6/11/08
I got a job.
Well I've gotten a job as a writer, so if you like my writing, go to www.thegamersgarage.com and that's where I'll be doing all my writing there.
5/21/08
Battle of the Bands
No one can deny that Guitar Hero III got beat out by Rock Band, so this round is over and Activision is aware that in GH IV they need to step up to the competition and offer everything the Rock Band has to offer, and do it better. This is great news for the gaming community, because competition in the end equals a better product for the consumer. So with the next installment of the Guitar Hero series, “Guitar Hero: World Tour”, it will no longer only be a guitar game (despite the title.) It will also offer drums and vocals just like Rock Band has. So now they’ve match Harmonix’s offer, now where is the raise?
Well Activision is claiming that you will be able to record your own tracks. Now I’m not exactly sure what that means. Does it mean you can record when you sing and play the songs on the game or can you make your own songs for the game. The first one is a bad idea because record companies are going to get flooded with these crappy “demo tapes” from Guitar Hero recordings. But if it’s the latter, that’d be sick! Now in order to one up the drum set from Rock Band, GH:WT will have 3 drum pads, 2 symbol pads, and a foot pedal. When I saw this I was somewhat relieved because my inner OCD always was bothered by the lack of a symbol. But is this a good or bad thing because there will now be an extra target to hit and drums on Rock Band is already pretty difficult.
Hold up, wait a minute! What if there were 6 drum pads and a foot pedal? That would be insane! And Konami is the company insane enough to do that. On May 14th they announced that they would be developing their own garage-jamming genre of game, “Rock Revolution”… really original name guys… But that many drum pads seems like too many for a video game. And a 3rd candidate in the race for the president of the Rocking States of America is not going to work out. Plus the trailer makes the game seem like it has a “squishy” interface and disappointing graphics, and I rarely complain about graphics. I have a feeling this title will be knocked out early on.
But there is still no news from Harmonix on their next installment of Rock Band. And maybe there won’t be, maybe they’ll just ride their tidal wave of DLC money for the rest of time
Well Activision is claiming that you will be able to record your own tracks. Now I’m not exactly sure what that means. Does it mean you can record when you sing and play the songs on the game or can you make your own songs for the game. The first one is a bad idea because record companies are going to get flooded with these crappy “demo tapes” from Guitar Hero recordings. But if it’s the latter, that’d be sick! Now in order to one up the drum set from Rock Band, GH:WT will have 3 drum pads, 2 symbol pads, and a foot pedal. When I saw this I was somewhat relieved because my inner OCD always was bothered by the lack of a symbol. But is this a good or bad thing because there will now be an extra target to hit and drums on Rock Band is already pretty difficult.
Hold up, wait a minute! What if there were 6 drum pads and a foot pedal? That would be insane! And Konami is the company insane enough to do that. On May 14th they announced that they would be developing their own garage-jamming genre of game, “Rock Revolution”… really original name guys… But that many drum pads seems like too many for a video game. And a 3rd candidate in the race for the president of the Rocking States of America is not going to work out. Plus the trailer makes the game seem like it has a “squishy” interface and disappointing graphics, and I rarely complain about graphics. I have a feeling this title will be knocked out early on.
But there is still no news from Harmonix on their next installment of Rock Band. And maybe there won’t be, maybe they’ll just ride their tidal wave of DLC money for the rest of time
4/10/08
Kotaku Questions Epicness of Gaming Community's Epic Win
It's all over the internet, pretty much every gaming site has covered it. The gaming community has raised their fists in unison against the Evil Empire that is EA, and upon their threats to not buy the game EA has yielded to the power of their wallets and agreed to not charge for more guns. Success.
But for some reason, Luke Plunkett from Kotaku, has written an article raining on the parade of happy gamers worldwide. In his recent rant, Mr.Plunkett basically says that who cares if we won this "small battle," the war isn't over and EA is just going to find another way to make money off of this game, and eventually will return to DLC that effects gameplay mechanics. To somewhat of a degree he is right, but the way he addresses it is wrong. He addresses it like a suicidal emo kid and puts down all the people who stood together against this injustice, calling it a "hollow victory" and that this evil will come into the world eventually. He might be right, but we have no way to know. And to suggest that since it's coming anyway that we should just not even try is like saying "well the world is going to end someday so why don't we just blow it up now." And then to me it seems like he's suggesting that the reason this boycott came to be was because we were mad about EA making money. He makes it seem like we though "hey guys! EA is making money! Let's not buy their game!" We aren't mad that EA is making money, and even if they do shift things around so they can make money another way, we won't care as long as they aren't taking advantage of us like they were before.
By our standing against this DLC, game, and publisher we have stopped (or in Mr.Plunkett's eyes "delayed the inevitable") exploitation of gamers. By doing it once we have proved to the big suits that we aren't mindless wallets that dispense money at your bidding, but gamers who want to have an enjoyable gaming experience and can recognize when we're being taken advantage of. But I think even more important than that is that we've proved to ourselves that we can unite as a gaming community despite what or how we play and make a difference. And now that it's happened (on this major scale) I think it'll start happening a lot more.
But for some reason, Luke Plunkett from Kotaku, has written an article raining on the parade of happy gamers worldwide. In his recent rant, Mr.Plunkett basically says that who cares if we won this "small battle," the war isn't over and EA is just going to find another way to make money off of this game, and eventually will return to DLC that effects gameplay mechanics. To somewhat of a degree he is right, but the way he addresses it is wrong. He addresses it like a suicidal emo kid and puts down all the people who stood together against this injustice, calling it a "hollow victory" and that this evil will come into the world eventually. He might be right, but we have no way to know. And to suggest that since it's coming anyway that we should just not even try is like saying "well the world is going to end someday so why don't we just blow it up now." And then to me it seems like he's suggesting that the reason this boycott came to be was because we were mad about EA making money. He makes it seem like we though "hey guys! EA is making money! Let's not buy their game!" We aren't mad that EA is making money, and even if they do shift things around so they can make money another way, we won't care as long as they aren't taking advantage of us like they were before.
By our standing against this DLC, game, and publisher we have stopped (or in Mr.Plunkett's eyes "delayed the inevitable") exploitation of gamers. By doing it once we have proved to the big suits that we aren't mindless wallets that dispense money at your bidding, but gamers who want to have an enjoyable gaming experience and can recognize when we're being taken advantage of. But I think even more important than that is that we've proved to ourselves that we can unite as a gaming community despite what or how we play and make a difference. And now that it's happened (on this major scale) I think it'll start happening a lot more.
4/7/08
PC Gaming- Possibly Complete Gaming?
For the past several years, gaming “experts” have been debating over whether or not PC gaming is done for, will be done for soon, or if it will stay around forever. It’s my turn to weigh in on the issue.
