If it weren't for the fact that I don't really care about my user level, I might be more pissed off at the fact that I was moderated for doing the exact opposite of what the moderator said. I suppose it must be some sort of policy to moderate anyone that posts in a moddable topic, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Last month, I noticed a message on a PSP game's message board saying how awesome the game looked, and how they couldn't wait for the game to come out so they could download and play it for free (as is possible by any tech savvy PSP owner with a big enough memory stick.) Well, I cried foul, and told the topic creator off for killing the PSP by not purchasing software. SO what do I get modded for? That's right, for, and I quote, "Illegal Activities -- e.g. Begging and/or Providing ROM/Warez/MP3/Cracks/etc". Is that some BS, or what?

Since the year 2003*, I've read a massive portion of gamespot.com's content. Almost every news article, a vast majority of their reviews, a good chunk of their previews, and every single one of their features. Heck, I even read the video card round-ups, even if I'm not in the market for one, as I'm not a PC gamer. (Hey, my system runs Diablo II, and that's all I need) When you spend so much time reading a  specific site, you start to feel a certain attachment to it. I can't stand other site's content, and I cancelled my subscription to EGM over a year ago. Gamespot has spoiled me.

However, it wasn't until recently that I started thinking seriously of entering the gaming journalism profession. Though my unpolished blogs may not show it, I'm an extremely talented writer when I set my mind to it (and actually edit my prose, which I hardly ever take the time to do when blogging.) I'd always pegged myself doing something else, probably in business or law, just for the cash.

Gaming journalism may not bring home the cash like business or law does, but I realized something. There is a reason I know so much about the industry. I love it. I love the gaming industry, I love game design concepts, and I love reading reviews by a myriad of publications (though I always defer to gamespot for any purchasing decisions, which are few and far between). I've never been a huge gamer, lacking the financing, but I've always been a huge game follower. I'm sure some of you can relate, or at least understand. (The very few of you who will ever read this blog, that is). My knowledge of the industry has even led me to the rather interesting ability to predict the average critical review score of most any given high-profile game before it launches within a few decimal points. Not that I sometimes miss the mark wildly, but I get it right (and this is a conservative estimate) 85% of the time. (This ability doesn't include predicting reader's average scores, but then again, I lend little to no credence to reader's scores) That's a strange ability, but again, I'm sure some of you can relate.

I know so much about the industry, the companies, and the critics that it has become a matter of course to me that Gangs of London would get a 6.0 or below, or that Okami would be a critic's darling, but will probably do very poorly at the register. It just makes sense to me that Ubisoft would publish several rush-job ports for the Wii launch that will score in the 5-6 range.

The only thing I can't get a lock-on is the review score for headliner Wii titles. Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, in my mind, has a (relatively) massive point fluctuation of 8.5-9.8. The Gamecube version is a shoe-in for a 9.4-9.6 score, but who knows if the Wii controls will really pan out? All signs point to "yes", but they could turn out to cripple the game to the extent that the score drops significantly. It's just too hard to tell with this brand new control scheme. I'm sure I'll be able to figure out review scores for Wii titles after the first several waves of games, much like the DS. Darn Nintendo and their crazy control scheme shenanigans.

Another rather unique ability I've picked up over the years is the ability to figure out which editor has written a given review, just by reading a couple of paragraphs. This skill is much more hit and miss, but it's still there. Some editor's prose just isn't significantly different from a standard reviewer for me to be able to figure it out, but Alex's, Jeff's, defnitely Greg's, Ryan's, and several other editor's prose is fairly distinctive to me. It's a way of keeping my mind engaged when readin a review about a game I care little about. Why would I do that, you ask? Not because I'm thinking of buying the game, or because I have some sort of perverse desire to read everything Gamespot posts, but because I believe that the number one way to learn how to write is to read first. So if I am serious in my ambitions to join the gamespot staff or, God forbid, another gaming journalism staff, then I'd better bone up on what makes a good review a good review.

These abilities to predict scores and discern between different editor's prose may or may not be healthy, but the fact remains that I've picked them up for one reason and one reason only: I love gaming journalism, and no place does it better than gamespot.com.

*My user level would be much higher if I hadn't spent more than a year reading gamespot from PCs at my local community college, and I was much too lazy to actually log in, as the PCs didn't have my username and password saved. I would more than likely be near level 30 by now. Not that it really means anything.

