I honestly did not know what to expect from the videogame adaptation of Dante's Inferno. I only heard it was supposed to be similar to God of War, but I never thought the developer's could manage that and the game still resemble the poem in anyway. The demo illuminated my error in thinking the developer's had ever seen, much less read, the poem. Also, my playthrough revealed just how similar to God of War this game was. No, that's not fair, this game is God of War. Everything from the fighting and QTEs to the health and mana containers are ripped straight from Sony's game. You would have thought they might feel bad having to rely so heavily on someone else's creativity. Granted most games pay tribute in someway to those that came before it, but this is ridiculous. So even though the game played well enough its blatant plagiarism made it tough to enjoy.

Back to the game's relation to the epic poem, or lack thereof. Here are the similarities, and it should be noted that if you have never read the work this might not seem so off, there are characters named Dante, Beatrice, and Virgil. Also, there is hell and its several circles. That is it. The characters' characteristics, appearances, and historical context are completely wrong. Dante was never a crusader, his story does not even take place at the same time (hundreds of years off). This rules out any evil bishops, or archbishops, or whatever. Also, it rules out any uninformed oaths or ridiculous sewing torture scenes (penance no doubt) or battles with Death. Furthermore, Dante was never married to Beatrice, he didn't know much about her. So clearly there was no rape and pillaging, and her soul was never in hell. As for Virgil he was an uninformed poet who was not in hell but on the outskirts because he meant well in life, but he wasn't a Christian. Virgil was not battle scarred nor was he described as particularly muscular. The story so far has not fare well in the hand's of our developers.

The poem is in many ways similar to Dicken's A Christmas Carol, it is one of redemption. Instead of four ghosts (including Marley), there is Beatrice, who is Dante's guardian angel and convinces him to take his trip, and there is Virgil, who is his mentor and tour guide. You see Beatrice is already in heaven, so there's no need for rescue. It's Dante who needs help. Another point of the story is that Hell itself is not the focus, rather it is the occupants and why they were there. Dante was not in hell to shake things up or free lost souls, he was on a field trip of sorts. So very quickly we can see that the developer's were neither concerned with creativity in design or dedication to their source material. Simply put, they wanted to cash in on God of War's success even if it meant maliciously violating a classic of Western literature.

From a religious viewpoint, and this can't be overlooked as religion plays a huge part in both the poem and the game, the experience was pretty terrible and rather confusing. I was never really sure what the developer's were trying to do. This crusader who thought he was fighting for God realizes he has been tricked, into swearing an oath that has damned him, by an evil prelate of some sort. The bishop offers absolution for Crusaders, but apparently his fingers were crossed. For events to turn out as they do in the game, it means either God didn't care for the intentions of Dante's actions in battle or his oath, or God follows the lead of evil priests and can tell when they are not seriously offering absolution, or perhaps God didn't exist. Confusing see. At any rate, it appears that Beatrice has to sacrifice herself to overcome Dante's poor choice of oaths, and so their places in hell are swapped. Either that or Beatrice went to hell because she was raped, or she was sent to hell by the evil prelate. The game's story is not very clear there. However it plays out there is no consistency in theology, at least not traditional Christian theology. Furious at what he has seen Dante, wielding Death's scythe of course, begins to slaughter all of hell's minions in sight. In the process he realizes that he too, perhaps he only?, has the power of absolution and of damnation. At this point Christianity, like the poem, is nowhere to be seen in the game. Where is God or even Christ (centerpoint of Christianity)? What was the point of Christ's death and resurrection if salvation was not the product? Also, if Dante can absolve spirits, why doesn't he absolve Beatrice. Do they have to be in arm's reach or eyesight?