I’ll start with the upper hands consoles have over the PC for gaming. The biggest advantage console gaming has over PC gaming is compatibility. With the PC you need to make sure you have compatible graphics cards, sound cards, processors, flux capacitors, and so on. In order to keep up with all the games coming out you’re going to be dumping an extra $300-$600 into your computer every 6-12 months. With the consoles, you pay $250-$600 for the console and you can buy games for it for the next 6 years without any problems. On top of that, on the PC you have to spend 20+ minutes installing your game, with the consoles you just pop the disk in and you’re playing. And yet more on top of that is when you need to install the games to your PC it takes up more memory and you’re limited to how many games you can have on there where as on consoles they theoretically can never fill up.
Now for PC’s side of the story.
Up until the late 90s, almost unanimously gamers believed that First Person Shooters belonged on the PC. That was because up until the release of Xbox, there were really no successful FPSs (other than Goldeneye for the N64.) The reason there was no successful console FPS and gamers believed that the PC was the only place an FPS could live in peace was because nobody had figured out a working control scheme for the consoles. The move with WASD and aim with mouse control scheme was what worked and the only thing that worked. But when the Xbox came out, game developers were able to figure out a FPS control scheme that worked, and now FPS makes up the second largest chunk of console video games (behind adventure games.)
Now that PC gaming enthusiasts can’t use that argument to try to defend their desktop machines, the PC starts to fade from the gaming scene more. But I think the biggest thing that is keeping PC gaming alive is Real Time Strategy games. Games like Warcraft, World in Conflict, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Civilization will keep the PC alive because it is in the same situation that FPS games were in 10 years ago. There have not been any RTS games on a console that have been successful because there has never been a working control scheme for it. That’s why so many people are up in arms about Halo Wars being only for the 360 and not the PC, because the console control scheme could ruin the game. But that’s getting off topic.
The last thing I can think of that PC gaming has over console gaming is that anyone can make a PC game without having to buy a license or rights. If a developer wants to make a console game they need to go to the console’s respective owner (Sony, Microsoft, and/or Nintendo) to buy the rights to make a game for their system while on the PC you just program the game. So by cutting that cost out of the budget it means more can be spent on the actual production and quality of the game, but that’s really a minor thing.
Basically, my prediction is that as soon as someone figures out a successful control scheme for Real Time Strategy games for the consoles, we will start to see PC gaming fade forever. I don’t think simply making a mouse and keyboard attachment for a console would do the trick though, it would need to be a regular controller based control scheme. Who knows, maybe it'll be as soon as Halo Wars, or maybe it'll never come at all and PC gaming will still be fighting to stay in the picture forever.
I’ll start with the upper hands consoles have over the PC for gaming. The biggest advantage console gaming has over PC gaming is compatibility. With the PC you need to make sure you have compatible graphics cards, sound cards, processors, flux capacitors, and so on. In order to keep up with all the games coming out you’re going to be dumping an extra $300-$600 into your computer every 6-12 months. With the consoles, you pay $250-$600 for the console and you can buy games for it for the next 6 years without any problems. On top of that, on the PC you have to spend 20+ minutes installing your game, with the consoles you just pop the disk in and you’re playing. And yet more on top of that is when you need to install the games to your PC it takes up more memory and you’re limited to how many games you can have on there where as on consoles they theoretically can never fill up.
Now for PC’s side of the story.
Up until the late 90s, almost unanimously gamers believed that First Person Shooters belonged on the PC. That was because up until the release of Xbox, there were really no successful FPSs (other than Goldeneye for the N64.) The reason there was no successful console FPS and gamers believed that the PC was the only place an FPS could live in peace was because nobody had figured out a working control scheme for the consoles. The move with WASD and aim with mouse control scheme was what worked and the only thing that worked. But when the Xbox came out, game developers were able to figure out a FPS control scheme that worked, and now FPS makes up the second largest chunk of console video games (behind adventure games.)
Now that PC gaming enthusiasts can’t use that argument to try to defend their desktop machines, the PC starts to fade from the gaming scene more. But I think the biggest thing that is keeping PC gaming alive is Real Time Strategy games. Games like Warcraft, World in Conflict, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Civilization will keep the PC alive because it is in the same situation that FPS games were in 10 years ago. There have not been any RTS games on a console that have been successful because there has never been a working control scheme for it. That’s why so many people are up in arms about Halo Wars being only for the 360 and not the PC, because the console control scheme could ruin the game. But that’s getting off topic.
The last thing I can think of that PC gaming has over console gaming is that anyone can make a PC game without having to buy a license or rights. If a developer wants to make a console game they need to go to the console’s respective owner (Sony, Microsoft, and/or Nintendo) to buy the rights to make a game for their system while on the PC you just program the game. So by cutting that cost out of the budget it means more can be spent on the actual production and quality of the game, but that’s really a minor thing.
Basically, my prediction is that as soon as someone figures out a successful control scheme for Real Time Strategy games for the consoles, we will start to see PC gaming fade forever. I don’t think simply making a mouse and keyboard attachment for a console would do the trick though, it would need to be a regular controller based control scheme. Who knows, maybe it'll be as soon as Halo Wars, or maybe it'll never come at all and PC gaming will still be fighting to stay in the picture forever.
4/6/08
Rooster Teeth Announces Next Endeavor
From the people who brought you the comic genius that was Red vs Blue and the pure awesomeness that was Griffball are at it again with a new machinima series, Reconstruction. I'm very excited for this, but it seems to be taking a different route from the original RvB, and going with an action drama similar to Deus Ex Machina rather than their regular antics. But with RT, you never know. Here's the trailer;
4/5/08
Nudity in Games
Nudity in games brings up many questions. Would it sell more video games or would it be kept out of the hands of children to name a few. But the most overlooked question I think is, is it necessary? Would nudity in games make a positive contribution to games? Recently on a site which I refuse to give any publicity to there was an article saying that since most gamers are guys in their 20s that nudity should be included in games. There are so many things wrong with that statement. First being that the statistics given are very generalized, completely guessed, and probably not true. I’m sure a good chunk of gamers are in their 20s, but if it were the majority there wouldn’t be giant sections devoted to video games in Toys R’ Us. I’d guess that there are more gamers who aren’t perverted than in their 20s. The second thing wrong with that statement is the complete disregard to morals and respect to women. The third thing wrong with that statement is, (as stated at the beginning of the article) does it make a positive contribution to the game. Without going into detail I can say no and if you need the reasons explained then you’re an idiot.
But for those idiots out there, here are the reasons explained. Who has seriously taken their Halo game or Call of Duty game and said “Man, I wish this had naked ladies in it!” (I wish I had a sound clip of Brian Regan saying that.) If you have ever thought anything like that, anyone would classify you as sick and perverted. The article I mentioned suggesting the addition of this feature into games stated it would “add realism” to games. Because we all know that there are naked girls wherever there’s a gun fight or a knight battling a dragon… Wow… But then they gave the example of if there was a Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 level that took place in a strip club, they could have naked chicks in there doing pole dances and whatnot. That makes total sense! If guys with AK-47s run in looking for terrorists I wouldn’t expect the strippers to try to run away, I’d expect them to keep doing whatever they were doing. They probably wouldn’t have left when they found out terrorists where there either… Just plain stupid…
So if you’re still not convinced that nudity wouldn’t add realism to a game or that it still should be in games, here’s even more reason why you’re wrong. You play video games to game, not to see naked ladies. (As sad as it is,) there are already naked and scantily clad women on TV, billboards, magazines, the internet, restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else. Do you need it in your games too? Come on, seriously. If you want that stuff to be in the game wouldn’t that mean you wouldn’t be paying attention to the actual game?