As the more avid followers gamespot's comings and goings are sure to have noticed, we have a brand new associate editor writing for gamespot, a certain Aaron Thomas. Well Mr. Thomas (I don't feel he's been around long enough to warrant first name usage yet), decided to begin interviewing gamespot editors for his and our edification. A noble cause, to be sure.

After posting his first interview with Andrew P., he asked for suggestions on who to interview next. Of course, people cried out for Jeff, Greg, Rich, etc. All the "high profile" editors. Well, considering that I've been watching them on gamespot live for years, I wanted to see some editors that we don't know so much about, namely Frank Provo, as I've always liked his reviews. Much too my surprise, I got a personal message from Frank himself explaining that a video interview with Aaron would be impossible, considering that he lives about 1500 miles away from the Gamespot HQ. Turns out that he's a freelance writer for gamespot. Who knew?

I thought it was really cool that he'd take time to write me a really nice message, as well as provide some info on his background. He even answered my questions concerning what major to pursue in college, as well as some insider info on getting into the gaming journalism industry.

This is the second occasion that I've had personal correspondence with a gamespot staff member. (even if Frank isn't really a staff member. Whatever.) Earlier in September, I happened across several gamespot editor's myspace profiles. (Through a link on wikipedia, no less). Well, being the huge geek I am, I fired off some freidn requests with a personalized message to about seven gamespot editors. None of them accepted my friend request (duh), but Alex personally replied to my message, thanking me for not just sending a random friend request, as well as explaining that he uses his myspace as a way to get away from all the gamespot craziness. I thought that was kinda neat. Not that the other editors are jerks for not replying, 'cause I wasn't expecting any of them to, but still. Personal contact with guys whose job I aspire to obtain is really inspiring, for somewhat unfathomable reasons. I mean, they're just normal people. Normal people whose job happens to be amazingly cool.

So, I now have a user level of 20 here on gamespot. I'm not really sure exactly what the point of user levels are, or the reason behind the percentage increases day to day... For instance, it took me avout five days to get from level 18 to level 19, but it took two-three weeks to get from 19 to 20... I don't get it, and Alex Navarro continues his effors to not answer any of my questions in Burning Questions, most of which are site related. Oh well. All I want to know is the average salary of an associate editor at gamespot, is that such a big deal?

So, if anyone out there knows if level 20 carries any greater privileges or something, then let me know. Personally, I think there should be a user level where you get access to Gamespot Complete, or whatever they're calling it now. I've always held that paying for website access, even my favorite site, gamespot, is silly, and I refuse to do it on the principle that I'm cheap.

I think I'm going to start updating this journal more frequently for posterity's sake. It may be fairly interesting to read about this next-gen launch five or six years down the road. I know I kept my old copy of EGM with the Xbox vs. Gamecube cover story for nostalgia value. Too bad EGM sucks now and I canceled my subscription. Oh well, gaming journalism has moved squarely into the dominion of the internet nowadays anyway.

As a general rule,  I stay away from topics on gameFAQs' message boards that are not-really-all-that-thinly-veiled flame war topics, but I was bored, and I've been obsessing about the Wii lately anyway. So, I posted the following mini essay on my opinions of Nintendo's next-gen policies.

"If you really want to get into semantics, one might argue that the comparatively modest increase in graphical power from the Gamecube to the Wii is influenced by several factors. The true cynic would claim it's purely for financial reasons. Finances do figure heavily into the equation. Nintendo set out to create a device that was accessible to everyone, not just gamers. Therefore advanced graphical capabilities were not only unimperative for the market they wished to reach, but the sophisticated hardware would also drive the price of the console to heights that the non-gamer looking into gaming may not balk at.

Nintendo is also not, say, Microsoft or Sony. While the gaming division for those respective companies are not as important to the company's overall financial success, Nintendo has only gaming. They do very well in the portable arena, but lost vast sums of money on the Gamecube. Therfore, they can't afford to lose hundreds of dollars on every console sold, like Sony and especially Microsoft (who managed to almost break even on the Xbox, if you think "break even" means spending one billion dollars) can.

Furthermore, as games continue to push graphical boundaries of realism, the cost of game development has rocketed upwards. It is not uncommmon now for a game to have a ten million dollar budget. To just break even the game would have to be an reasonably sized hit. This causes stagnation, where publishers only put up the cash for guaranteed results. Or as guaranteed as you can get in this market. Therefore, Nintendo opted that instead of "empowering" game developers by essentially forcing them to only make mainstream titles, Nintendo opted instead to make a system that was designer friendly, while also allowing for new types of gaming with a brand new type of control.

