The Last of Us review is the latest one here on Gamespot to produce a totally unwarranted and bewildering backlash of hate against the reviewer.  Why?  He dared to call a game "Great" and give it the associated score of 8.0 and was not in line with most of the rest of the reviewer community who are gave it perfect or near perfect scores.

If you're getting getting livid over one review score being slightly below the rest you need to step back and ask yourself why.  Maybe you have too much of your self worth invested in things you want to love.  (Want to, mind you, because no one here has played it yet.)  You're also displaying signs of adolescent black and white thinking.  Any creative work isn't either a magnificent achievment or terrible.  Try to understand there are gray areas and different people have different opinions. If you think the review is "wrong" I hope for your sake you never disagree with the general opinion on anything or your head might explode.  (Also, hint: an opinion can never be wrong.  Right and wrong are reserved for facts.)

This all seems kind of obvious to me, but it never cease to amaze me the way so many people react when a review doesn't tell them what they want to hear.  if just one person meditates on this and starts to see the forest and chills out, thereby avoiding stress induced high blood pressure and stroke, my effort will have been worth it.

It is common knowledge that for a game-developing company to survive in the gaming industry, it needs various things going in its favor. It needs everything from financial backing to good titles and a decent fan following for it to work. But the sad thing is that being present in the gaming industry is far from actually being successful in it. So the question is, what apart from great minds does a company in the gaming industry need for success?

The thing that sets a game-developing company on the path to success is without a single doubt, uniqueness.

Thats the exact same reason why saying the word assassin brings to your mind Ubisoft's two most famous franchises, Assassin's Creed and to some, Prince of Persia. What comes to your mind when I say a good sandbox game? Yes indeed, the Rockstar's and Rockstar North's various creations the most prominent of which is the GTA franchise. When I talk about the simulation and racing genre, youll most probably think about Electronic Art's Sims and the Need For Speed franchise respectively. Why does the word Atari always bring back feelings of nostalgia for some? It was because for some, Atari was their childhood friend. The legacy of Atari will always remain because quite a large portion of our gaming community once believed that nothing could beat the feeling of playing on their Atari console while sipping some good hot cocoa and being all coiled up in a blanket. You know why I'm mentioning all this? It's because each of these companies have done something in the gaming industry that is still unmatchable and worth chatting over at a local diner. I'm mentioning them because they each have done something in their sphere that each and every one of us know about or have themselves witnessed.

Now lets talk about the Asian gaming industry which flourished in the 1980s and 1990s but has been deteriorating in popularity ever since.

You must be familiar with the term JPRGs which is an abbreviation for Japanese role-playing games. Quite recently, the JRPG Ni No Kuni: Wrath of The White Witch has been grabbing the attention of gamers worldwide. But like all other gaming industries, JPRG also has a history to it.

Role playing games were very popular in North America and Europe in the 1970s with titles like Dungeons and Dragons, RuneQuest and Champions. The American gaming industry was exposed to the JRPGs in the 1980s and with titles like Wizardry RPG, Blue Forest Story and Sword World RPG, the success of JRPGs in North America was inevitable. The JRPGs not only did well in North America and Europe, but also well in their own Japanese market. JRPGs continued to flourish in the 1990s but the 21st century with itself brought the end of the golden era for the JRPGs.

Hardware changed, consoles changed and so did the preference of most of the gamers. Action and adventure became the new preference. With this, the JRPGs silently got sidelined in the North American gaming industry and that continues to be the state of JRPGs even today.

The 21st century had for obvious reasons more competition in the gaming market. The centre of gravity for many Asian game developing companies changed to North America and Europe which had a wider audience. Companies that continued to have a stronghold in Asia either went bankrupt very soon like Atari or continue to this day be criticized like Nintendo. If we all think about it, all the companies in the game industry that have a stronghold in Asia have been portrayed really badly through social media. A company like Nintendo which has a legacy of its own has been shoved aside by the critics in the Sony Vs, Microsoft battle only because most of Nintendo's loyal customers continue to this day be in Asia.

