Tomorrow is what I'd like to call a Perfect Day: the day I turn 26, I've got Dead Space 2 to look foward to, Two Worlds 2 is expected to come out, Champions Online goes free to play, I got the day off...just think, before I even get home to play these games, I'll be so wasted on sake (my birthday drink of choice 8)) that I really hope I sober up by the time I get to my computer :lol:. Anyway, this is one hell of a gift from the gaming industry, even if it's purely coincidental. Oh, and if you do see any blogs made by me on that day, just ignore it...when I do a little drinking, I end up thinking too hard about something and end up writing about it :lol:.

If there were any two features in any given videogame that's caused enough controversy that even people who haven't already jumped into the hobby know about, it's sex and violence. Now, in my eyes, this is a situation that neither side is is actually right or wrong, generally speaking (more like being melo-dramatic). Simply because on the gaming side, I have to admit that some studios do push the limits on what should be deemed acceptable between art and just cheap pornograhy, as well as blood and gore that sometimes just feel so tacked on just for the sake of being "mature" that would've been more logical to make a T rated game and still be as captivating. On the other side, there are times that the media just makes a big deal out of nothing (like Mass Effect's "controversial" love scene that was basically kissing for a few seconds before you see a black screen) and their accusations really contradict what the ESRB lists (if a game says "sexual content" or "violence," no s*** there will be sexual content and violence in a game :|).

The thing is, videogames should be viewed with the same standards and restrictions as movies. I mean, obviously a rated M game is equivalent to a rated R movie, so adjust your expectations accordingly (just like in rated R movies, you should always be open to things like graphic violence, nudity, drug use, etc. I mean, let's face it: if you're watching something made specifically for adult viewing, you shouldn't be the type to be mortified about these scenarios). I mean, if a mere movie can get away with things like over the top sex scenes (which I'll have to admit...I've seen some movies that I think should've toned it down because it was borderline porno), the kind of blood and gore you see in Hostel, Saw, or Touristas, much less show the limelight on drugs like New Jack City, Blow, Traffic, or Scarface, I don't see what the problem is with videogames striving to have the same kind of freedom, presuming they make it perfectly clear that their product contains this kind of material (which, like I've said before...isn't that what the ESRB is for?). And as consumers, we shouldn't be forming a circle around the studio holding pitchforks and torches because we have the mindset of "I know it was violent, but didn't know HOW violent it was." I mean, Terminator 2 and Hostel are both rated R movies that explicitly say "violence, blood and gore." Obviously Hostel is much more violent than Terminator is, and I've yet to hear about someone trying to ban the movie because the ratings give a fairly general term for its contents.

At the same time, I don't appreciate developers assuming that gamers are a bunch of blood thirsty savages who feed on that craving of graphic violence to satisfy the urge. When I shoot someone in a videogame, I expect to see a little blood, maybe a missing limb or two. I don't need to see a shower of blood and guts on the screen if all I did was fire a couple bullets. More specifically, if it adds to the atmosphere, I don't mind a game crossing the line (for example, if I'm investigating a murder scene, I don't mind a half naked mangled corpse, because it makes sense. More sense than decaptitating someone with your fist :?). In other words, the more realistic a game strives to be, the more realistic violence should be. I mean, obviously stabbing someone with a knife in a videogame isn't going to result in chopping the guy in half. If you're going for the fantasy, cartoony violence, then maybe mindless violence will be easier to stomach...see what I'm saying? Sort of like how I can picture Mass Effect being a T rated game, by only altering a few things. The violence is, in my eyes, Star Wars caliber (you shoot lasers, and people disenegrate. The only graphic images I've seen were people impaled on the spikes that turn them into Husks). The "controversial" parts, I can comfortably let a kid watch me play and not worry about sending any impure thoughts. The only thing that would truly bother me is the language (a few F bombs, but nothing too ridiculous...depends on how sensitive one's ears would be).

