Yep, I read the Gamespot news article about PETA's rail against Cooking Mama for including meat recipes and made their own game to protest. Naturally, I just had to check this game out.

The game has a very interesting premise. Like Cooking Mama, you're supposed to use your mouse to play cooking minigames, but this is not your typical lighthearted Cooking Mama. This is a more "mature" Mama, looking like a crazy killer, and the turkey preparation displays copious amounts of blood and internal organs. Being, well, a gamer, I took much sadistic delight in torturing the turkey, especially considering that it was already dead anyways. In a crazy sort of way, this new take on preparing recipes is hilarious, and I love knowing that I am "Meaner than Mama!" What a great way of taking out anger. Unfortunately, midway through the game, Mama has a "change of heart" and the game becomes decidedly less fun as it loses its over-the-top violence and focuses on preparation of vegetarian recipes.

Concept aside, it's still a game, and I have to review it as such. Wonky controls sometimes ruin the fun when you have to press the same thing over and over again before it registers. This is particularly bad involving any "moving" action. Also, the game is short, but being a PC flash game, this isn't really much of a hindrance.

Overall, I recommend this game for anyone who wishes to view Cooking Mama in a whole new light, er, dark. All you gamers clamouring for "mature" games with blood and gore will love this twist on a "casual" game.

Wait, this was supposed to be about how meat recipes are bad because they involve killing animals? How the heck was I supposed to know that?

For the uninitiated, Cyberscore.net is a website where gamers around the world post their best records in certain portions of games for everyone else to read em and weep at their own mediocrity. Side effects may include a compulsion to dig up your old games and replay them to get on the charts and compromised emotional security upon realizing that you'll never be as good as the people on top, or even the top 10.;) Of course, getting into the top ten is really not that big a deal if not many people try out a certain challenge, but it gives you a sense that you've accomplished something, similar to the feeling of placing high in a Pokemon or Smash Bros tournament, among others. And since I am not likely to be attending any of those, I will have to settle with getting my humility lessons from Cyberscore. Alone, you may think you're the best, but when you see the actual best, you get motivated to get closer to the best, and sometimes even beat the best (if you are one of those select few who possess the predisposition, or just have a ridiculous amount of time on your hands).

One thing I am concerned about is how Cyberscore manages to weed out liars and cheaters. All you have to do is just simply type in a number and you're on. I wonder if the site will require actual proof, like an image of the in-game score or a Youtube video showing the painstaking effort to get the score (the latter being dang difficult to hack duplicate). Well, I see no satisfaction in getting on the charts by fraud, so that is motivation enough for me to stay honest.

Obviously I will not be attempting to become the best gamer in the world on there. That requires such devotion that it would cut into my other activities. But it is kind of satisfying to place a few high scores here. For the record, my username is CollectorV.

In other news, Spore got 8.0.

-

-

-

-

I'm still buying it anyways.

I've never been more excited for any game in my life. Even the monstrous hype for Super Smash Bros Brawl, Grand Theft Auto 4, etc., failed to suck me in. However, Spore is special. The game concept sounds like it will be the ultimate game. I mean, let's break down some of the great things in video games. Customization? Endless. Gameplay? You're controlling the fate of an entire species, what more do you want? Control? Total (even more than any other game). Story? Well, the life of your organism will tell itself, and there are so many ways that the "plot" can go. So yes, the scale of the game is great, greater than SimAnything, greater than Civilization, greater even than Black and White.

So yes, if done right, it will be the greatest game ever, and possibly anyone can enjoy it (unless it becomes too convoluted for casuals to handle). It's even educational, so I can see this greatly improving gaming's image. I really hope that reviewers will be able to comprehend its greatness, though. Right now, it seems like they are more interested in more conventional games like Shooters, Fantasy Adventures, etc. Of course, those kinds of games have nothing on Spore, because you are controlled by the developers' desires, not your own, but Spore's unconventional nature might put reviewers off. Not that it really matters; I'm not going to let some reviewers influence my decision to get Spore, but they have the power to influence millions of people, and it would be nice to get them to understand that Spore is just as significant, if not more so, than Grand Theft Auto 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, etc.

Maybe I'm overhyping this game. As everyone knows, hype inevitably leads to disappointment. But since this is the most groundbreaking game concept to date, I feel that I am obligated to be very excited for it, for undoubtedly the innovation of this game will encourage other developers to attempt to top this and become even more creative. Who knows what frontier gaming will explore next?