It doesn't make sense. Or does it? If you look at the story with God of War glasses on things become a bit clearer. Like Zeus and the other gods, the Holy Trinity need someone like Dante to do their work for them. And like Kratos, Dante is essentially tricked into this servitude (only conclusion I can come to for the Trinity's nonaction above). Now things make a bit more sense because Dante's Inferno IS God of War, and we have yet another way Sony's game was ripped off. So in the end this game mocks me as a gamer, an academic (even just as a reader), and as a Christian. It is a triple threat.

Having now played some of the "racist" Resident Evil 5, I feel comfortable asking where it is exactly. Not the evil or the residents, but the racism. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that no one (discussing this game) ever defines what they mean by racism, and so it means nothing and everything. How convenient. No doubt there are some authors (meaning anyone writing) who don't know they need to define their terms, and in their ignorance they can be overlooked. Still though, there are many out there who don't because they know they can't support their definitions with the arguments they provide.

RE5 is a perfect example. Some reviewing sites have compared the game to the movie Birth of a Nation. Their analysis is no more complicated than saying in both, black men are portrayed doing terrible things and looking savage and so both are equally racist. Now both the game and movie do portray blacks doing terrible things, but the relevant question is why are they doing them? Placed in a proper RE context RE5 is no longer comparable to Birth of a Nation or any other racist media because of motivation.

Now seems like a good time for my understanding of racism. According to Webster racism is "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." With this in mind, lets think about the RE5 scenario. First, like all the RE games (really the whole zombie genre) those who are zombies generally do not ask to become such; that trait is forced on them, it is not a natural product of their race. In the first part of RE5 you see, as you did in RE4, residents having these parasites forced on them. Again not exactly a trait or characteristic resulting from race.

You would have an easier time establishing racism for all the power-hungry whites who are cause of the zombification throughout the whole RE storyline. After all they intentionally created these viruses or used these parasites. Their seemingly naturally actions are more condemning than those carried out by the infected or infested. The arguments for racism in RE5 come off as ignorant or as a cry for attention, and in the end they might be more troublesome (in that they convince people everyone is racist) for society than the game they so desperately wish was.

I was worried that once I finished my work this semester, there would be too many games to play. Bittersweetly, the choice of which games to play is becoming easier everyday it seems. For instance today I read that the new Bond game I was anxious to play will not have any multiplayer component. Nice, check one off the list. I am sure I have mentioned this before but I enjoy socializing with others. When I say this I mean real tangible people that I know, not sidkid2349 and his/her whiny and vulgar friends.

To be sure I enjoy online gaming with my friends and I think it is a boon to the gaming experience, but it is foolhearty to drop the social aspect of games, especially in light of recent phenomena the Wii. There are some games out there still that embrace this approach, and there are even a few for this winter, but more and more abandon splitscreen/same screen coop and multiplayer vs. Does no one else find it ironic that devices like games and even cell phones, which were designed to increase socialization typically result in increased solitude? How many people play games at home, alone, with "others" on the internet. How many people do you see constantly on a phone even while at dinner with another person there.

Something else that disturbs me is that there are people out there who don't like split-screen or multiplayer optional games. I have encountered several here on GS who have said they hated those options. What in the world is going on. Seriously, has the state of our education sunken so low that this type of stupidity runs rampant. For heaven's sake it is an OPTION. You don't like the way split-screen shrinks your view or that other players keep you from moving on in a same screen game, then don't utilize the OPTION. How can you hate an option? How is that possible? I am not sure how it works but I think, perhaps, that some of these winners are now making games. I don't know, it's just a thought.

I hope that I am not the only one that laments this growing fad of less multiplayer options; or the only one who misses enjoying the company of friends while gaming. Maybe I will pick up golf or poker and leave gaming for those determined to live their lives alone with their virtual "friends." Whatever I decide to do I at least won't go broke this Christmas trying to play all the games I would like to.

To begin, let me say that I do not always agree with how Tuberville coaches. In particular his "let their offense make mistakes" mentality when Auburn has any kind of lead is brutal to my nerves. With that said however, recent posts across the internet about how Tuberville needs to go at the end of the season are, in my opinion, incredible (look up the term in the dictionary). So to remind those fans with short and skewed memories I have decided to list some facts about previous Auburn football coaches.