Like I've said earlier, videogames are a lot like movies: there's something for everyone. We're not restricted to one genre, one rating. Buying something made for an older audience is like signing the subconcious contract that this game may or may not have bouncing breasts or a brain hitting you in the nuts if you kick a dude in the face. If you're not the type to watch a rated R movie with a child, you shouldn't be playing a rated M game around a child. Or at least get the information about it first before you do it (you know, how a DVD case labels the contents of the movie, the ESRB states what you should expect in a title). In today's world, I find it rather ironic that Comedy Central has free reign to advertise Girls Gone Wild on commercials (much less those call girl hotlines), but it's offensive for a videogame to include sex, drugs and violence in general :roll:.

The sad part is, most of the people who point these things out aren't even gamers. Know what that means? It means that while something that wouldn't phase us because we got far enough in a game to know that it fits into the concept, or why it's happened. It's not fair to judge a game because someone picked out the bad part of a game and assumes the game's focus is on that little thing. Nine times out of ten, a game is "bad" because of the ten second clip someone saw, not the rest of the game that obviously doesn't focus solely on one of the seven sins. People take things out of context. It's like knowing what the movie Showgirls contains, but not even bothering to watch the movie to understand it was merely a drama about a woman's quest to find a better job as a stripper, and just how demanding the life of a stripper is (no, it makes more sense to point out that the woman from Saved By The Bell is flashing her breasts in a movie, right? :roll: ).

The point is, what is "offensive?" I mean, violence in general is offensive. Drugs, nude dames, all offensive. So does it really matter that knowing that these are offensive, it goes a little further? You see a line of cocaine on a table, you already know what's going to happen. Merely having a scene of someone snorting it is just stating the obvious. If you're offended by seeing drugs, you shouldn't even be playing the game in the first place, because the ratings don't hide its contents. If someone is really that insecure about a game taking control of someone and altering their actions to copy what they do in a simple videogame, then I'm afraid to say, that hobby is definately not for him.

Microsoft has to be that one company that completely alienates their current userbase the moment they develop a new interest. I won't deny that Microsoft's underdog (as in, they are still fairly new in the gaming business, and coming from a software company to walking straight into the console market) status makes it that much impressive that they've become the gaming behemoth they are now, but at times I can't help but see they're simply using the power of money to seize control of what made Nintendo and Sony successful for decades.

I mean, let's face it. Microsoft was already rich and powerful before Xbox was even an idea. They had the PC market under their thumb with their Windows OS, and damn near every game worth playing required some version of Windows in order to work. Back then, there wasn't much games to choose regarding which operating system you could have if you were a gamer. Further down the line, Microsoft sealed their position (or at least, attempted) by requiring users to upgrade to Vista in order to play the newer games, and requiring a Live ID in order for most of the games to work. About the time the Xbox became a hit, Microsoft tried to play a ruler of two kingdoms for a very brief moment by taking what made the Xbox a unique success and applying it to the PC crowd: the first online console that didn't completely suck, but the catch is that you pay a mandatory subscription fee for multiplayer.

However, PC games have no single company to take the reigns of that platform, and having an open platform means that nine times out of ten, the users are the ones in charge of what they choose to have on it. That, and with so many choices on how to play a PC game, having a mandatory Gold subscription for a few select games fizzled out so unnoticed that it was pretty much dropped. It's obvious that Microsoft's once firm grasp on the PC market has loosened when programs like Steam or D2D are successful alternatives to play your games, and when Macs get a lot more support for software than they ever did in the past.

In short, I see two scenarios: either Microsoft realized they couldn't control the market like they did with the Xbox and left PC gaming as a secondary option to stay relevant by still having Windows mandatory for most games to see how far they can go with the audience, or decided to favor the console market completely where they had total control over their userbase, and banking on the popularity of Windows to subconciously secure their position in PC gaming. Either way, this was the eara that Microsoft "abandoned" PC gaming.

One of the first things Microsoft did when they entered the console market was purchasing any company that had a respectable reputation for software, like Rare and Bungie. Then you had games like Forza, Halo, and old classics like Conker's Bad Fur Day, and later down the line, Perfect Dark now on the Xbox brand. Not a bad start for a company's first attempt at console gaming reaching to a broad appeal, but it didn't quite put a dent in the then immortal Playstation brand, and wasn's as legendary as Nintendo's reputation. In other words, Microsoft established itself as taking what made a computer an ideal gaming platform, and putting it in a console's built-for-a-living-room appeal with things like the first console to have a hard drive, the raw power of a computer small enough to place under your television, and the online community. In my eyes, the Xbox was Microsoft's first attempt at creating a PC that they had total control over.