Even if Nintendo brings decent hardware to the market it gets badly criticized for things like not bringing good titles to the market like Nintendo Wii U. Sony PS Vita was launched before the Nintendo Wii U and doesnt have good titles too but it hasn't been criticized as much as the Nintendo Wii U.

Facts are never wrong. We are not only seeing Asian companies go bankrupt and critics continuously criticizing companies in the gaming industry that have a stronghold in Asia but also the negativity that surrounds the Asian gaming industry is unbearable.

If we aren't to save the Asian market right now, we might as well lose everything that the Asian gaming market has to offer. I can't even think of living without playing one JRPG every month or two. I know damn too well that neither of the hotshots like EA, Ubisoft, 2K Games or Rockstar can ever create a magical world like we have seen in the JRPGs. We must act swiftly my dear friends, if we want to ever see the Asian gaming market show us its full potential.

Im not just saying this because Im an Indian and need to see the Asian gaming industry again flourish like the 1980s but because I still remember the bitter-sweet frustration which came to me from getting stuck in the fifth stage of Gear Antique and almost pulling each and every hair out of my head until I crossed it.

As some of you may know, frequent blogger Adam1808 (who you will know from his fantastic featured blogs on this site) and I talk to each other about video games a lot. Despite living on opposite sides of the globe we find the time to get into lengthy video game discussion on a very regular discussion and have this weird feeling that what we say is somewhat worthwhile. It was during this process that we formulated an idea after having a deliciously meta discussion about the discussion of video games (how pretentious are we?). Our conclusion from this was to start a monthly blog series where the two of us play through a game and then post a video of us discussing it in length. Though video games are discussed ad nauseam on this site and on others, there are always things like spoiler constraints and after a while a game gets forgotten. There is nothing like a book of film club discussion where you get to perhaps return to an older title and discuss it fully and analytically. The point being not a review of the product itself, but an analytic dissection and discussion of it as a whole, put simply we are doing a monthly game club. If this isn't clear, watch this instructional video which I slapped together in a few minutes to explain everything. This video is a very basic one, but when we get onto the games themselves the plan is to put together a video of mine and Adam's conversation complimented with game footage I have captured and edited. I'm willing to admit I'm not the best editor, but I am willing to put proper effort into actual game club videos and am looking forward to it.

So now you have watched that you know that the first game we are doing is Far Cry 2, and you know why we picked it.

It's a divisive game that neither of us has really played, and it is known for being ambition, interesting and potentially a failure in many regards. We are playing through it now and towards the end of the month you will see our blog in which the video itself is posted. Before then what we want is to hear what you have to say, either play some Far Cry 2 this month and get back to us with your opinion of the game or just sound off in the comments about how you feel about the title. We will get to your comments on the video itself and include you in the discussion as much as is possible. Also feel free to suggest new Game Club titles, the criteria being that it is an interesting game to discuss and that I preferably have access to it on PC (for recording purposes).

Game on!

If a time-traveler from the 90s suddenly developed an incredible curiosity to see how the world looks like in the early days of June 2013, he would certainly be surprised by a whole lot of things. He would surely judge the way we dress to be outrageously ridiculous, and unless such adventurer had somewhat of an open mind, he would undoubtedly attribute the Internet and all of its features to some insane sort of witchcraft. However, if our traveler were to be an avid gamer, nothing in this world - as technological as it might be - would cause an impression on him as huge as reading headlines that say "Nintendo and Sega Joining Powers to Develop Sonic Titles". It's a piece of news that would go against everything he had ever learned about the gaming industry, and not only would he have to come into terms with the fact that Sega no longer produces systems of their own, he would also have to wrap his mind around the fact two historical bitter rivals are now working together.

In the eyes of the modern gamer, though, this new duo should not come as such a significant surprise. Both companies are products of the same gaming era, and everything they have gone through has somehow reflected on rather similar philosophies. Back when Nintendo and Sega were learning the quirks of the still young industry, hardware power was awfully limited, and - as it has so often happened in human history - difficulty and constraints are the perfect breeding grounds for creativity, which caused both companies to produce games that besides covering a huge amount of genres, presented the fantastic unreal element that had to be taken advantage of in an era where realism was out of the question. As time went by, and Sony and Microsoft arrived on the battlefield with an horde of franchises grounded on reality, Sega and Nintendo remained solidly faithful to their original core of games, which ended up developing into a more family-friendly branch of the industry.