The revered, and rightfully so, Ralf "Shug" Jordan went 175-83-7 (.674) over a 24 year period. He was not good consistently, especially against Alabama (9-16). His first winning season was his third season (7-3-1). He had 3 ten win seasons, including the 1957 National Championship team but he also had 5 six win seasons. His longest streak of winning seasons with 8 or more wins was from 1969-1972. Outside of this he never went more than 2 seasons in a row with 8 or more wins. More importantly in his first nine seasons his record was 63-27-3 or (.677).

The next great coach was Pat Dye, who in 11 years was 99-39-4 (.711). Part of Dye's allure comes from the fact he finally broke Alabama's 9 game win streak in 1982. Dye had more consistency in his winning than had Jordan winning 8 or more games from 1982-1990. Never did he go undefeated but he did have 4 ten or more win seasons. Unfortunately he also had 3 five win seasons including his last two before he left Auburn burdened by his shady recruiting tactics. Against bama he was 6-6, and 6-3 in his first nine attempts. His first nine seasons he went 71-25-2 (.724).

Riding Dye's recruits to success was Terry Bowden who was 47-17-1 (.731). After winning his first 21 games, Bowden's production slowed. Still he was seemingly a stable coach, but his coaching tactics lead to his departure in 1998 in the midst of a 3-8 season. Not counting his last half season he was 3-2 against Alabama, otherwise his teams were 3-3.

Then came Tuberville to clean up the mess of Bowden, much as Jordan and Dye had done for their predecessors. Against Alabama he is 7-2, a feat achieved by no other coach in their first nine years. His first 9 seasons he went 78-32 (.709), and he has won 8 or more games since 2002, including the impressive but national championship denied 14-0 of 2004.

At this point Tuberville, regardless of whether we always agree with his coaching, belongs in the trinity of great AU football coaches. His first nine years are only bested by Pat Dye who it seems, like all the big coaches of his day, earned that record through illegal and ultimately costly recruiting. Having earned his spot among the AU coaching greats he deserves the same leniency those other coaches received. Jordan went 19-14-2 (.542) in his last three seasons and Dye went 18-14-2 (.529). Even if Tuberville does not win another game this season he would still be 24-14 (.631).

It is hard to dispute the numbers, though no doubt some of you will. Tommy Tuberville deserves to stay at Auburn until he has at least two seasons in a row with less than 6 wins. Let's face it, Jordan wasn't fired and Dye would have lasted longer had he not be force out because of the recruiting scandal. Other coaches were given more slack and Tuberville deserves no less. He has proven he can coach and win in the SEC, a hard feat to manage even at top-tier schools (see Tennessee the last few years).

To state or even hint that Tuberville needs to be fired at the end of the season only demonstrates an ignorance of Auburn history and a refusal to recognize Tuberville's success (he's gotten us the closest we've been to a national championship team since 1957). I may not always like him but he is the best thing for Auburn football and to throw him aside after his accomplishments at Auburn really smacks of Tuscaloosa, not Auburn, football and character (see Bill Curry, 26-10, .722 and was fired after 9-3 and 10-2 seasons). War Eagle and Long Live Tuberville!