Many people (not just on this site) are irritated by the community's seeming overemphasis on the score that games (or any medium, for that matter) are given when they should really be focussing on the actual content on the review. I definitely agree that the written analysis of a game is much more important than what score it is given. After all, a game can be considered "the greatest game ever", but if you don't like the genre of game (for example, someone who is not a fan of RPG's or FPS's), then you won't enjoy playing it, regardless of how great the reviewers regard it as. Or maybe the game does not have elements you are looking for: innovation, for example. Maybe a game is just a very good upgrade and not an "out of this world" experience, yet it gets a high score anyways. Plus, game scores tend to have different meanings for different games: for Super Mario Sunshine, an 8.0 is a disappointment score to the reviewer, but for a game like Trauma Center, it's a pleasant surprise.

On the other hand, review scores are helpful in determining a play or don't play. In terms of a small range, such as 7.5-9.0, they really don't say much, but on the huge scale, a 4.5 game is significantly worse than an 8.0 game, and when a game gets a 1.0 range score, that tells you to stay far, far, away. For math nerds like me, they also help quantify quality on a site like GameRankings, but of course, you can't really express opinions through numbers.

In the end, review scores are likely here to stay, and I personally wouldn't want them to go away anyways. They are a helpful guide, but the written review will always trump the number, so they should not be followed religiously. One of these days, though, I'd like to see Gamespot or any reviewer abolish scores and gauge their readers' reactions (perhaps April Fool's?). Or better yet, there should be a reviewer that writes without using scores at all.

I semi-promised myself that I would not use this blog for anything except video game related material, but something recently came to my mind that I felt had to be posted here. Something I am surprised that no one has brought up.

I am referring to the infamous response by Miss South Carolina (Caitlin Upton) to a question about why 20% of...er...residents of the U.S.A.can't locate their country on amap. At first I chuckled along with the mob,but your brain does funny things on MOB(TM). Then I realized that it was very strange for the mob to be laughing at the "U.S. Americans" remark. "How dare she call us U.S. Americans! Doesn't she know that we control the entire continent?"

U.S. foreign policy jab aside, apparently a lot of people living in the U.S.A. don't realize that America refers to the entire continent, not just their country. After all, people living in South America have to call themselves Latin Americans, not to mention the residents of India have to be referred to as East Indians after some European got America and India mixed up, so why not U.S. Americans? Wait, I know. U.S. Americans sounds awfully tacky. Well, in that case, I suggest that the U.S. change its name.

Honestly, after 200 years, the world's most powerful nation could not come up with anything better for a name than United States of America. For being so great, they sure are unimaginative when it comes to naming, resorting to stealing European city names (New York, New Orleans) and the continent's name for their country. I mean, the rest of us...er...Americans have found better ways to distinguish ourselves already (Canadian, Mexican, Cuban, Venezuelan, etc). Personally, I'm impartial to Freedonia, but that's not my decision.

Interestingly enough, I recently checkeda British newspaper blog entry and they found nothing offensive with the "U.S. Americans"term, let alone the entire first sentence of the response (the site can be found here, and it is a more intelligent discussion of the issue and its implications than the idiotic responses on YouTube). And yes, the second sentence of the response was incoherent, but apparently since so many...er...U.S. Americans can't distinguish their country from their continent, it brings to mind thefamous "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones." anecdote.

Well, it's time for me to put my opinion in on the "Are videogames art?" debate. Despite being a passionate gamer, I'd say, in its current state, no. But video games have the potential to become a more involving form than other media due to the fact that the player is essentially the main character, or the villain, or even...a GOD!

I think that the following points need to be addressed for video games to become art.

1. Violence: This, in my opinion, is the biggest issue. Okay, I'm sounding like Gandhi here, but video games should lose the emphasis on violent combat if it is to be respected as art. Does every major novel, fine art form, or even movie have violence? Compare that to the major games that involve fighting: GTA, Halo, Final Fantasy, Zelda, etc. This shows a limited appeal to audiences, which is a big no-no in art. I rather like how games like Trauma Center and Phoenix Wright tell stories that do not involve combat as a major part, which is a good sign.