The two companies that created franchises with somehow parallel spirits always had an angry river between them that stopped the construction of any possible bridges, but that river ended up settling down when Sega dropped out of the console race in order to focus on its game-making magic. Aside from the fact Sega no longer manufactures any kind of hardware, another huge difference separates the modern version of the two giants. Sonic and Mario battled over the gaming market for over a decade like two legendary heavy-weights fighting for the boxing crown during the course of many title matches, with the belt always alternating between one and another. However, on the transition to 3D, Mario was able to maintain his top-notch shape, while Sonic struggled to find direction and motivation, leaving Mario without an equal. This distinction, much like Sega's withdrawal from console production, served as the initial supports for the connection that would be built between Sega and Nintendo.

Sega's fumbling created gigantic opportunities for an approach, and - as of today - the approach is being performed. Though the recent Sonic Colors was an undeniable peak to the hedgehog on the aftermath of Sonic Adventure 2, it was still not even close to reaching the level of modern platforming masterpieces, which is a standard a character like Sonic should always aim for. If outside the gaming industry it is a good practice of the market for a company to seek the aid of third-parties whenever there is trouble in the deploying of some new technology, then there is no reason whatsoever why Sega should not try to use the same strategy to achieve the goal of finally giving Sonic the game he deserves. And this seems to be precisely the case with the partnership that has been revealed a few days ago.

Though the development of the recently announced Sonic Lost Worlds is accredited solely to the always polarizing Sega Team, it is not very hard to see that Nintendo might be more involved than it seems. The first evidence is visual; Sonic Lost Worlds looks like a faster version of Mario's two greatest games of his thirty-year career, the two Super Mario Galaxy titles. The second, is political; Sega has announced a set of three Sonic games that will be exclusively released exclusively for Nintendo platforms, and no company in the world would make such a decision without any sort of return, given that going multiplatform is always more profitable. As a consequence, it is not far-fetched to narrow it down to two possibilities: either Nintendo has given Sega a huge amount of cash, or there is some technical and creative support effort going on behind the curtains. Given how Nintendo has constantly stated that it refuses to make deals with third-parties based on handing out money, it is likely that the reason Sonic Lost World will be a Wii U exclusive for life is that people from Nintendo EAD are in direct contact with developers from the Sonic Team sharing expertize and creative input.

How can Nintendo aid Sega then? Well, in endless areas. For starters, the environments present on Super Mario Galaxy are mostly very complex, and they require an extensive amount of camera work to be playable. While Nintendo's automatic camera for Super Mario Galaxy was not flawless, it was still a major technical achievement, and given how much trouble Sonic Team has had with cameras on a multidimensional plain, the help is certainly welcome. Secondly, Nintendo seems to know quite well how to do storytelling on platformers without falling into a pit of juvenile and cringe-worthy situations, and that is a corner the Sonic games have always inadvertently walked into ever since it was wrongfully established they were in need of some extra layer of plot development. And finally, no company has as much knowledge on the Wii U's hardware than Nintendo itself, and that partnership could end up unlocking enough bits and processing power on the Wii U in order to turn Sonic Lost World into a graphical juggernaut that could compete and surpass Pikmin 3 on the graphical achievement scale.

More relevant than the initial benefits brought to the Sonic franchise, though, is what could be in store for the future of this joining of forces. At first, Sega and Nintendo's teamwork has a set deadline and limit of three Sonic games. However, it is impossible not to sit down and imagine what else we might end up getting if these three initial projects, out of which Sonic Lost World is bound to be the highlight, wind up being judged as productive by both Nintendo and Sega. It could open the door for the reworking of a large number of franchises and the creation of some gargantuan IPs born out of this merging of creative forces. And it could all start right here. The Wii U is off to a very slow start, and while this exclusivity could pump some oxygen into Nintendo's system, the partnership could also work in the benefit of both Sonic and Sega. We could be witnessing the birth of quite a monster.