Wow, Haze, the latest by Free Radical Design, has had an interesting life so far as an exclusive for the PS3. The game's ratings range anywhere from 9/10 to 4/10, with most falling somewhere in between. For me this meant I should try the game myself, which I did, and curiously I really enjoyed the experience. The varying reviews, I can only assume relate to how Haze was perceived by the various sections of the FPS gaming world. Haze is not a looker, and it does lack the plethora of multiplayer modes found in other FPS titles, such as FRD's own Timesplitter series or Unreal Tournament. However, Haze provides smooth gameplay, flawless controls (fully customizable), seamless on and offline multiplayer coop and vs (and this includes the option for bots), and a story that far eclipses the standard FPS fare of "this is the bad guy, shoot all of them."(This category is filled with top-tier games like Halo and COD). When examining the user reviews, there is an obvious trend where you can tell the people who played the game and those who, for whatever reason, wanted the game to fail. Those who played the game, at least somewhat objectively, rated it somewhere between 6-9, and those reviews illustrate the growing divide between FPS fans looking for a fun, solid game they can enjoy with many others, and those who want top of the line graphics and no story to bother them (after all if there is no story then there is nothing to possibly rub you the wrong way). Clearly you can see which side I lean toward.

Haze's exclusive for the PS3 status also doomed it to irrational reviews by many gamers (mostly fanboys no doubt), and even some professional reviewers. For some reason Haze bore the mantle of fulfilling many people's Timesplitters 4 fantasies and demonstrating the graphical and technical horizon for the PS3.Although the game provides perhaps the most robust multiplayer options found on the PS3 (who offers bots anymore!) it is not up to the standards of maniacal fun set by the TS series. Also the game looks good, perhaps a shade better than Resistance, but it does not come close to the likes of Uncharted, a PS3 exclusive that delivered on the hope that it would show the system's potential. Unfortunately, for the developers, the game fell somewhere between the two, and as such it received a ratings thrashing. For the most part people have been unable, or unwilling, to see the game separate from either of these points of view and so it is, to them, a failure. The casualties here are undecided gamers. They may miss out on a fun experience because others were upset that FRD did not make TS4 or because it was not a graphical/technical powerhouse. The whole Haze experience has really left me questioning the low rating of several other games, that I personally wrote off after reading reviews. Might I have also fallen prey to the unattainable expections of reviewers. Perhaps recent events which challenged the credibility of reviewing sites, have disillusioned enough people so that this game might be properly enjoyed, but I fear this is too optimistic a view. I have come to the conclusion that exclusive games this generation face higher standards than multiplatform games; and in addition to this, established developers making exclusive titles are judged against the memories of their past games, placing them in the unfortunate position of having to recreate those experiences while breaking new ground to satisfy a new and contemporary audience. With this in mind, it is no longer difficult to understand the turbulent life of Haze.

Hope that this was not too muddled and that all is well.

I imagine this will be short so don't fret. Something happened to me in the fall of 2002, I bought Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance for the PS2 and I had a blast. Then I showed my wife and she and I had a blast. That Christmas I had a blast with several other people as I introduced them to the game. Afterward I was googling "Snowblind" desperately hoping they had a sequel or ten in the works. Fortunately the PS2 was blessed with Dark Alliance II and the Champion of Norrath series and so my cravings found a fix. With the introduction of the "next gen" I was bitterly disappointed and still am. The PS3 has two games now that fit in the multiplayer Action RPG range--Marvel Ultimate Alliance and Untold Legends. Untold helped about as much as a breadstick to a starving man. There was fun to be had but it was clearly a rush job that paled in comparison to even the first Dark Alliance game. Marvel Ultimate Alliance did a better job at placating me, but since I am not that big a fan of comics I was not able to get into the game as much as I had with the PS2 games. I like to really shape what my character looks like and that is hard to do when your character's appearanceis predetermined (i.e. spiderman, wolverine, and so on). It seems that game fills aniche within a niche in gaming.Where are all this gen's titles? Ithought to myself "Snowblind games are going to be sweet on the PS3," but there aren't any so I don't know. If this weren't enough there isno onewilling to fill that void. For being such a success on the PS2 where is next Champions of Norrath? Sony should beall over that since there wouldbe no competition in the genre. That game would rake in some cash, especially mine.I know it would fall into a niche market probably but I would love to see a multiplayer (four hopefully) action rpg along the lines of Champions or Dark Alliance but set in the Star Wars Universe. Imagine running along with a lightsaber or a blaster or a crossbow with three friends. It's a nice dream isn't it. That's all I have the steam for today. Merry Christmas.