2. Culture: Defining art is like definingthe word planet. It is difficult to come up with a definition that everyone agrees on. However, the main thing I've noticed with forms considered art is that itis cultured. Consider the Greek statues, the Renissance sculptures, Industrial Revolution-era British novels. In comparison, there is nothing cultured about repeatedly slaughtering a bunch of animals like in most RPG's, let alone the car-jacking and banging dead hookers that video gaming is frequently perceived as. Of course, this brings back my point about violence in video games.

3. Restrictions: Does every story have to have a major villain thatamain charactermust fight to the death? Didn't think so. But it seems that every major video-game story involves this plot element. Once again, this refers back to my point on violence and limited appeal. Video games have to go beyond this structure to become art, though considering the religious devotion of the stereotypical hardcore gamer to their preciousss video game blockbuster, this will be difficult (and one of the reasons that I've converted to casual gamerism).

4. Advantages of the video game style: Video game art does not have to be like novel art or movie art. There are possibilities in video games that the other two cannot do, so why do video games have to be restricted to a traditional story(aside from defending the preciousss blockbuster)? And I don't mean just "choose your own adventure" style games, though that is a major possibility. I'll use my favourite genre, the simulation genre, as an example. In those games, you are not merely the main character, you are the creator of the story, as described by Will Wright in Spore. In SimCity, you can build your city into a modest rural village or a huge metropolitan empire, or even just wreak havoc with disasters if you want to. Civilization games allow you to change the course of history so that an ancient civilization other than China can become a major world power under your control. This amount of control sets apart video games from other media, and is the main reason I play video games and perceive it as an art form.

In conclusion, video games have a lot of potential, but the general trend towards video games is not helping them become art. And heck, it's just fun to bash the arrogant selfish snobs that call themselves "real gamers" by saying that they are ruining gaming's chance to become art.

I assume anyone reading this knows about Yoshi's Island or Yoshi's Island DS, so anyways, on to the trick.

When you hit an egg at a wall, it will change colour from green to yellow to red. Taking advantage of this mechanic, it is possible to throw an egg at a wall and then catch it with Yoshi's tongue. However, this requires fairly fast reflexes and good accuracy, so get a good distance between you and the wall. Exploiting the trick will get you six red eggs.

Why the heck do you ever want to use it? Having a constant supply of six red eggs means a ready source of stars. This makes it easier to get the 30 Star Points at the end of each level. I used it in Super Mario Advance 3, and I rarely had to use 10 or 20 Point Star Items.

Due to peer pressure (I succumbed to peer pressure? Shame on me!), I decided to do the Final Fantasy character test at http://www.ff-fan.com/chartest/

Here's my result:

I knew I was going to be Squall. I don't need any test to tell me that.

Wii really is! Check out Gamespot's Wii reviews and compare them to PS3's reviews. Overall, Wii has the highest score at 8.8 (Twilight Princess), compared to PS3's highest score at 8.6 (Resistance: Fall of Man). Also, I bothered to average the review scores all out, and Wii has an average of 7.08 for 12 games while PS3 has an average of 6.94 for 14 games. It's too early to figure out the final average, but that implies that Wii has a better launch lineup than PS3! Besides, Wii has a wider variety launch than PS3, due to new ways to play rather than the same old FPS's and sports, at a lower price! I can only imagine how Wii will turn out, but based on the launch and the Nintendo DS's success, it's going to be awesome, and Nintendo's coming back! The DS was just practice. Now, prepare for a Revolution.

Since I have settled into Gamespot community quite well, I have decided to create a blog for myself. As the title implies, this will be my first entry. In this first entry, I will post my gamer profile.

Gamer class: Moderate hardcore (I'm into games a lot, but typically only on weekends).

Affiliation: Officially non-affiliated, but leans heavily toward Nintendo. I do own a PS1, though.

Favourite game: Super Mario 64

Most hated game: Yoshi's Story

Super Smash Bros. Melee character: Luigi (Kirby in the original game)

Notable trait: Don't expect me to play by anyone's rules. No one can manipulate me unless I want them to. So anyone dealing with me as a gamer will have to put up with my controversial statements such as "Tiers don't exist" (Super Smash Bros. Melee) or "Advent Children was a bad movie" (Final Fantasy VII).

Anyways, that's it. Enjoy, and remember, vote Wii.