC games on the couch with an interface that may be a good substitute to keyboard and mouse.

IMHO, characters are made to fit a story: Some are strong, independent, and some are weak, needing help. I keep wondering if the people that are complaining about inequalities in videogames are picking their subjects, such as games that are good and successful? Do these feminist gamers insist on having both playable sexes in every game, at the sacrifices of the story and the production cost? Do they still have the same complaints if the games are bad? Do they ignore games such as Mirror's Edge, Tomb Raider and Remember Me? (Should guys complain that there aren't male playable characters in those games?) I do believe sexism is an issue, everywhere in this society. But when a story/game is good, why can't we just enjoy the experience as it is?

@omar_q By gamers I believe he meant "consumers" and thus mean "people with the right to own the goods they purchased and paid for, and also the right to more affordably-priced goods." The comparison of games themselves are separate from the way business is conducted. :)

@aeon_flux1985 @tracerhank Agreed. But I think here's what I have trouble grasping: Is a good game's immersion and fun factor themselves not enough? Does it HAVE to be about the sex? (and this is hilarious as I wrote this because we men are supposed to be all about sex) Or are there not enough variety of good games out there where there ARE female leads?

For example, again, Borderlands 2, has been the only game I've been playing since its release in September, because I only have so many hour allocated to play games, and there are enough selections out there, in the limited gaming time that I have, for me to play a game that doesn't bother me. In fact, I play a Siren and a Mechromancer, whose powers are not available in male characters, but I play them anyway.

Then there's a good point you raised: The percentage of female gamers (say it's 40%%). If majority of that population plays crapware or shovelware, then that leaves even a smaller percentage of them overall that plays, for the lack of better word, "real" games. From a marketing perspective, scheduling/development/cost will likely not be favorable to the idea of catering to the smaller percentage of demographics. So from a social stand point, and I have no solutions, should girl gamers unite in some ways or others, and become the larger, more influential "real" gamers?

I don't understand some of these arguments. Well, I do, in a way, is that certain aspect of a few games are taken out of context to falsely used as evidence of back up. Some of the comments I have read seems to be a demand for there to be a playable female character in EVERY videogame out there. But that demand is simply ridiculous. Metal Gear, for example, centers around the story of Solid Snake. Yet somehow it's being used as an example that there are no playable female protagonists? I mean, is the game itself just not good enough to play? I love how Borderlands and other games that do have strong playable female characters are usually erased from existence whenever there's such an article. Games, like movies and tv shows, uses male or female leads as the plot/story directed to be so. I mean, Sex And The City would be terrible if it was about 4 men figuring out what to wear and who to marry, because male leads won't fit that story infrastructure.

As for Aliens: Colonial Marines: It's just a terribly put-together game. Gearbox spent so little time on it, and probably didn't bother to make a model for a female marine. On that note, it's their oversight, and I do think there should've been female marines. BUT having playable female characters in a lousy game... well, I don't know. The argument about Sigourney Weaver not being the lead in this game... It's about the colonial marines, not the loving mother scientist.

I do, however, encourage that female gamers vote with their pocket book. If it is ever so important to you that a game absolutely has to have a female lead, ugly or good looking, and it doesn't, then boycott it. Don't give that game developer and publisher any of your money. Send them that message.

At the end of the day, as a gamer, I just want to play a fun game, the sex of the character I control isn't on my mind at all.

@Fo_Fai As someone who hasn't played this game, your points are convincing. But so are the ones made by the reviewer. I think it's fair to say that different players will have different opinions and tastes on a game, and I will definitely keep your points in mind when trying out this game.

Most gamers with reasonable rationale will eventually buy the systems that have the games they want to play. You pick a system now, and you'll usually have some disposable income to buy another sometime later. It's a good thing. Talking yourself into owning only one system ultimately lose out to all the great games out there.

Parents that don't play videogames and don't know what that actually feels like should talk to their kids before making judgements. I also urge kids to talk to their parents about gaming; a little more disclosure will go a long way in shutting up those politicians.

@Trenchman @hadlee73 If it doesn't take advantage of Wii controller, then what's to look forward to when porting a game over? The 400k user base? Granted, it's 400k and counting. But if a marketing department of a publisher looks at the percentage of a 3rd party game on the Wii in the past, it'll see that it's not worth the development cost to only tap into the small percentage of hardcore gamers available for a system that is clearly marketed at casual gaming crowd.

To spell it out for you: BL1 was developed for the consoles based on the % of hardcore gamers on PS3 and 360 --> User base establishment --> fanbase --> BL2 developed to take advantage PC power --> port to PS3 and 360 because 1. fan base and 2. easy port, dedicated online community and similar graphic engine in chips.

Everyone knows PC has a big online community. But it's much diluted and hard to track due to PC's multi-purpose. Accessing Nintendo's online community through a console is a big question mark. I know you have faith, but marketing requires more than that.

Also, I don't mean to be a jerk, but if you're gonna discredit any of my speculated "reasons", you should state your explanation so it's constructive, and not just be because you didn't like the reasons.

I don't think hardcore gamers treated Nintendo as a gimmick brand until the publishers started releasing games that were gimmicky, which offends those of us with the capabilities to play games with more complicated coordination. But gimmicky games came from market research, and because the Wii and Wii U attracts casual gamers who often wanted the systems with reasoning other than rich gaming experience (every non-gamer I met thought they can use the Wii as a replacement to proper weight-loss exercise routine), the market creates a bad cycle.

On a side note: I know Wii sold as many units as there are guns in Borderlands. But outside of the hardcore gamer population, which I would estimate has been about the same for years, the majority of those sold units are sitting there collecting dust. People who weren't coordinated to play deep games went back to not playing games, and People who wanted to lose weight playing Wii sport went back to sitting and eating.