Sadly, I am going to weigh in on the Vick situation. I had hoped that there would be some people out there with some sense. There are those who are violently opposed to Vick and there are those who essentially put forward the idea that he's not as bad as all that. To begin, Vick should go to prison and a real prison at that. This should not be a Hilton situation where they seem to be able to leave when they like and serve their time in allotments. Once his time is up he should be treated just like every other ex-con. He should not be singled out for hate nor redemption because of his previous celebrity (who am I kidding with "previous").The justice system is setup for rehabilitation and so, if it can work, we should let it.

My sticking point on this issue is the time he should serve. Vick's actions demonstrate that he is unfit, just like all animal fighters, for society. The time to truly rehabilitate someone like this will take longer than 1 to 2 years proposed. Some people might respond by saying, and they have, that the reaction(and probably the punishment) does not fit the crime. I hope that this is just oversight on their part. They argue that people hunt deer and other animals and then proudly display their kills in their homes. Others say that he did not kill a person, but he is being hounded as if he did. But let's think about what he did. He not only participated in these fights once or on occasion, he actually funded and organized the operation. This is all together different from hunting or killing a human. With hunting, a legal sport, it is often used to keep animal populations in balance and therefore safer. For instance in Mississippi, a recent report showed there were more deer than people in the state, which not only threw the ecological balance off it aslo increased the risk of deer related car accidents. Furthermore, if you have a problem with hunting do something about it. This is a democratic republic we live in, which means you approve not only the leaders but also the laws.

Another thing is that hunting involves "wild" animals. Dogs are domesticated, which means they are often like children (This is alsowhere I address the not killing a human approach to Vick). They are moldable and dependent from their youth. This, to me, makes what Vick and the others did even more disgusting. These dependant animals, these dogs, who had no means of sustenance and happiness outside of their demented owners were treated thus. The argument could be made that this abuse of a dependent animal might show how Vick and others might treat children. This is not to say he would, but the scenarios are very similar. It isalso difficult to compare this to an adult human for these reasons. Rare is the case that another adult human is completely and utterly dependant on someone. Even in a rare case like that, the dependant is very child-like in that relationship. This makes any action like that of Vick's all the more disgusting. For me, this is worse thankilling an adult human. At least then, generally, it is not so one sided. It is not a cruel killing by a master of its completely dependant charge.

As for the statements that Vick should get a second chance, he has already had several. Each day, each fight, each dog he tortured and killed was a second chance. It is clear that he does not want a second chance, but that is what the prison sentence should do to him. This process of rehabilitating Vick should really make him sorrowful for his actions. To truly cure or rehabilitate a person so depraved as this (or at least one so willing to bathe in his depravity) it will take more than just a year or two in a prison. Even after a longer prison stay Vick should be placed in a special home where he continues to undergo mental rehab for a number of years. Hopefully this little rant has illuminated that these actions are not slight goofs, these are the working of a truly sick person, one who can without qualms torture and kill those for which they are responsible to feed, protect, and afford opportunities of happiness. This situation demands more than nominal justice, it needs true rehabiliation.

As far as Vick being able to join the NFL after serving his time, that is up to those in charge, who I might add are looking for the approval of the people. Then again it might make little difference if he is found guilty of gambling, since the league has strict rules against it.Personally, I think that gambling is rather trivial in light of the twisted mentality that Vick has demonstrated, but the NFL has its own priorities. I think it will serve as a bad example for all the children out there that are watching if he is allowed to return without reservation. Again there, for me, needs to be true repentance and change on Vick's part. However, as I said above, this is really in our hands as Americans. We really decide if Vick should play football again and we decide his pay. If you believe he has changed once his time is up then by all means support his return. If you oppose his return then voice your opinion, petition the team owners or those who might give him endorsement deals. The only reason he ever lived a life of luxury is because we, Americans deemed it so, and believe it or not you will decide his NFL fate after prison. Curse these liberties, freedoms, and responsibilities we are burdened with as Americans, they are so annoying and time-consuming.