By the time the Xbox 360 came out, support for the original Xbox was immediately cut. I mean, totally swept under a rug like it was some kind of embarassing scandal. They even tried to go as far as to cease backwards compatibility until public outcry demanded they continue to emulate the BC to an at least respectable amount. Is it no coincidence that among the ones to make the first list, games like Halo, Fable, and other heavy titles (along with questionable titles like Barbie games and low-scoring titles that "were easy to emulate so it was simply put there to artificially lenghten the BC list") were the high point, while other equally great games not made by their first party almost didn't make the list? I mean, could it be that once again, Microsoft was trying to take control of what games we're allowed to play on a "dead" platform using a new one?

Either way, I commend Microsoft's attention to history. While the Xbox came out pretty late in the market and was nearly overshadowed by the PS2, the 360 was the first next-gen console to arrive on store shelves. With a whole year of absolutely no competition, anyone who wanted to step foot in the evolution of gaming had no other choice but to make games for the 360. By the time the PS3 came out, the 360 was already in most homes and known as THE system to own if you want the most games. At a much cheaper price and a steady flow of games to look foward to, nothing could topple the Xbox brand for quite a while. Couple that with Microsoft's determination to be heard by any means necessary, any commercial you'd see about a videogame would have that flashy Xbox logo engulf your television screen. If it was a popular game like Call of Duty, or any multiplatform game for that matter...the last thing you'd see when the commercial ends would be "On Xbox 360."

When the PS3 finally became a worthy competitor by having its share of exclusives too good to overlook, you could guarantee Microsoft would find an offer as well. Soon you'd hear about Microsoft signing exclusive deals with publishers for timed DLC or exclusive content, no matter what game it was. There was actually a point where the 360 was once again, THE system to own because it hoarded all the content. So in my eyes, Microsoft has started to become too big for their britches when they're not fully satisfied with controlling their userbase. Now, they want to control the console market as a whole by securing a position as the platform that gets all the support.

Now, when your userbase is known for having the system that has..well, everything, your system has to actually have...everything. So when the Wii has their cute little Avatars that the casual crowd seems to love because they tie in with their games, and Sony has their god-awul Home program (which was still in the works, but it was a sound concept) that succeeded in making life even more boring in a videogame than actually living it, it's pretty obvious where Microsoft's new focus is heading. When the NXE launched, they threw out a party like they've just innovated the way we log onto our Live accounts. Not only did the dashboard recieve one hell of a facelift, but now you too can create a cartoon character that vaguely resembles you.

Now, it's pretty clear that this update didn't keep the traditional gamer (you know, the old guys that gave the Xbox it's name? :|) in mind when the first thing you see when you log onto Live is something begging you to buy it. I mean, the menu is so cluttered with ads not even related to gaming that I actually had a hard time trying to find the place where I buy Arcade games. If anything, Microsoft has relieved the burden of me walking into a Wal Mart to see the same kind of advertisements I'd see on display. Combine that with Netflix support, Games on Demand, TV episodes available for download, a trailer for the next movie coming out on theatres, a Mountain Dew ad, ESPN, Facebook, Twitter, etc...if it's not perfectly clear by now, the Xbox 360 wants to be THE gaming platform that also wants to replace your computer, your television set, and your newspaper. Want more propaganda? Because Microsoft is in charge of everything put on the Xbox :D.

Now I'd love to say it's the end of it, but what the hell...if there is one market still untapped, more specifically: a market that is controlled by a company other than Microsoft and it's related to the console market, it's pretty inevitable that there's something going down. I'm talking about motion control gaming :shock:. Seeing as how Nintendo basically pioneered videogames into the homes of people who would've otherwise been perfectly satisfied living a normal non-gaming life, it also brought a flood of sales by the casual market. I mean, I haven't seen this kind of shift in appeal since Solitaire was built in desktops. In short, Barack Obama paid a visit to Microsoft, because there was change.