So if after all the common sense- I mean evidence I have shared with you, you still aren’t convinced- if the ethical and logical reasons I have provided aren’t computing with your mind clouded with disgusting thoughts, here is a reason that any gamer, regardless of what he thinks on the issue based on already stated facts, should be able to agree on why nudity should stay out of games; We already have enough trouble and annoyances coming from stupid lawyers, attorneys, politicians, and “news” reporters saying games are evil and should be banned from the universe. We’ve all seen the uproar made over the hot coffee incidence in GTA:SA and even the commotion (mostly over assumptions and misunderstandings) made over the tiny bit of sexual content in Mass Effect. If we make nudity in games a common thing, (regardless of how needless, pointless, stupid, and immature it is,) will give something very strong for these people to use against us to take away what we love and cherish so much. No, not naked women, but video games.
But for those idiots out there, here are the reasons explained. Who has seriously taken their Halo game or Call of Duty game and said “Man, I wish this had naked ladies in it!” (I wish I had a sound clip of Brian Regan saying that.) If you have ever thought anything like that, anyone would classify you as sick and perverted. The article I mentioned suggesting the addition of this feature into games stated it would “add realism” to games. Because we all know that there are naked girls wherever there’s a gun fight or a knight battling a dragon… Wow… But then they gave the example of if there was a Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 level that took place in a strip club, they could have naked chicks in there doing pole dances and whatnot. That makes total sense! If guys with AK-47s run in looking for terrorists I wouldn’t expect the strippers to try to run away, I’d expect them to keep doing whatever they were doing. They probably wouldn’t have left when they found out terrorists where there either… Just plain stupid…
So if you’re still not convinced that nudity wouldn’t add realism to a game or that it still should be in games, here’s even more reason why you’re wrong. You play video games to game, not to see naked ladies. (As sad as it is,) there are already naked and scantily clad women on TV, billboards, magazines, the internet, restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else. Do you need it in your games too? Come on, seriously. If you want that stuff to be in the game wouldn’t that mean you wouldn’t be paying attention to the actual game?
So if after all the common sense- I mean evidence I have shared with you, you still aren’t convinced- if the ethical and logical reasons I have provided aren’t computing with your mind clouded with disgusting thoughts, here is a reason that any gamer, regardless of what he thinks on the issue based on already stated facts, should be able to agree on why nudity should stay out of games; We already have enough trouble and annoyances coming from stupid lawyers, attorneys, politicians, and “news” reporters saying games are evil and should be banned from the universe. We’ve all seen the uproar made over the hot coffee incidence in GTA:SA and even the commotion (mostly over assumptions and misunderstandings) made over the tiny bit of sexual content in Mass Effect. If we make nudity in games a common thing, (regardless of how needless, pointless, stupid, and immature it is,) will give something very strong for these people to use against us to take away what we love and cherish so much. No, not naked women, but video games.
Blog update- 4/5/08
Hey anyone out there reading. The counter on here says I've had 58 page views, but my Google analytics page says I have no visitors, so something is broken. I'm pretty sure it's analytics because last night I was at my friends house and showed him the blog on his computer so that should've ticked something. So if your out there post a comment on this thread to let me know, even if this is your first and last time here.
So anyways, I've changed a few things for the blog; I've changed the news feeds you'll see to the right of the page, instead of getting everything from Joystiq for each individual console I went directly to each console's site and got the feeds from there I'm thinking that will be better. Also, I've added a "Release Dates" section on the right side of the site as well. Don't go complaining about there not being many games up there, I just can't think of any more games with officially announced release dates (that I support) to put. If there are any you want me to add post a comment or send me a message or something to let me know about it.
So that's about it for now, and if anyone cares expect another article within the next few days.
So anyways, I've changed a few things for the blog; I've changed the news feeds you'll see to the right of the page, instead of getting everything from Joystiq for each individual console I went directly to each console's site and got the feeds from there I'm thinking that will be better. Also, I've added a "Release Dates" section on the right side of the site as well. Don't go complaining about there not being many games up there, I just can't think of any more games with officially announced release dates (that I support) to put. If there are any you want me to add post a comment or send me a message or something to let me know about it.
So that's about it for now, and if anyone cares expect another article within the next few days.
4/1/08
WoW Rant: I Hate Hunters
I hate the hunter class. Plain and simple. This is how I see them; weak, lazy, scardy cats. They're too weak to use a weapon that requires actual strength, too lazy to go up to their target that they're fighting, and they're too scared to fight their targets themselves and send stupid little animals to do the fighting for them. In my 3 weeks playing World of Warcraft, I have not run into a single hunter who has been helpful to anyone, let alone helpful to me. I've partied up with one once because she was looking for someone to do a quest with her. We had to fight through this gauntlet, she'd tell me to go attack a certain NPC, I go to tank it, and she attacks something else and we both die. So not only hunters weak, lazy, and wimpy, they're stupid.
Oh yeah, they're jerks too. So many times I've had to spend two or three times longer on a quest where I have to kill a certain number of monsters because while I'm trying to run up to the NPC, a stupid hunter will shoot it with a gun/bow. Then no top of that several times I've told hunters that I hate hunters, and then they're just spamming me with cuss words and and poorly worded and thought out insults.
Basically, whoever is a hunter needs to be banned from WoW. Plain and simple.
EDIT: Well, ironically the night after I post this I go on a raid with some guys from my clan and one of them was a hunter. The raid went great and everyone was helpful including the hunter, (well except for the time he fell of the ledge...). So maybe not all hunters are evil.
Oh yeah, they're jerks too. So many times I've had to spend two or three times longer on a quest where I have to kill a certain number of monsters because while I'm trying to run up to the NPC, a stupid hunter will shoot it with a gun/bow. Then no top of that several times I've told hunters that I hate hunters, and then they're just spamming me with cuss words and and poorly worded and thought out insults.
Basically, whoever is a hunter needs to be banned from WoW. Plain and simple.
EDIT: Well, ironically the night after I post this I go on a raid with some guys from my clan and one of them was a hunter. The raid went great and everyone was helpful including the hunter, (well except for the time he fell of the ledge...). So maybe not all hunters are evil.
3/28/08
EA the Evil Empire?
So recently EA has been buying out development companies like they were Wii's before the 2006 holiday season, and pretty much a lot of gamers are not happy about this at all. In my latest issue of GameInformer, I counted 9 articles directly related to EA. They're everywhere! EA has a lot of great franchises under their belt now. But very few of them can they actually take credit for themselves. EA is buying out game developers that are making already successful games in order to cash in and milk the series. To me it seems like the majority of EAs "successful" games were successful before EA acquired them. A great example of this is The Sims.