In the end we should not be filled with hatred toward Vick nor should we look at his actions as an acceptable goof. This is an extremely serious situation that demands our participation as Americans to see that it be addressed properly.

Lately while looking through forums and reading articles I have come across the opinion that mult-platform games are what is best for gamers.  What could be better than everyone getting to play the same game on whatever console they have?  Personally I think this is a misguided view, as much as the "No Child Left Behind" program in public schools.  Actually there appear to be some similarities between the ideas.  Not that it always happened this way, but there was a time when teachers could teach to the average student, or even the brightest, without fear of reprimand.  Now teachers have to teach to their worst students so no one is left behind.  What is the end result?  The outcome is everyone in the class gets a more dumbed-down version (can you even imagine it getting worse?) of the course.  No one wins. Multiplatforming is very similar in this regard and the results, believe it or not, are strikingly similar.  When a game, take any Ubisoft game for instance, is made on the Xbox 360 and then ported to the PS3, the PS3 owners are not getting the most from their machine.  This will be the case with most systems unless they are essentially identical, and none of the next gen systems are.  Each it seems has its strengths and those strengths will generally not be utilized when making a game work for all three.  However, if more games were exclusive then the console's strengths could be better exploited leading to better games on all systems.  If this happened then the next generation of gaming could truly begin.  We would no longer be playing games that provide the lowest common denominator so that it can be similarly played on three or four systems.  Perhaps then we could see the true differences between the consoles.  The current situation is much akin to the political parties of the late 19 century, there is not much to really set them apart from one another (granted the Wii has motion-control stuff but it has not been implemented to its potential because of cross-platforming).  This is not a demand for all multiplatforming games to cease.  Rather this is a plead to rethink the nature of the dreaded Exclusivity in console gaming, and if multiplatform games are needed to focus more on making three distinct, if not wholly unique, games with a common theme.   Perhaps, if we are lucky, gaming will bypass the crisis of the educational system.       

To begin, I am no Lytton Strachey or C.S. Lewis. I do not possess any extraordinary writing talents. However, what I do possess is an appreciation for good writers and writing. Through a person's writing one can see many things, such as the ability to reason. Sadly, there are few times that I encounter reason in my forum experiences. What most of the authors there lack in grammar they make up for in groundless, and therefore meaningless, debates. Not all of these people will turn out to be the lower orders of society, many will be middle-class managers, industrial leaders, and political figures. With the blank face of the internet it is nearly impossible to tell how old these writers are. I hope that they are not all children or young adults, if they are then the US will soon encounter a blight of leaders that can not reason nor will they want to even try. Granted there have always been too many unfit people with too much power, but things appear to be getting worse. I am not entirely sure why I wrote all this. I suppose I just wanted to let off some steam after my encounters with humankind. I desperately hope things will change, but each new time I venture onto the forums I become further disillusioned.

To begin I am a fan of multi-player games.  The more options one has in a multi-player situation the better.  Apparently this opinion is not shared by the people who make games.  It seems now that multi-player only extends to deathmatches and on-line play.  What has happened to the local gaming communities?  Does no one play with others at the same place any longer?  Is it that hard to make multi-player cooperative games?  It seems that the original purpose of games was to entertain groups of people, who also happened to be at the same place.  Now if we customize our games so that you can play together but only on-line or just by your onesies, it seems to me that we are tearing at the very foundations of gaming.  Also is not odd that more we become attached to our connected lifestyles through cellphones, the Internet, and whatever else have you, the more people grow apart.  If you have not had a video-game night with some friends or family in a while try it and perhaps you will be reminded of how much fun it can be.  Long live the Gauntlets and Timesplitters and all those that dare walk in their wake.