Now, how badly does Microsoft want to control the casual market? I'd say they've got a pretty big boner for the idea when...they got the powerful Oprah to shed some light on Kinect, while things like videogames are only heard of by those who choose the hard life of reading a magazine or attending E3. Let me just throw this out: gamers read magazines and go on the pilgramage to see the almighty E3. Average joes watch Oprah. And if it's not so blatantly obvious that the original market pales in comparison to ruling the world, Microsoft actually went as far as to insult their loyal consumers by stereotyping them as "30 year olds in Metallica t-shirts." And well, that's it. We're not even worthy of a full on stand-up comedy, just a one-liner :cry: (although for the record, I'm 25 years old and sport the Iron Maiden shirts 8)).

And this makes me a tad bit uneasy (just a bit) because if it's anything like Nintendo's past, this means everyone BUT us will eat up the whole Kinect idea while Microsoft sits on ass and gains even more power in the gaming industry. And the thing about casual gamers: they don't marathon their games like we do, and are perfectly content with playing simulators on what they do in real life...and the thing about THOSE games are: they're cheap to make, and quality isn't a concern when you've got like ten different iterations about the same friggin' thing that people will buy because the box art tells them to. Now, I find this unsettling, because if Microsoft has just as much followers as Nintendo has, their control on the market is even more effortless. In fact, gamers' words won't even hold any weight when we're the minority.

But, in all seriousness (you didn't think I actually know what I'm talking about, right? ;)) I stand true to my belief that Microsoft continues to alienate their userbase by the seasons. I think that while still maintaining the contracts to exclusive rights, they have something to cater to their traditional crowd without actually becoming involved in it, and focusing all their efforts into replicating what Nintendo pulled off with even less effort. With Microsoft's massive budgets, they can just walk in and call the shots. Just like the mafia, if you find some kind of problem with the way they run their operations, they'll throw a bunch of money at you and make you allies. At times gaming feels like nothing but cruel extortion of your games behind the dropped curtains, and no one notices because the majority of people taking over our hobby don't even know the names of the companies who developed the games. The thing I'm afraid of is at this rate, gamer's voices won't be heard if it doesn't scream overnight profit.

EDIT: I hope you guys don't take this too seriously, I just wrote this purely for fun. Hope you enjoyed reading it, and see the small truths I do feel hidden inside ;).

Happy Holidays to all of you :D. If you're too old to be ripping open presents, then you're either really drunk right now, or enjoying your day off. And for all you family men out there, make sure the doors are locked at night...if your kids are anything like me, I actually used to sneak out of bed and unlock the front door so "Santa" had an easier time leaving the presents in the living room :lol:. Anyway, Merry Christmas to all my friends here, stay safe and enjoy time with the family and friends! :D

So as most of you know, I'm a vile enemy of Ubisoft's attitude for PC games. I mean, it made me hate Splinter Cell (which I thought was pretty damn impossible :?) and made me skip out on great games over the months (like Prince of Persia) and get them on different platforms...anyway, there's that term "you get what you pay for" that all but determines what I'm willing to put up with.

Anyway, picked up Assassin's Creed 2 off Steam for $15. Yes, the whole :roll: DRM thing is present here, but hence the reason why it took me so long to finally get the damn game. For a quarter of the original price is my final offer to finally play one of this year's most anticipated titles :|.

Which brings me to my next train of thought: Steam sales are a lot like the used game sales in stores like Gamestop. Yes, I've heard countless times about companies bickering that it's killing the market and murdering their overall profits...which it is, I'll admit (and you know me, I'm always down to support the working man). But under rare cases like these, I refuse to support these kinds of habbits. In fact, during times like these, it feels less like "selling out" and more "worth the offer." One man cannot determine the value of a product as a whole compared to how others enjoy it. As such, there's people willing to pay full price for a game on day one, and others who wait it out and buy it at a much cheaper price.

The thing that bugs me is how companies are brainstorming the idea of doing away with the trade-ins, ideas like going fully digital, selling their product on their own conditions, or even offering too-good-to-pass-up free DLC or items, or even accessing the multiplayer without paying anything extra for those who buy the game brand new. The latter I am always willing to support, because I see it as a positive way to counter the used game sales, as well as the "can't complain because you get what you pay for" ideal for those who buy a used copy. Aside from that, there are reasons why some of us wait for a price drop: because dropping $60 on something isn't always worth the asking price.

