I picked up The Witcher Enhanced Edition a week and a half ago, mostly because of the positive reviews and comments I've seen, and partly because of its "controversial" content (I wanted to see just what the fuss is all about, really :lol: ).

So far, I've been seriously impressed with it.

This is an action RPG that doesn't encourage "twitch"-gaming. Sword attacks are based on timing rather than maddening clicking, or holding down the left mouse button while hovering the cursor.You choose between 3 weapon styles and two main weapons (and possibly, two secondary weapons) based on what you are fighting, and how many enemies you fight

Using Signs (the game's answer to "spells") is done by holding the right mouse button for a certain length of time to charge it, then releasing it. You can switch easily by pressing a number on the keyboard.

New Sign effects, boosts for your sword attacks, and abilities are unlocked by applying Talents to them. As you level up, you receive more Talents; if you defeat certain enemies, you can make potions that give you Talents as well.

Alchemy plays a big part in the game as well, allowing you to make potions that boost your character's already-impressive abilities... for a price: the potions are toxic, and imbibing too many can impair you instead of helping you.

What's most impressive, however, is the way your actions affect how you accomplish later quests. Allowing the rebels to take their goods in chapter 1, for example, makes a quest in chapter 2 more difficult.

There are three endings I know of. I'm not sure what path I'm on, though, because the usually "clear" lines of good and evil are so blurred in The Witcher that what looks good may actually turn out to be just a lesser evil.

At this point, I'm seriously wondering why I considered getting Mass Effect instead of this. Bioware makes good gaming engines (The Witcher is built on a modified version of the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine), but their story-telling isn't quite as impressive (Jade Empire was pretty predictable, and the lines between good and evil extremely sharp).

Speaking of witchers...

I picked up "The Last Wish" at Borders a few days ago, while I was out shopping for PC parts (more on this later). It's a short story collection by Adrzej Sapkowski, and the basis for the video game The Witcher (the first story is included in the EE, and is the story behind the opening cinematic).

What strikes me the most about the stories so far is their unique retelling of cIassic fairy tales in adult context. "The Witcher," for example, is a terrifying retelling of "Sleeping Beauty" (without love's first kiss). I'm highly recommending it right now.

Finally...

My PC woes continued this week, in a major way. The day I posted my MPAA/ESRB comparison, the PC developed a nasty lag (apps were loading very slowly, and running badly). Two days later, the power supply (a four-year-old 450W deal, with two multi-speed fans) died out. After replacing it (and adding a fan to cool the hard drive... I thought that maybe overheating may be causing the lagging), I thought the long load times would disappear, but they only decreased a little bit.

Then, on Thursday, when I was ready to just format/reinstall Windows, the sound card (a six-year-old Audigy Platinum with external accessories that never really worked right) died with a pop and a loud hum. After some shopping around, I got a mid-range XFi card and threw it in (15 minutes to swap the hardware, and two freakin' hours to install the software/drivers... *sigh* :evil: ).

Better sound... but the lag was still there.

Saturday, I finally faced the facts: something was broken in XP.

Fortunately, I remembered something from A+ training: there is a repair option in the XP installer that can "fix" a current XP installation without the all-day format/reinstall grind (my best time so far is 6 hours for a full XP install plus drivers and necessary software).

One hour later: no more lag. :D

And that's it for the week. Back to AMC's "Fear Fest" for me (as soon as "Mad Men" is over). I love the week before Halloween. :lol:

(Author's Note: Most of the following editorial is based on my observations of both major US rating systems. Both are very subjective, as is my opinion of them. All comparisons of them, therefore, are a matter of opinion. Feel free to disagree. :) )

Background

For those readers who are not familiar with them:

The Official MPAA website

The Official ESRB website

PG-13 was added to the MPAA ratings in 1984 in response to "Gremlins" and "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," which were not intense enough to meet R-rating standards as written at the time, but violent enough to spark public protests at their PG-rating.

NC-17 replaced X in 1990. The original X-rating was never "officially" sanctioned by the MPPA; consequently, the adult film industry adopted it (and modified it to XXX), making any so-called "legitimate" film to receive the rating difficult to distribute. Many filmmakers (such as George Romero) with movies too intense for an R-rating would refuse to submit their films, making distribution difficult among major theatre chains almost impossible.