In summation, it may seem like I'm some sort of Nintendo fanboy with my staunch support of their next-gen policies, but that couldn't be further from the truth. I've never owned a single Nintendo home console in my life. I've never been enamored like my fellow gamers with an elf in green tights, nor have I ever really given a damn about saving that stupid princess who is always in another castle. What I do care about, as a gamer, is the continued growth of my hobby's industry, and Nintendo is trying their damndest to keep things from getting stale. The Wii will be the first Nintendo home console I ever purchase, and I'm really looking forward to it."

You can see the whole thread here: http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=3&topic=29933480

I didn't bother reading the thread, I just threw my two cents in. Some tool, in reply to my post, decided to throw out the obvious "most games are best (or only able to be played) on a conventional controller", which is not only one of the points I was trying to get across (I don't want to p lay Splinter Cell on the Wii, you tool.), but is also a totally moot point, in that Nintendo is releasing a more traditional controller shell (most likely launching with Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which is total speculation on my part).


So, you're free to disagree, but really, there isn't anythign to disagree with. My post wasn't really opinion, but more fact based. More like opinionated fact. If that makes any sense.

Another E3, another round of the same old crap getting gushed on. A new Metal Gear? WOO! What's that? A thrown together trailer for Halo 3? I'M SO PSYCHED! Oh, and let's not forget everyone's favorite for really no apparent reason, a new Zelda game that was announced, oh, about two years ago now... How about some love for the new **** the stuff that's actually, you know, exciting. Don't get me wrong, MGS4 is sure to be awesome (if you're a fan of thes series, anyway), I'm excited for Twilight Princess (and I haven't been excited for a Zelda game since Ocarina of Time) and Halo 3, well, will be Halo 3.

I'm not saying that these established franchises aren't fantastic, and I've played my fair share of all of them. (Well, maybe not so much of Metal Gear, never been into that series much.) However, the real love should be shown for the stuff that's actually new, like, how cool is the PS3 controller? Freaking awesome. (Oh, by the way, Nintendrones, Nintendo doesn't have a copyright on the concept of tilt sensitivity, so shut up already. It's a good idea, and should've been in the last generation, considering how simple the technology is) And how amazingly well has the Wii controller panned out? Looking fantastic so far. As for Microsoft, well, they've never been very interesting at E3, or ever, so, umm, yay for tweaking cars on Forza on my phone, I guess. But that's Microsoft for you, more of the same, just really flashy. That's great if you're a loser like Jeff who actually gives a **** about his gamer "rep" and his gamer points. I find the entire system contrived and pathetic, but to each his own. Now go play yet another racing game that you've been playing since the original Gran Turismo, just with now even shinier cars.

But I digreess. The real point is that I just wish that we, as gamers, started caring more about the progressive stuff, not the stale **** that isn't going to introduce anything new, but just refine the familiar. I've really gwon disenchanted with this gneration, which I'm sure is because it's been five years, so when E3 rolls around, and really bring in the new generation, I get psyched for how things are going to change, not just refine the same. New control schemes, new ideas, new gameplay styles. I've said my piece.


P.S. Slightly off-topic, but I thought I'd just throw it in there. A letter to Sony. GET YOUR HEAD'S OUT OF YOUR ASSES AND GET IN LINE WITH HD-DVD. It's inferior, sure, but it's going to win, you ****ing idiots. Use an HD-DVD drive, which will lower costs, be every bit as effective, and won't leave gamers with an obsolete drive that they only use for games in three years. The market cannot and will not support two formats, and HD-DVD was first out the door, which, in this industry, means everything. that, and it has name recognition, sdomething Blu-Ray does not. Blu-Ray sounds like a bad piece of tech from a forgotten Star Trek episode. So, HD-DVD, a launch price of $400, and maybe a sandwhich. I know it won't happen, but I can dream that Sony will wake up one of these days.

Though it is doubtful anyone will happen upon this profile, I wish to make it clear that my "collection" merely represents what I believe to be the best games around. I own very few of them, so just take my list as a sort of "to buy in the future" marker. If I actually owned all of those games, I'd consider it to be a vast waste of resources anyway.

*Edit*
According to a gamespot user known as teknocack, this blog suggests that not only do I "hate gaming", but I'm also a "depressing, little person". Well, I can assure you, I don't hate gaming, and I'm not a depressed midget. I'm sure all of you rational folk out there understand what I mean when I say that owning over a hundred games is rather wasteful in terms of money and time, but apparently if you have other things to do in your life, and other things to spend money on, you "hate gaming". Sorry, my bad.