As if tired of the British Broadcasting Corporation being on the receiving end of criticism regarding ethical standards of journalism, their culture show X-Ray has launched an attack of their own on the moral standards of iOS and Android game developers.

In a recent broadcast, X-Ray argued that said developers 'were not playing by the rules' when marketing mobile games to children and claimed many were specifically targeting the naivety and inexperience of younger gamers. The report comes after many parents discovered their children were unwittingly spending anywhere between a several hundred to several thousands of pounds on mobile games and gaming apps prompting the Office of Fair Trading to launch an investigation.

X Ray's report focused on gamers in Wales where the average child spends over 9 hours a week playing games on their mobile telephones contributing to an overall industry worth close to £3 Billion.

One particular game under scrutiny was the Top Girl fashion app, a virtual modelling game where children can dress up characters and were soon asked to spend real money to keep their character's boyfriend happy with virtual gifts. One mother stated her child had run up a bill of £196 after one hour of play.

A focus of the Office of Fair Trading investigation is the marketing of games as 'free to play' without making young gamers aware of potential additional costs for certain game elements. Many mobile games are released with time limits which prevents continued play unless real money is spent. Such tactics are certainly nothing new in the games industry but Rob Angell, an expert from Cardiff University, argued that such marketing directed at younger gamers constituted a form of exploitation. He stated that while adults have the discipline and maturity to stop playing after their time has expired, 'children will be more impulsive and will make the purchase.'

Another subject of X-Ray's report was 'emotional blackmail' being employed by developers. The Simpsons: Tapped Out was accused of charging £500 for an in game magnifying glass. Refusing to purchase the item resulted in the message 'Congratulations! You made a baby cry!' Angell stated 'Children should not be made to feel guilty for not making the purchase. For me this causes some conflict with this game.'

X-Ray also spoke to parents who accused developers of chicanery when asking children to hand over real money for in game purchases. Many stated that prices for items are often displayed in the form of GBP rather than with a pound sign which one parent argued kids would not understand.

The Office of Communications (Ofcom) has since advised parents to disable in-app purchases on mobile phones and to remember that 'free to download' does not necessarily mean 'free to play'. The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment has stated they take the protecting of young gamers from marketing exploitation very seriously and is asking developers to install password protection software on future games.

So there's been a lot of talk about how the PS4 and Xbone aren't going to be backward comptable with 360 and PS4 games, not just the discs but not even the stuff you downloaded which sucks. Ok guys, you're trying to save a few dollars in production by nixing some of the crap gamers don't care about like Xbone's cable TV B.S. unless you were hair gel guy on GT's Bonus Round (seriously go watch that, I swear he had to be paid by M$ to make the TV feature sound awesome).

But this isn't going to be about why consoles should or shouldn't have it. I am thinking more of what if the console makers are purposely leaving it out to make more money off us? Think about it.

Now when this gen started, all three consoles could play games from the previous gen though the 360 was limited and emulators had to be downloaded to play the entire Xbox (1?) library. Now originally the first wave of PS3's did play PS2 games but later models nixed it. Then not long after the PS3's dropped it's ability to play PS2 games, we started seeing these.

These are the ones I have played and I am considering getting the Kingdom Hearts 1.5 game later this year. On one hand, it's nice having these collections in HD on one disc and if you're like me and didn't own a PS2, it's a nice way to catch up on stuff you missed. But what if you had the PS2 versions of these games and your PS2 dies? My friend loves the R&C series and played the PS2 games over and over again. They had a first gen PS3 that could play them but eventually it wore out and had to be replaced and their PS2 died shortly after. Lucky Sony got money out of her to purchase games she already owned.

Now all the game companies have been making money rehashing classics for a while now. The good part is, most of these are a good deal. They're usually cheaper than new AAA titles. All 3 compilations I showed were $39.99 at launch as I recall though I would argue that both Jak and Ratchet's could've thrown in the PSP outings as well as Deadlocked and Jak X respectively but I'm going to guess that disc space was an issue.