I mean, in a way, the game is their property, but as consumers we also have a voice that must be heard. Just like how day old bread is dirt cheap at the end of the day, not all games are good. The point of lowering the price on something is to attract people that would've otherwise passed up on that offer. Chances are, if I didn't buy something at market price, I'm still not going to until the price matches how I view the product. Taking away that kind of freedom will just show how companies are too stubborn towards criticism.

This kind of future is a long way off, but the more I hear about businesses attracted to this kind of idea makes me wonder how big a plummet our decisions towards buying a product will have. I mean, can you imagine being forced to "take it or leave it" because there's only one way to buy something? And if you're not satisfied with it, then what? What makes a business circulate is its flexibility. I mean, if there's only one way to conduct a business, expect a lot of "F*** You's" and short term loyalty in the end. No, as much as I do frown upon the used game practices, it's also one of the few freedoms we have to send messages to businesses that we want our money's worth. I mean, we let companies seize control over everything, then we're not deciding anything. No, we're just buying on impulse.

I've got nothing but pure respect for the guys who made my favorite games. As a consumer, I gladly shell out every penny I own (well, not really...I still need some for food :P) to support such perfect digital craftmanship. I've got nothing but love for the guys who've kept my favorite franchises from 10 years ago still alive to this day with sequels that have never gotten stale, as well as always looking foward to new ideas that blow my mind. But the thing is, they have to stop their complaining when things don't turn out as good as I'd always want it to be.

It breaks my hear to hear about a quality game getting poor sales or pirated, but they should never put the blame on people's interest or assume our platform of choice is a thieve's den. I mean, when you're disappointed in selling 2 million copies (seriously, that's a DOUBLE PLATINUM! Freaking musicians envy this kind of achievement!!), then you really have to take in account that you just spent too damn much making a videogame :|. When you realize just how much it cost to make a videogame in general, it's mindblowing. I mean, it's shocking at times, that a seemingly low-budget game could run up a cost of a couple million :o. Even more insulting when you find out some games cost way less than it did to advertise the thing, and read an article that the company is "not satisfied by its performance."

Yes, at times the videogame biz is a "feast or famine" at days like these, because it's hard to figure out what the majority of the world has an interest in. But when you're spending more money trying to get people to buy the thing rather than giving them a reason to keep it, I hate to say it, but some companies are in the wrong business. As such, it's hard to take it seriously when studios get shut down, support for a platform gets dropped, or an anticipated game is DOA just to "cover the costs." I mean, who's running the show here, passionate programmers or the tobacco company? :|

There are developers out there that I feel would be more at home making Hollywood flicks than creating a videogame. I mean, you just spent the amount of money it cost to make Waterworld just to make me sit through five hours of awesome graphics and bland shooting. And you know what happened to Waterworld? A one-hundred-million-dollar-WTF-was-I-Thinking waste of time. There are indie developers who'd love to have that kind of cash to burn, and I think they'd know how to spend it wisely.

Now, I'm not saying all companies act this way, oh no. It just grates on me that multi billion dollar corporations spend less than a fraction on something, and expect it to be an instant goldmine, and give petty "reasons" why it's justifiable to fire hundreds of employees or express your disdain for a product just because they didn't exactly double up on the profits. It reminds me of those poker matches on TV where one guy goes all in and loses. Sure, he's pissed. But who's he going to blame for that kind of risk? No, it's always that one guy in the corner who doesn't say a word who stays at the table the longest. Because he's not the type to expect to win the jackpot at that moment by any means necessary, no...that's the type who wins some, loses some, and knows exactly when to raise the stakes to finally make some cash. In other words, devs should spend less money on making a huge gamble, and more time just delivering a game that for better or worse, nets some kind of profit. Doesn't have to end in an infinite loop of zeroes, just something the world can agree that is awesome and reaps a generous reward.