The latest antics that those money mongering fools over at EA have been up to is that they reportedly are going to be charging real life money for weapons in their new Battlefield: Bad Company game. This comes from a Kotaku article released based on the beta. I have not played the Bad Company beta but there is absolutely nothing you can do to justify doing this. Sites like Sarcastic Gamer are suggesting boycoting the game because it it so rediculous. I'm leaning towards their decision if things don't change before the game comes out.
When EA heard the uproar being made over this article, they actually contacted Kotaku to try to clear up their name. While this statement directly from EA states that it will not give an advantage to players who do buy the extra guns nor affect the balance of the gameplay, it doesn't specify the point. Unless the new guns are the same guns with new aesthetics, I guarantee that gamers will find a way to manipulate and take advantage of something with these weapons within the first few weeks. Then EA is going to have to patch the game, but it will be too late and nobody will want to play the game. Plain and simple. EA is just screwing over gamers, and screwing over themselves because they think that since they're "top dog" in the industry, what they say goes.
Now to add in my personal gripe about EA's attempted monopoly over the gaming industry. EA bought out my favorite development studios, BioWare. They made my favorite game of all time, Knights of the Old Republic, and another one of my top 10 games of all time, Mass Effect. While KOTOR may not have another installment, 2 more Mass Effect games are already planned and I'm pretty sure at least one is already underway. If EA messes up the franchise by cutting budget to port to multiple systems or anything else, I will never forgive them.
But in the end, in relevance to the purchasing weapons thing, we just have to hope that there aren't people out there stupid enough to give into EA doing this and throwing their money at them. If anyone buys these weapons, they are feeding the gremlin after midnight.
The latest antics that those money mongering fools over at EA have been up to is that they reportedly are going to be charging real life money for weapons in their new Battlefield: Bad Company game. This comes from a Kotaku article released based on the beta. I have not played the Bad Company beta but there is absolutely nothing you can do to justify doing this. Sites like Sarcastic Gamer are suggesting boycoting the game because it it so rediculous. I'm leaning towards their decision if things don't change before the game comes out.
When EA heard the uproar being made over this article, they actually contacted Kotaku to try to clear up their name. While this statement directly from EA states that it will not give an advantage to players who do buy the extra guns nor affect the balance of the gameplay, it doesn't specify the point. Unless the new guns are the same guns with new aesthetics, I guarantee that gamers will find a way to manipulate and take advantage of something with these weapons within the first few weeks. Then EA is going to have to patch the game, but it will be too late and nobody will want to play the game. Plain and simple. EA is just screwing over gamers, and screwing over themselves because they think that since they're "top dog" in the industry, what they say goes.
Now to add in my personal gripe about EA's attempted monopoly over the gaming industry. EA bought out my favorite development studios, BioWare. They made my favorite game of all time, Knights of the Old Republic, and another one of my top 10 games of all time, Mass Effect. While KOTOR may not have another installment, 2 more Mass Effect games are already planned and I'm pretty sure at least one is already underway. If EA messes up the franchise by cutting budget to port to multiple systems or anything else, I will never forgive them.
But in the end, in relevance to the purchasing weapons thing, we just have to hope that there aren't people out there stupid enough to give into EA doing this and throwing their money at them. If anyone buys these weapons, they are feeding the gremlin after midnight.
3/16/08
Does SSB Brawl Earn a "T"
A recent article on Joystiq refers to another blog asking the question, "Does Super Smash Bros. Brawl earn the "T for Teen" rating it received?" I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents to this discussion here on my blog.
I think that over the past few years, ever since the last generation of consoles, ESRB has gotten tougher on ratings. I was slightly surprised with Halo: CE's rating being "M" and as well as Super Smash Bros. Melee being "T". Some accredit this crackdown on ratings to improved graphics, but I doubt that has much to do with it if anything at all. I think ESRB stepped up their ratings when the government started paying more attention to games. Of course the whole scandal over the goriness of Doom was more than 5 years before the last generation of games, but maybe it just took them until 2001 for ESRB to come up with the idea of, "Ok, people are complaining that kids are playing these games, we'll just make the ratings tougher so more parents won't let kids play them." I think it's a good solution, annoying for kids (I was in that position for a while,) but regardless, to get people in Washington and certain Floridian attorneys to shut up, it's worth it.
But if you think into it deeper, some games out there do deserve the M rating and shouldn't be played by most kids, in fact most of them do. But there are a some that could've gotten a T. Like wise with T games that could've gotten an E. When parents realize that this rating was a little strict, they might generalize that with all other games with that rating and end up getting their kids a game they shouldn't.
In the end, (assuming my prediction is right,) I think ESRB should give their honest opinions and ratings on games and not let politics get involved and influence their decision.
I think that over the past few years, ever since the last generation of consoles, ESRB has gotten tougher on ratings. I was slightly surprised with Halo: CE's rating being "M" and as well as Super Smash Bros. Melee being "T". Some accredit this crackdown on ratings to improved graphics, but I doubt that has much to do with it if anything at all. I think ESRB stepped up their ratings when the government started paying more attention to games. Of course the whole scandal over the goriness of Doom was more than 5 years before the last generation of games, but maybe it just took them until 2001 for ESRB to come up with the idea of, "Ok, people are complaining that kids are playing these games, we'll just make the ratings tougher so more parents won't let kids play them." I think it's a good solution, annoying for kids (I was in that position for a while,) but regardless, to get people in Washington and certain Floridian attorneys to shut up, it's worth it.
But if you think into it deeper, some games out there do deserve the M rating and shouldn't be played by most kids, in fact most of them do. But there are a some that could've gotten a T. Like wise with T games that could've gotten an E. When parents realize that this rating was a little strict, they might generalize that with all other games with that rating and end up getting their kids a game they shouldn't.
In the end, (assuming my prediction is right,) I think ESRB should give their honest opinions and ratings on games and not let politics get involved and influence their decision.
3/6/08
Microsoft in talks with Sony to end 360 owner's Blu-Ray Blues
Recently there have been reports of Microsoft being in contact with Sony about providing an external Blu-Ray drive for the Xbox 360. This is great news for Xbox 360 owners, especially with big names like Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, Warner Bros. and Disney all being Blu-Ray exclusive. But when I first saw this it made me wonder why Sony would give away one of the major advantages the PS3 has over the 360. Blu-Ray has dug the grave for HDDVD and is chiseling out the headstone. Since Sony is the owner of Blu-Ray it makes you want to wonder why they would share their all-star with their rival. Microsoft has long stated that if Blu-Ray beat out HDDVD and the consumer demanded it, they would provide Blu-Ray support. But obtaining the rights to Blu-Ray from Sony I would assume would not be easy. Also there have been rumors flying around for the past few weeks that an Xbox 360 external Blu-Ray player was already fully developed and could be available as early as May. I never believed these rumors though because it just didn't make sense why PS3 would forfeit that upper hand they have.
But when I thought about it more, it might not make sense, but it might make cents. PS3s at launch were ending up costing Sony about $300 each AFTER retail. The cost to produce the PS3 was higher than the price they were retailing them at. Now they are at least breaking even on production costs and making up to $100 per console with the reduction in production costs. But Sony still racked up over a 1 billion dollar loss as a result of their over the top console. Could selling the Blu-Ray rights to the ever so rich Microsoft be Sony's attempt to compensate for their losses? Or maybe Sony just wants to be friends and hold hands with Microsoft and bake cakes.