Most of us are not like the Angry Video game nerd with a basement full of working versions of every console and game ever made so "stacking them" isn't an option for everyone. PC gamers probably have the most backwards compatability but even that depends on the hardware and what emulators you've installed. And being able to download old games is particularly good for cart based games that can't be put into modern disc based consoles.

But when I thought more about the lack of backward compatability on the new consoles and more so the inability to transfer over downloaded titles, it really makes sense. The new consoles will launch and mark my word, we'll start seeing compilations of PS3 and 360 games though they won't simply be able to slap an HD coat of paint on it this time. I'll hedge my bets right now that an early XBO title will be "The Halo Collection" and don't forget all your 360 peripherals are useless on the XBO so you'll need all new controllers and headsets to go with it. $$$$$$

And yes just in case someone wants to point out my Nintendo bias, it wouldn't surprise me if Nintendo does HD remakes of more Gamecube games. We already have several 3DS remakes and Wind Waker HD coming but at least some of these added new things. Way back when Link's Awakening was released for the Gameboy color, they added a new dungeon and if you are going to basically make gamers buy the same game again, then add something to it. New levels, fix issues the original had like the XBLA version of Banjo Kazooie that fixed it so you didn't lose all your notes and Jinjos when you died or left the level. I was annoyed that the original Ratchet and Clank rerelease didn't work in the strafe or make a bigger health bar or Jak II couldn't have tossed in a few more health packs to not make it so brutally hard.

And that's what bothers me about a lot of rereleases of old games. Yes some of us will argue that it "dumbs it down" but you gotta admit having autosave put into an old NES game beats the hell out of entering a password. But I am getting off topic, I worry more of seeing compilations that are just the exact same game from before that we end up buying again so it can play on our next gen console, thus the game publishers making easy money. "What's that you want to play the Mass Effect Trilogy on your PS4? Sorry we didn't make it backward compatable but here's our Mass Effect Collection you can buy for $50 even though you already own all 3.

Maybe you think that sounds crazy. But doesn't it kind of make sense. Don't make the PS4 or XBO backward compatable and don't let downloads transfer over so they can make you buy a game you already own again. $$$$$

Well, after briefly reading some of the coverage of the Xbox One, I'm left with more questions than answers.  Unlike many people, I'm not throwing a hissy fit over the possible scenarios.  Rather, I'm just finding myself a little confused and a little reserved in my opinions. I'm curious to see how the proposed features or possible features would affect me.  Most of the big sore spots that everyone seems to be fretting over, really aren't big issues to me.  I dont normally buy used games and I have high speed internet. 

First off, I've never been big on used games.  I hate buying a game that someone else has already had their grimy hands all over.  I guess I've just had some bad experiences with scratched discs, missing manuals, or just plain greasy cases.  Seriously, what the hell do some of you  people do with your games?  Anyways, for whatever reason, I have the collector gene.  I like getting a fresh, unopened game that's in mint condition.  Never found the savings on used games to be all that great.  Gamestop seems to be the biggest reseller of games, but their deals are just plain awful at times.  I'd rather just spend the extra 2 to 4$ and get the game new.  Furthermore, almost every game goes on sale at some point.  The savings you can get from just being observant far outweigh the paltry savings of buying used.   I hardly ever pay full price for any games and can often get new games for 20$ or less.  Now, one aspect of used games is not just buying them for cheaper, but selling them back once you're done.  I can understand why people would fear losing that.  However, once again, this just isnt something I do.  I like to hold onto my games both as a collector and for replay.

Now, I'll be honest.  I have no idea what MS plans to do about used games.  Whether there will actually be a fee for using a used game and who would end up paying that fee.  Would it be the institution that sells you the used game or the player with an activation fee?  Some individual software developers have already been taking their own steps to cut down on the recycling of games, but it would be a significant deal if the console maker themself took measures.  Part of this boils down to the quagmire of intellectual property rights.  What do you really own when you buy a game?  In my opinion, I think if you buy a physical copy of the game, you should have every right to sell that to whomever you want.  However, I suppose an activation fee doesnt prevent that transaction from occurring.  It just makes it less palatable.  But I'll liken this to another practice that occurs in business -airline bag fees.  If just one airline was doing it, they'd lose business.  But if most of them do it, we get stuck with it.  Microsoft certainly can do whatever the hell they want with used games.  But if all their competitors don't charge fees, they're going to look pretty bad.