I guess in a way, I finally beat it. I mean, I decided to support House, which the downside to that is I'm public enemy #1 with the NCR, but I've got a save to fall back on in case I decide to switch sides. Honestly, I hate how this game toys with your morals and forces you to choose one side towards the end :?. I mean, [spoiler] you end up helping out the NCR for a moment by sparing the president, despite them wanting you to whack Mr. House partway through (and the Brotherhood of Steel, considering I installed a mod that lets you spare them :P) and when it comes to giving power to the Lucky 38, the NCR wants your ass on a silver platter regardless. And offing House just has that "wrong" vibe that you know you just royally screwed something up by doing this. [/spoiler] . Anyway, I'm thinking of doing the NCR part of the main quest later on just for the achievements, then reverting back to my last save so I can play the expansions (you know, when they do decide to release it for the PC :|).

Aside from that, I'm just playing God with some mods...so far, everyone in New Vegas is naked (or at least have very revealing clothes :twisted: ), I'm sporting Woverine's Adamantium claws as my main weapon with a lightsaber as a backup (I'm not kidding :D) and I'm wearing Painspike armor that basically consists of shoulder pads and boots 8) (so as you can see, I'm playing a female character :oops: ). Anyway, I guess I can consider my playthrough done...aside from not actually completing the final quest (because it seriously got annoying, trying to build up my reputation from Idolized down to Villfied because of one stupid thing :x) I'll just be toying around with the game until I finally decide what to do.

What would a videogame be if it didn't have a personal favorite weapon in it, right? Be it iconic, or just something out of the ordinary...well, you have to fight the bad guys in style.

Yellow Snowball, South Park: yes, this game is utter crap (and even more sad, I actually played this on the N64 :(). But if there was one good thing about the game, it's the weapons. But nothing quite stands out than grabbing a wad of snow, taking a leak on it, and tossing it in the face of one of many annoying turkeys. Seriously, they were "drive me to murder" annoying. Because of that game, I actually hate birds now :|.

Hidden Blade, Assassin's Creed: how bad-ass is this weapon? I've actually played the game using nothing but the hidden blade. I mean, five to one, doesn't matter...while everyone's swinging their swords at me, I'm countering moves and sticking my palm kung fu style in people's chests 8). And when you have a Youtube video teaching you how to make your own blade, well...it's just that awesome!

Deathclaw Gauntlet, Fallout: what makes this better than, say, the Fatman, Shishkebab, or the Power Fist? Well, after taking low-level beatings by the biggest pain in the ass in the Fallout universe, victory just tastes so much sweeter when you rip off it's freaking hand and do the slapping for a change. Not to mention it was the first mod I installed for New Vegas...it's just that iconic for me :D.

Grappling Hook, Just Cause 2: quite possibly the only weapon in gaming history that turned me into a total dick, I'm pulling bad guys off ledges, causing cars to drive into lakes, and ripping off poor civilians off their own motorcycles just for the lulz. I mean, I increase my wanted meter on purpose. Just so I can pull the driver out of his seat and fuse him with a tree. As for the story...wait, there was a story!? :o

The Boot, Duke Nukem: I really don't care if it's the "last resort weapon" compared to all the other weapons you find on your journey, the Boot is awesome. I mean, you feel more like Chuck Norris and less Duke when destroy fire hydrants with a kick :shock:. Not to mention, in the days of low polygons and simple graphics...when you do kick the crap out of an enemy, the splattered corpse on the ground literally resembles crap :lol:. It's like, "I kicked the crap out of you so hard, you've become what came out of you."

Spit, Dead Rising: I remember just for the heck of it, I decided to see what would happen if I pressed the aim button with no weapon equipped. Turns out, Frank West/Chuck Greene will hock a loogie :o. I mean, I broke out in utter laughter that moment. Which gave me and idea that they really should put a lighter in this game...I mean, get the guy to drink some alchohol, aim with a lighter...and well, you get the coolest makeshift weapon you'll ever see in a Dead Risng game (and allow me to live out my Pitch Black fantasies).

Piano Wire, Hitman: With each new installment, you'll always have new, cooler things to whack the world's biggest crime lords. But nothing quite beats the wire. I mean, it never draws attention (believe me, if I see someone carrying a wire around in his hands, I'm getting the hell out of there :?) and it is the most professional tool to ever use to murder someone. You could also say it takes some serious skill to walk into a mafia don's mansion completely naked of weapons, and slaughtered its entire inhabitants using nothing but that wire 8).