My guess is the first one, the cake is a lie.
But when I thought about it more, it might not make sense, but it might make cents. PS3s at launch were ending up costing Sony about $300 each AFTER retail. The cost to produce the PS3 was higher than the price they were retailing them at. Now they are at least breaking even on production costs and making up to $100 per console with the reduction in production costs. But Sony still racked up over a 1 billion dollar loss as a result of their over the top console. Could selling the Blu-Ray rights to the ever so rich Microsoft be Sony's attempt to compensate for their losses? Or maybe Sony just wants to be friends and hold hands with Microsoft and bake cakes.
My guess is the first one, the cake is a lie.
3/5/08
Fable 2 DOES have online co-op!
In my Fable 2 cover story, the only resource I was going by was X3F's interview in which they were unclear about whether or not co-op was online. Since I posted that article I have found the GDC 08 Fable 2 presentation video. This was clear to say that you can take the character you have worked on on your personal Xbox and connect to someone else's and play co-op that way. Pretty flipping sweet, huh? Also this video reminded me of another feature I had forgotten about, guns. And the graphics look great. So anyways here's the video courtesy of GameVideos.com
3/4/08
My Top 10 Games of All Time
Here is a list of my personal top 10 games of all time.
10. Call of Duty 4- Xbox 360
This is only on here because Infinity Ward really nailed the online multiplayer.
9. Guitar Hero II- Xbox 360
Awesome game, great songs. Never played the first one and the 3rd one was very disappointing. This probably would've been replaced with Rock Band if I had played it but I haven't, because, you know, it's 160 bucks.
8. Fable- Xbox
It didn't live up to the hype but it was still a great game. I cannot wait for the sequel.
7. Bioshock- Xbox 360
Loved the plasmids, loved the Big Daddys and Little Sisters. One of the best stories ever.
6. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time- N64
Classic with great story, great combat, and long lasting fun.
5. Halo (the whole trilogy)- Xbox & Xbox 360
Great story, great campaign, great multiplayer, and Bungie is just awesome. The books were great too.
4. Roller Coaster Tycoon- PC
Awesome game, really goes to show you don't need violence to make a good game. Only game I've spent more time playing than this is my number 2 pick. RCT 2 and 3 were disappointing.
3. Mass Effect- Xbox 360
Great story, amazing graphics, great combat and weapon system, and great voice acting and dialog. I'm really looking forward to the next 2. I want to read the prequel book.
2. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion- Xbox 360
So awesome, so addictive. I have over 500 hours of logged play time on this game. Best downloadable content add ons for any game ever.
1. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic- Xbox
The best game of all time and if anyone disagrees go castrate yourself. But seriously, the storyline was the best storyline out of any video game, movie, book, comic book, legend, and just the best ever. The design and depth of all of the characters was out of this world and still to this day no game character has been able to come close to matching the greatness of Carth, Jolee, Canderous, and even the droid HK-47. The combat system was the best one ever, the voice acting and dialog was amazing. The game was just the best there ever was.
10. Call of Duty 4- Xbox 360
This is only on here because Infinity Ward really nailed the online multiplayer.
9. Guitar Hero II- Xbox 360
Awesome game, great songs. Never played the first one and the 3rd one was very disappointing. This probably would've been replaced with Rock Band if I had played it but I haven't, because, you know, it's 160 bucks.
8. Fable- Xbox
It didn't live up to the hype but it was still a great game. I cannot wait for the sequel.
7. Bioshock- Xbox 360
Loved the plasmids, loved the Big Daddys and Little Sisters. One of the best stories ever.
6. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time- N64
Classic with great story, great combat, and long lasting fun.
5. Halo (the whole trilogy)- Xbox & Xbox 360
Great story, great campaign, great multiplayer, and Bungie is just awesome. The books were great too.
4. Roller Coaster Tycoon- PC
Awesome game, really goes to show you don't need violence to make a good game. Only game I've spent more time playing than this is my number 2 pick. RCT 2 and 3 were disappointing.
3. Mass Effect- Xbox 360
Great story, amazing graphics, great combat and weapon system, and great voice acting and dialog. I'm really looking forward to the next 2. I want to read the prequel book.
2. The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion- Xbox 360
So awesome, so addictive. I have over 500 hours of logged play time on this game. Best downloadable content add ons for any game ever.
1. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic- Xbox
The best game of all time and if anyone disagrees go castrate yourself. But seriously, the storyline was the best storyline out of any video game, movie, book, comic book, legend, and just the best ever. The design and depth of all of the characters was out of this world and still to this day no game character has been able to come close to matching the greatness of Carth, Jolee, Canderous, and even the droid HK-47. The combat system was the best one ever, the voice acting and dialog was amazing. The game was just the best there ever was.
3/3/08
Ladies and Gentlemen.... Peter Molyneux!
Recently Xbox360 Fanboy did an interview with the man, the myth, the legend, Peter Molyneux. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Molyneux is not only a veteran of the gaming industry, but was born to be in the gaming industry and has had successful games for like 20 years now. He was behind games like Populous, Black &W hite, and the one everyone knows, Fable.
E3 '06 had the announcement trailer for Fable 2. Despite the original Fable failing to live up to the unbelievably high hype that was set before it, it was still a great game and people were pretty freaking excited about Fable 2. So naturally, doing an interview with Peter Molyneux, you're going to ask a lot about Fable 2.
Xbox360 Fanboy started off with questions about some of the new features they've announced, the ability for female characters to become pregnant and have kids, and the pet dog feature. What I get from these features is, what the heck? We already have the Sims to have and raise kids and that stupid Nintendogs game to raise dogs, why do we need to integrate these two games into the awesomeness that is Fable. Unless you can do something like train the kid to fight with you as your sidekick I don't see any point to this feature. The same goes for the dog, but this is Fable, not Michael Vick's Extreme Dog Fighter. But anyways, I was relieved when Mr.Molyneux responded to those questions with answers that came across as saying that they aren't major features and we'll see what they are and they certainly aren't going to be what I was at first fearing they would be.
Another major feature that is different in the sequel is money making. Before you got gold for doing quest, drops from enemies, and mercantile. The mercantile system has been expanded more, but quests and enemy drops don't give you gold. In order to make money you have to actually work. Plus there's also that Xbox Live Arcade game, Keystone, that lets you earn money for the game and you can do that before the game even comes out.
Another point of discussion in the interview was the whole hype thing. Fable 1 was over hyped and didn't live up to all it had hyped up to be, and you can't blame the hype entirely on Mr.Molyneux and Lionhead Studios. Most of the blame falls on sites that report and speculate based off on indirect sources... kinda like this site... but anyways, Mr.Moylneux talked about how they're trying to prevent that from happening by not mentioning too much about the game and the features to the press/public. As much as I'm aching for more, I agree with him there and really finding out about the features when playing the game is a lot better than finding out that they aren't there when I'm playing the game.