As for always online, I dont care.  I'm already always online.  Have had high speed interent for years and can't imagine life without it.  This issue is a non-issue for me.  However, from a business standpoint, it seems somewhat perplexing.  Why would you intentionally limit your customer base?  Of the over 70 million xbox 360's sold, I would have to assume that a decent percentage of those people dont have high speed internet.  So why would you create a situation that would instantly eliminate them from your customer base?  I'm not a business major, so maybe they think it would be more profitable to protect againt piracy and other issues.  Maybe they assume that most of their future customers will have high speed internet?  Maybe there's some other aspect I'm just missing.  But honestly, I have no idea why you would limit yourself.

As for Kinnect 2.0 or whatever it is, I'm absolutely clueless on that.  Never got a Kinnect 1.0.  I dont like gimmicky controllers like that or the god awful wii controller.  As long as the Kinnect is a superfluous feature, then I'm ok with it.  Dont mess too much with the regular controller.  That thing works like a charm and has evolved nicely over the last few generations.  It does what I want it to do. I certainly do need more information on whether this kinnect is acting like a spy camera in my living room.  If I'm sitting in my boxers playing games (because let's face it - we all get lazy some mornings), I dont want other players or the MS staff to be viewing my tiger printed underwear.  No offense, but that's just for me and my future wife.  Disclosure is important and they need to clarify this.

Despite all the facetious bellyaching going on, I think most of these things won't be that big of a deal.  In the end, it's going to come down to the games, the price point,  and the service.  Looking back at the last two generations, both the ps2 and the xbox 360 did fairly well despite atrocious hardware issues at launch.  The reason - their large and high quality game libraries.  As for this upcoming generation, I'll do what I always do.  Wait and see. 

Well fellow gamers it's only 10 days until E3 of 2013 comes and it's both exciting and nerve racking. Like alot of fans of the Darksiders series, we're wondering what the third game will have to offer to us. Even though it won't come out this year which is saddening, I know it will launch either 2014 or 2015. I keep praying that a tease trailer or a screen-shot will appear at E3 with the new consoles coming out.

What has me worried is will there be a third game in the series or will it stop and go into limbo like so many. I know Nordic Games purchased the IP, surprising I thought Platinum Games would have snatched that up. I'm not sure what games Nordic has made, but so far they haven't said much about it or if it has a chance. I loved the first game and the storyline really got me hooked and I kept going back to it and I finally beat it. Now I barely started playing the second game since i like to take my time with video games and all.

My concerns start with the obvious question, what horseman will the third game feature Fury or Strife? How much bigger will the world map be since Darksiders 2 was alot bigger than the first game map. Will the weapons and armor customization be like Darksiders 2 or will it go to how it was in the first game?vWill the game take place when War was imprisoned or will take place after the ending of Darksiders 2? Big question is will they come out on current generation consoles or will they be next generation exclusives?

Some things are left hanging in the sir, but it seems only E3 will tell us what will happen to Darksiders? I keep wondering if Nordic will make a game where you can play as all four of the horseman at once. Oh man can you imagine switching in-between the four like they did in the FUSE game, epic brain melt here!!!! 

I finished a replay of the single player campaign over the weekend and have come to the conclusion that Portal 2 is gaming perfection. In fact I am even considering a third playthrough with the developer commentary turned on (a feature that a lot of games could benefit from). The same criticisms of games turn up time and again and developers will continue to address them to create even greater experiences. However what Valve have done with Portal 2 doesn't feel like a counterpoint to criticism where a few tickboxes dictate content. Portal 2 feels like something created from scratch with no baggage and no attitude. It just does everything right.