The Knife, Resident Evil: back in the old days, the knife was the most useless weapon to have in the series. I mean, it did .01 HP of damage, left you open to get mauled by zombies after one swipe, and carrying it around meant leaving something more useful in the inventory box. So what makes it so special? Just the fact that I jumped for joy when I actually killed something with it...it was a crow, of all creatures, but still...at least the knife has proven it could kill SOMETHING.

Rifle Bludgeon, FPS'es Before Modern Warfare: sure, the knife is cool...I guess. But nothing is more satisfactory than smacking someone in the face with the back of your rifle. Why games like COD decide to stick with the knife is beyond me...I mean, by the time you reach in to grab your knife and take a stab at someone, you're better off just using that time wisely by putting on a pair of cool sunglasses and breaking the dude's nose with your gun. That is one feature in today's shooters that will sadly be missed.

Running Away, Clock Tower: let me tell you, I've crapped my pants more times trying to get my character to enter a door than the dozens of times the scary guy with the big scissors popped out of a closet to say hello. Think of it as playing the first Resident Evil as a point and click game, except replace "pistol" with "scream," and "shoot" with "double click to run away while screaming," and you get a pretty good idea. I'll admit that having two seconds to hide under a bed before you get killed is a lot more scarier than shooting the undead, but when I'm spending five seconds to get my character to actually reach the bed, running away is all I do (kind of sounds like a romantic rock song, doesn't it? :P)

But, nothing quite beats:

God Mode: some call it "cheating," but I believe it's the holy grail sent by the devs who know how cheap they've made their own game. I mean, when you took all that time to find out how to activate it, much less know the command how to punch it in...well, you deserve to wear God's shoes for that brief moment. Yes, it robs the challenge and skills of being a gamer, but no one told the last boss to be so powerful, now did we? :|. He brought it onto himself. Still, in this time and age, using that command just replaces "proof I beat the game" to "I shamefully beat the game." So I guess we're even...stupid achievement system :evil:.

Let me start off by saying a Happy Belated Thanksgiving (been pretty rough at work...graveyard shift, and spent most of my free time sleeping :P). But I got some free time for the rest of the month as of now :D (which is strange...days like these remind me why I want to quit so bad, yet also remind me why I keep showing up). Anyway, finally playing videogames is a godsend now. I'm on my third fresh playthrough of Fallout New Vegas (this time, a companion got so stuck in geometry, it was impossible to do anything...I tried the no clip console command, but it's like he disappeared :?). Anyway, decided to try out some mods as well, and man are they awesome! :shock: I installed the body replacer mod (a fancy name for "nude female characters" :oops: ), as well as some armor sets made by some extremely talented people...and what else? The Deathclaw Gauntlet that's oddly absent in this game. Which is suprising to say, that even though I'm pretty much familiar with the Wasteland now, I'm still finding new areas I haven't seen before :o. You know, like that thought in the back of your head like, "what ever happened to this type of enemy that used to be abundant in Fallout 3?" Well, turns out most of them have their own turf now, instead of occupying half the map.

Aside from that, been playing Joe's Adventures expansion for Mafia 2. And in short, I'm a little mixed about the add-on. On one hand, Joe at times had more personality than the main character, so I was happy to play as the "tough talking fat guy" but on the other, it's the same timed, arcadey missions that I hated in Jimmy's Vendetta, aka "the old guy that looks like a bald Michael Madsen." Still, I'm more interested in Joe's story in general, and me being a Mafia 2 fanboy, I'm more than willing to tough it out :D.

Well, I haven't been on the site for a while now, and I feel bad about skimping out on commenting on your blogs...but, this hasn't been a kind week to me. Prepping for the holidays (who the hell decided to bunch three of the busiest ones all together? :x) as well as some personal matters, so I haven't had some time to relax for a while. Anyway, just wanted to let you guys know, because I'm not antisocial or anything, just one hectic day after another :?. Take care fellas, and I'll see you all...well, whenever I got the time :D.