But the biggest topic of discussion throughout the interview is the co-op feature. It was unclear in the interview as well as in other Joystiq articles whether or not it would be online co-op, but all signs point to at least being seriously considered. I was so excited to hear this because me and all my friends are huge fans of Fable and for us to be able to play it together would be so awesome. One of the co-op features mentioned was "henchman" where one player is able to "hire" another to help him out and the player "hiring" pays the henchman gold.
Other features discussed in the interview were expanded property features where there are not only houses but stores and castles and stuff like that. On top of that there will be side quests to go along with many of the properties.
You can read and/or listen to Xbox 360 Fanboy's interview of Peter Molyneux here.
E3 '06 had the announcement trailer for Fable 2. Despite the original Fable failing to live up to the unbelievably high hype that was set before it, it was still a great game and people were pretty freaking excited about Fable 2. So naturally, doing an interview with Peter Molyneux, you're going to ask a lot about Fable 2.
Xbox360 Fanboy started off with questions about some of the new features they've announced, the ability for female characters to become pregnant and have kids, and the pet dog feature. What I get from these features is, what the heck? We already have the Sims to have and raise kids and that stupid Nintendogs game to raise dogs, why do we need to integrate these two games into the awesomeness that is Fable. Unless you can do something like train the kid to fight with you as your sidekick I don't see any point to this feature. The same goes for the dog, but this is Fable, not Michael Vick's Extreme Dog Fighter. But anyways, I was relieved when Mr.Molyneux responded to those questions with answers that came across as saying that they aren't major features and we'll see what they are and they certainly aren't going to be what I was at first fearing they would be.
Another major feature that is different in the sequel is money making. Before you got gold for doing quest, drops from enemies, and mercantile. The mercantile system has been expanded more, but quests and enemy drops don't give you gold. In order to make money you have to actually work. Plus there's also that Xbox Live Arcade game, Keystone, that lets you earn money for the game and you can do that before the game even comes out.
Another point of discussion in the interview was the whole hype thing. Fable 1 was over hyped and didn't live up to all it had hyped up to be, and you can't blame the hype entirely on Mr.Molyneux and Lionhead Studios. Most of the blame falls on sites that report and speculate based off on indirect sources... kinda like this site... but anyways, Mr.Moylneux talked about how they're trying to prevent that from happening by not mentioning too much about the game and the features to the press/public. As much as I'm aching for more, I agree with him there and really finding out about the features when playing the game is a lot better than finding out that they aren't there when I'm playing the game.
But the biggest topic of discussion throughout the interview is the co-op feature. It was unclear in the interview as well as in other Joystiq articles whether or not it would be online co-op, but all signs point to at least being seriously considered. I was so excited to hear this because me and all my friends are huge fans of Fable and for us to be able to play it together would be so awesome. One of the co-op features mentioned was "henchman" where one player is able to "hire" another to help him out and the player "hiring" pays the henchman gold.
Other features discussed in the interview were expanded property features where there are not only houses but stores and castles and stuff like that. On top of that there will be side quests to go along with many of the properties.
You can read and/or listen to Xbox 360 Fanboy's interview of Peter Molyneux here.
Could the "PS" in PS3 be fore "Price Smart"?
I'm not a fan of Playstation, but I've got to give Sony credit. Lots of people had thought that the PS3 was down for the count in this console war with the lack of games (let alone good ones) and the Donald Trump style price tag. On top of that, even with the high price tag Sony was losing money on selling the consoles because the production cost was higher than the wholesale price. They had to rely entirely on licensing rights to make games on the console for all their money. And yet even more they failed to match up to the awesomeness that is Xbox Live, to which I actually heard a Sony employee say in an interview that they "knew we were ****ed." But Sony hung in there, and now it's been almost a year and a half and the past few months the PS3 has been starting to come around. Some would even argue (not me) that PS3 has passed the Wii in the console war.
So get this, a few days ago Joystiq said that sometime after/around the release of Metal Gear Solid 4, there will be a PS3 bundle for $499. The bundle includes the 80GB console, MGS4, and the new Dual Shock 3 controller that is coming out next month. Let's do the math here:
Current gen gaming console- approx. $350
80GB hard drive- approx. $120
Blu-Ray player- approx. $600
Metal Gear Solid 4- $60
Dual Shock 3 controller- $55
Total value of package- approx. $1185
The value of this bundle is unbelievable. It's $100 more than the current 40 gig PS3, so you're doubling the system memory, then you're adding in the (in my opinion) better controller along with one of the most anticipated PS3 games of 2008. This price is actually $100 less than the launch price of the PS3, that's what's really astonishing about it. I would love to know how much Sony is going to be losing per console (I'll be sure to post if I find out.) Sony is either extremely desperate to sell their consoles or has found a cheaper way to produce the consoles. I have a feeling it's both. This might spur developers to make more games for the console. Before, not enough people had the console for them to port their games to the system (let alone port them decently.) If I were a publisher I would be extremely hesitant to do a PS3 exclusive. But now with this price drop, the PS3 is going to get into more homes and get PS3 games selling. And once a lot more PS3 games get selling, a lot more PS3 games will start being made. I think this is a smart move for Sony. They've managed to fight their way back to keep themselves in the war and now this is really going to make them a real threat once again.
So get this, a few days ago Joystiq said that sometime after/around the release of Metal Gear Solid 4, there will be a PS3 bundle for $499. The bundle includes the 80GB console, MGS4, and the new Dual Shock 3 controller that is coming out next month. Let's do the math here:
Current gen gaming console- approx. $350
80GB hard drive- approx. $120
Blu-Ray player- approx. $600
Metal Gear Solid 4- $60
Dual Shock 3 controller- $55
Total value of package- approx. $1185
The value of this bundle is unbelievable. It's $100 more than the current 40 gig PS3, so you're doubling the system memory, then you're adding in the (in my opinion) better controller along with one of the most anticipated PS3 games of 2008. This price is actually $100 less than the launch price of the PS3, that's what's really astonishing about it. I would love to know how much Sony is going to be losing per console (I'll be sure to post if I find out.) Sony is either extremely desperate to sell their consoles or has found a cheaper way to produce the consoles. I have a feeling it's both. This might spur developers to make more games for the console. Before, not enough people had the console for them to port their games to the system (let alone port them decently.) If I were a publisher I would be extremely hesitant to do a PS3 exclusive. But now with this price drop, the PS3 is going to get into more homes and get PS3 games selling. And once a lot more PS3 games get selling, a lot more PS3 games will start being made. I think this is a smart move for Sony. They've managed to fight their way back to keep themselves in the war and now this is really going to make them a real threat once again.
3/1/08
Mr. Thompson, You Don't Know Jack!
Mr. Thompson, You Don’t Know Jack!
“Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They’re not even speech. They’re dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it.”- Jack Thompson
The things wrong with this quote are…. Well pretty much all of it is wrong. First of all to categorize all video games as murder simulators is extremely naïve. There are very few games I would consider murder simulators, although in his defense most of the games he is attacking/attempting to sue are the ones I would see as that. But regardless of that he is stereotyping games. According to the ESRB ratings system, out of the 14,786 games they have rated 7,575 have some form of violence in them. That is ~51.2% of games, barely over half. If you don’t include the mild, cartoon, or fantasy violence the amount of games with violence decreases to 3309 games, ~22.38% of all games. The amount of games with intense violence, games that most of which I would understand calling “murder simulators,” is only 233, less than 1.6% of all games. To call all games “murder simulators” is a horrible stereotype.
So if you replace “murder simulators” with video games, he is claiming video games are not “constitutionally protected speech.” Well that is arguable. If movies are “constitutionally protected speech” then video games are also. It’s not uncommon also to find a game with a plot line with some sort of lesson in it (Assassin’s Creed anyone?)
Continuing along this quote to say that video games are “dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it” is just ridiculous. I don’t need to state again the percentages of games with violence, but that’s certainly a fair argument to this claim. But I think the biggest fact that disproves this is that video games do not teach kids how or where to obtain weapons, legally or illegally, and everyone knows how to fire a gun, and removing video games from the world will not change that. Movies and TV promote that just as much if not more than video games do.
The last part of this outrageous quote says that video games teach kids to love to kill. I’m astonished that anyone would make this claim. I’m seriously sitting here thinking how to respond to that it is such a horrible claim. The only thing I come up with at first is “….What!?” Mr. Thompson also accuses the DualShock system in the PlayStation controllers “gives you a pleasurable buzz back into your hands with each kill.” That is not at all the purpose of rumble features in video games nor what they accomplish. The rumble feature is meant to immerse gamers further into a realistic setting where they can feel the action or motion around them. I do not know of a single game that makes the controller rumble when you get a kill.
But going back to the main topic of this part of the blog, video games most certainly do not teach kids to love to kill. Mr. Thompson says “In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers.” Time for more statistics! Out of all kids in America between the age of 7-18, 79% play video games on a regular basis, with the average American child playing 8 hours a week. So that means that roughly 4 out of 5 kids are going to be gamers, that means 4 out of 5 school shooters are going to be gamers as well. Now when you take gender into effect, 90% of boys play video games. I haven’t heard of any school shootings where it was a girl, but it may have happened. Regardless, it makes sense that it would be a boy who does a school shooting because male nature makes us aggressive while female nature makes them more nurturing. So if males commit almost all school shootings, that means 9 out of 10 school shooters are going to be gamers.
Going further into this topic of forming a love for killing, Mr. Thompson says that video games are psychological conditioning to teach how to kill without realizing the consequences and reality of ending a life. This is not true at all. I think everyone can distinguish the difference between ending a fictional, animated, and virtual life and actually killing someone. It’s not like a gamer is going to kill someone and think “oh they’ll just respawn in 3 seconds, no problem.” And if they do think that, gaming isn’t their problem, mental stability is. Really when it boils down to the root of it that’s the cause of these school shooting scenarios, mental stability. And as far as I know there is no video game that can degrade mental stability.
Now going beyond this quote and looking at other things that are having much more of an effect on youth than Mr. Thompson claims video games are having, drugs. In the year 2006, 2.7% of 12 graders had used steroids. Does this mean we should get rid of organized sports? Likewise, the percentage of gamers who commit violent crimes is far below than that, and there is not even solid proof that they are what cause the kids to do this.
So now that I’ve taken an entire page and a half to put to shame Jack Thompson, I think it’s only fair that I point out both sides of the story and point out things he does right… this is going to be hard. Mr. Thompson’s intentions are good; I don’t see how what he’s doing could have a negative or self-centered motive. Also I personally do not approve of Ao games, or any of the GTA games. I think that the GTA games are trash. Seriously, is it necessary for there to be a game where we can chop up a hooker with a chainsaw? No, not at all. But Rockstar has a right to make that game and if people want they also have a right to buy and enjoy that game as long as they are mature enough for it. I also agree (to somewhat of an extent) that young minds are impressionable and can easily have their morals watered down, and video games might be a source for this, but that’s why we have the ESRB ratings. It’s not the developer’s fault for a kid playing these games, it’s the parents who bought the game for the kid or the idiot retailer who sold it to them.
In the end Jack Thompson needs to shut up and stop treating gamers and game developers like they are brain dead demons and start putting his time to better and more effective uses.
Here are some great links:
8 myths about gaming debunked
Teen steroid use statistics
Jack Thompson’s wikipedia page.
Also, Jack Thompson has lots of ridiculous quotes and I’ll make short blogs now and then with these quotes. Here’s an example of one;
“I serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and you hate me because the world first hated Him. I follow the Creator of the Universe."-Jack Thompson
We don’t hate you because you’re religious. We hate you because you are more ignorant than you accuse us gamers of being.
“Murder simulators are not constitutionally protected speech. They’re not even speech. They’re dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it.”- Jack Thompson
The things wrong with this quote are…. Well pretty much all of it is wrong. First of all to categorize all video games as murder simulators is extremely naïve. There are very few games I would consider murder simulators, although in his defense most of the games he is attacking/attempting to sue are the ones I would see as that. But regardless of that he is stereotyping games. According to the ESRB ratings system, out of the 14,786 games they have rated 7,575 have some form of violence in them. That is ~51.2% of games, barely over half. If you don’t include the mild, cartoon, or fantasy violence the amount of games with violence decreases to 3309 games, ~22.38% of all games. The amount of games with intense violence, games that most of which I would understand calling “murder simulators,” is only 233, less than 1.6% of all games. To call all games “murder simulators” is a horrible stereotype.
So if you replace “murder simulators” with video games, he is claiming video games are not “constitutionally protected speech.” Well that is arguable. If movies are “constitutionally protected speech” then video games are also. It’s not uncommon also to find a game with a plot line with some sort of lesson in it (Assassin’s Creed anyone?)
Continuing along this quote to say that video games are “dangerous physical appliances that teach a kid how to kill efficiently and to love it” is just ridiculous. I don’t need to state again the percentages of games with violence, but that’s certainly a fair argument to this claim. But I think the biggest fact that disproves this is that video games do not teach kids how or where to obtain weapons, legally or illegally, and everyone knows how to fire a gun, and removing video games from the world will not change that. Movies and TV promote that just as much if not more than video games do.
The last part of this outrageous quote says that video games teach kids to love to kill. I’m astonished that anyone would make this claim. I’m seriously sitting here thinking how to respond to that it is such a horrible claim. The only thing I come up with at first is “….What!?” Mr. Thompson also accuses the DualShock system in the PlayStation controllers “gives you a pleasurable buzz back into your hands with each kill.” That is not at all the purpose of rumble features in video games nor what they accomplish. The rumble feature is meant to immerse gamers further into a realistic setting where they can feel the action or motion around them. I do not know of a single game that makes the controller rumble when you get a kill.