GAMES DON'T HAVE DECENT STORIES

Portal 2 is a puzzler at heart but one with a great story (and even a history). One not told through clumsy exposition or non-interactive cut scenes but one that's all around you in the behaviour of the characters and the nature of the environment. Wheatley's Clumsy attempts to manipulate modules show you the dilapidated and fragile state of this long abandoned test facility and hint at further mysteries. Games like Limbo and Shadow of the Colossus had this same passive approach to their storytelling and weave it into the game itself instead of resorting to stand-alone cut scenes or walls of text. On the surface GLaDOS is a callous and brutal monster yet her link to a loyal Aperture staff member shows us a depth that is played with an incredibly deft touch. It makes audio diaries look like space marines with fingers in their ears.

AAA TITLES AGE 3 YEARS ON RELEASE

How about graphically? While the Source engine may not be pulling the kind of sex appeal that gamers drool over when giving the latest CryEngine stunner the once over, it's hard to think the game could look much better. It's simply presented to be sure but this art design ensures that the hyper real look of it ages incredibly well. In fact the game only falters when we see the heroine's arms in front of camera right at the end. Before this the only organic presence in Aperture Laboratories is the occasional weed growing between cracks in the facility (and the odd potato of course). I am confident that this is a deliberate design decision on the part of the games often overlooked visual artists. Here, less is definitely more.

THAT WHOLE FEMALE ISSUE

Portals main characters were both female. This was not a feature of the game. There was no bullet point on the back of the box, no press conferences with a grinning sales executive hosting previews where they pointed out Chell's strength and/or vulnerability, no debate, no discussion and certainly no rage. There was just a person holding a portal gun who happened to be a woman and an AI who technically was neither male or female. Portal 2 introduced two male characters in Cave Johnson who was the passionate and scruple-free founder of Aperture Laboratories and Wheatley who was a moron (and also technically neither male or female). The outrageous inclusion of men in the sequel incited anger in precisely nobody as they are simply well written characters where gender is moot.

GAMES ARE NOT FUNNY

And what amazing writing it is. The humour from the game comes from it's words and performances (and perhaps the odd accidental and brutal death) and there are plenty of other media that could take note too. Not only does this game make you chuckle, it makes you chuckle all the way through. From GLaDOS making sly fat jibes through Wheatley's babbling monologue to Cave Johnson's safety notices, there is a gleeful spirit that is evident in every line. Of course it helps that the lines are delivered impeccably too and when a character starts speaking you never get the feeling that you wish they wouldn't. 'Did I tell you about my wife?' Yes Dom, yes you did.

SILENT PROTAGONISTS DETRACT FROM IMMERSION

Of course one person who doesn't say a peep (apart from the odd grunt as she is fried by another Thermal Discouragement Beam) is main character Chell. During a recent playthrough of Metro 2033 it was very jarring to have Artyom mute during conversations and little asides like 'you're a quiet one, aren't you?' actually made conversations feel even stranger. Even playing as Gordon Freeman, the ultimate silent protagonist, felt a little empty the last time I went through Half Life 2. The idea that a character who never speaks can be a vessel for our own voice works wonderfully in Portal 2. During scripted sequences she (you) is addressed constantly but you never feel that a question is being ignored or that a response is necessary. During quieter moments (as in the Metroid Prime games) an ominous silence feels far more frightening or awe-inspiring than glib comments about spooky corridors or vast rooms.

GAMES ARE TOO EASY NOWADAYS

Perhaps a full discussion for another time but Portal 2 is certainly a challenge and has a gameplay mechanic that actually forces you to think in a completely new way. Going back to the game is like returning to school after the summer where you have forgotten how to write. Thinking in portals is actually a skill and it takes a while for it to return. I am not talking about simple muscle memory (the Bad Company syringe springs to mind) but an actual different way to move through a 3D space. Built on this are some devilish puzzles that require real thought and can never be beaten by simple trial and error. On top of this is the co-op where twice as many people can scratch their heads in the same room. The difficulty curve is impeccably judged and based on brain power with a little dexterity thrown in for good measure. There is nothing artificial about the challenge here.

So to sum up, Portal 2 is basically the best game ever. It builds on a great core mechanic with personality and wit that never feels tacked on or cheap. It looks good, plays well and ages beautifully and if there is another game out there that achieves the same level of quality and professionalism then I want to know about it.