But going back to the main topic of this part of the blog, video games most certainly do not teach kids to love to kill. Mr. Thompson says “In every school shooting, we find that kids who pull the trigger are video gamers.” Time for more statistics! Out of all kids in America between the age of 7-18, 79% play video games on a regular basis, with the average American child playing 8 hours a week. So that means that roughly 4 out of 5 kids are going to be gamers, that means 4 out of 5 school shooters are going to be gamers as well. Now when you take gender into effect, 90% of boys play video games. I haven’t heard of any school shootings where it was a girl, but it may have happened. Regardless, it makes sense that it would be a boy who does a school shooting because male nature makes us aggressive while female nature makes them more nurturing. So if males commit almost all school shootings, that means 9 out of 10 school shooters are going to be gamers.
Going further into this topic of forming a love for killing, Mr. Thompson says that video games are psychological conditioning to teach how to kill without realizing the consequences and reality of ending a life. This is not true at all. I think everyone can distinguish the difference between ending a fictional, animated, and virtual life and actually killing someone. It’s not like a gamer is going to kill someone and think “oh they’ll just respawn in 3 seconds, no problem.” And if they do think that, gaming isn’t their problem, mental stability is. Really when it boils down to the root of it that’s the cause of these school shooting scenarios, mental stability. And as far as I know there is no video game that can degrade mental stability.
Now going beyond this quote and looking at other things that are having much more of an effect on youth than Mr. Thompson claims video games are having, drugs. In the year 2006, 2.7% of 12 graders had used steroids. Does this mean we should get rid of organized sports? Likewise, the percentage of gamers who commit violent crimes is far below than that, and there is not even solid proof that they are what cause the kids to do this.
So now that I’ve taken an entire page and a half to put to shame Jack Thompson, I think it’s only fair that I point out both sides of the story and point out things he does right… this is going to be hard. Mr. Thompson’s intentions are good; I don’t see how what he’s doing could have a negative or self-centered motive. Also I personally do not approve of Ao games, or any of the GTA games. I think that the GTA games are trash. Seriously, is it necessary for there to be a game where we can chop up a hooker with a chainsaw? No, not at all. But Rockstar has a right to make that game and if people want they also have a right to buy and enjoy that game as long as they are mature enough for it. I also agree (to somewhat of an extent) that young minds are impressionable and can easily have their morals watered down, and video games might be a source for this, but that’s why we have the ESRB ratings. It’s not the developer’s fault for a kid playing these games, it’s the parents who bought the game for the kid or the idiot retailer who sold it to them.
In the end Jack Thompson needs to shut up and stop treating gamers and game developers like they are brain dead demons and start putting his time to better and more effective uses.
Here are some great links:
8 myths about gaming debunked
Teen steroid use statistics
Jack Thompson’s wikipedia page.
Also, Jack Thompson has lots of ridiculous quotes and I’ll make short blogs now and then with these quotes. Here’s an example of one;
“I serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and you hate me because the world first hated Him. I follow the Creator of the Universe."-Jack Thompson
We don’t hate you because you’re religious. We hate you because you are more ignorant than you accuse us gamers of being.
2/25/08
This is the result of a sore throat, a sleepless night, and 4 hours of Google Sketchup....
So I'm getting over the flu and I have a wicked bad sore throat. It hurts so bad I couldn't sleep last night. So at 4AM I got on the computer, and I downloaded Google Sketchup. I spent 3 hours messing around with it, made a very simple small house, then wanted to try something different. So I decided I'd try to animate the Covenant Grunt from the Halo universe... After an hour I came up with this...
Yeah, I'm that pathetic. Deal with it.
2/24/08
One is a Lonely Number
A while back, a leading member at EA games made a statement about his desire for one universal console. Almost a year later the debate still rages in both the gaming industry and community. Most game developers want the one console to reduce costs of porting to the separate systems. The console makers want to keep their consoles because they don’t want to share with the other console makers. And the gamers are split on the decision. There are 1 main pro and 1 main con to the situation, the pro being funding, the con being competition.
First I’ll cover the con, competition. If there were one console, the company that made/owned that one console would have a monopoly over the entire gaming industry. By having that monopoly, they would be able to jack up the prices (pretty much) as high as they want and there wouldn’t be much of anything we could do about it. The competition between Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can lead to the consoles being cheaper. Such as when GC was way out of the last generation’s console war, they marked down the price to $99 in a desperate attempt to salvage what little they have left. (It didn’t work but you get my point.) Also when the PS3 came out, Sony was actually losing money on the consoles selling them at the prices they were at (even though they were high.) The console actually cost more to make than what they were selling it for and they were making all their profits off selling rights to make games for the system. Yet another example of competitive prices is the fact that Nintendo kept its Wii games at $50 despite all other new current-gen games being $60.
Another way that competition is a good thing is innovation. If there were no competition between the consoles, the only competition would be through the actual game developers and there is only so much they can improve on considering they are limited to the features in the box they are given. The example most people can recognize today is what Nintendo has done with the Wii and the DS. These systems provided the first (truly successful) way of touch and motion controls, all because Nintendo knew they needed it. Nintendo knew they were screwed after losing the last console war. To take early action before the next console war they released the DS, and that certainly bought them time. If Nintendo had lost this console war as badly as GameCube did, Nintendo’s future would be questionable.
An example of innovation from the last console war, the greatest innovation was the online play of Xbox Live. Nintendo and Sony didn’t explore this much and the little they did was nothing compared to Microsoft’s achievements (bad pun.) The only play, downloads, and community of Xbox Live was one of, if not the biggest innovation in the gaming industry since the invention of the home console. Without Xbox Live, Halo 2 wouldn’t have been so successful, nor would CoD4 have been. The last example of innovation I’ll provide is going back yet another console war. This example was pointed out in an article in the latest issue of Game Informer Magazine. Back in the N64 vs PlayStation war, Sony introduced the first (successful) disc-operated console. That opened lots of new doors for the next generations to come. With the separate consoles it provides new and innovative features, and the choices of which ones you want.
Now to cover the pro, funding. Like I mentioned at the beginning, it costs more money to port games to multiple systems. Game developers will not have to spend so much money on buying console rights or the production of the different controls and whatnot. The developers can take that money they’ve saved and put it towards actually making the game. But honestly, that’s not that true for every developer. There are lots of multi-platform games that are great games; it’s not money that makes a game good. Also, I doubt all developers are going to put that saved money towards the game over a new coffee machine for the company cafeteria.
The funding pro for gamers is sort of up in the air. For those gamers hard core enough to go out and buy all 3 consoles for $1200+, having one console could be cheaper. But also having one console eliminates the whole competitive prices and it probably wouldn’t be that much cheaper, maybe not cheaper at all. It certainly wouldn’t be cheaper for those of us who are happy with just one console. But hard-core gamers don’t want to miss out on any console exclusive blockbuster titles. Having a single console would eliminate that. My PS2 broke after having it like a year and I never got it replaced, and I was perfectly happy with my GameCube and Xbox360. Sure it was no fun missing out on games like Kingdom Hearts 2 and all the Ratchet and Clank games, but I was content with the games I did get.
In the end, I find that having multiple consoles is a much better option. You make your decision yourself based on the facts. Any additional points accepted as always, and thanks for reading my unnecessary ranting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)