The ESRB rating was established in the late 1990's. Although the idea started with the release of "Mortal Kombat" (with it's over-the-top "fatalities") and "Primal Rage" (and Chaos' "urinality" move specifically) for the consoles, it was officially put in place in response to the Columbine school-shooting, and the insinuation that "Doom" was the major reason that the teens went on their killing spree.

For the best comparison, I'll focus most of my attention on the ratings that impact me the most as a parent: the MPAA's PG-13 and R ratings, and the ESRB's T and M ratings.

Comparing the Rating Criteria

This is one of the bigger flaws in the ESRB: while the MPAA site spells out exactly what will result in each rating, the ESRB is annoyingly vague.

Quoting the MPAA's PG-13 criteria (http://mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp): "...The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating." (This is the infamous "f-bomb.") "More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous."

Quoting the ESRB (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp): "...content that may be suitable for ages 13 and older. Titles in this category may contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling, and/or infrequent use of strong language."

Also of note: While the MPAA implicitly states that depictions of drug use are "suitable" for teens, the ESRB does not. Therefore, a game targeted at teens showing the harmful effects of drug abuse could, in practice, draw an M rating, defeating the purpose of the game.

The Ratings in Practice

Over the years, I've found both ratings systems have extremely different results given the same material to work with.

Violence: I felt that the PG-13 rating given to "Aliens vs. Predator" baffling, given that the movie was based on 2 franchises that, traditionally, received R ratings. Watching the movie, I'm still astounded that the level of violence was on par with "Aliens" (complete with a chest-burster scene) and "Predator," and it still drew a PG-13. By contrast, the PC shooters from the same franchise, with the same level of violence as the movie, received an M rating.

Even despite the ESRB's assertion that "minimal blood" is suitable for a T rating, I have yet to find a game with any bloodshed that has drawn less than an M.

Alcohol and Drug Abuse: The only game I've found with alcohol use that was rated T is "Guild Wars." Other than that: "Bioshock" (with its Eve injections), "Narc" (using drugs to bust criminals, complete with adverse side-effects and withdrawal symptoms)... rated M.

Adult Humor: If "Destroy All Humans!" was a movie, it would have rated R by the MPAA: The main character "probes" humans for DNA to buy upgrades; many of the characters' names are very suggestive (such as Coyote Bongwater); the obscene phone calls made to throw off the authorities (though not on the level with similar calls, such as the one made in "Porky's).

Sexual Content: Having recently purchased "The Witcher," I'm completely baffled by its M rating. The US version of the various sexual encounters (as well as their cards) is on the level of many PG-13-rated films (including big-budget blockbusters such as "Armageddon").

Legal Status

The biggest difference between the MPAA and ESRB is their status. While the MPAA ratings are strictly "voluntary" (you can choose not to submit a movie for rating, but it will not be released by the major theatre chains), as I noted in a previous editorial, New York has made the ESRB rating mandatory on all games offered at retail.

************************************************************

In my opinion, the ESRB needs a lot more work, and a lot more consistency with other rating systems, before it can be used on its own as a means of monitoring what my children play.

The best method I've found (and the rule in our house) is: I play the T- and M-rated games first. This way, I know what to expect from the game, am fully informed as to the game's content, and can answer any questions that arise from the game. If I feel uncomfortable letting our teen-aged son play it (this happens rarely, but it does happen), it's "off limits" until further notice.

(Author's Note 2: Please read the next paragraph carefully before commenting on it.)

A game like "The Witcher," for example, is a definite "no" until I play all the way through the game, and can explain what the main character is doing in the context of the story and setting. This isn't a hypocritical "no sex allowed!" reaction; it's a measured decision based on my level of comfort with the events of the game.

I would expect other parents to follow my lead. However, I wouldn't expect a non-gamer to suddenly, overnight, gain the kind of experience in games I have from 30+ years of video gaming; therefore, the ESRB, as flawed as it is, continues to be the preferred measure of what's appropriate.

SSSSSSlllllloooooowwwww month... not much happening, so I'll just brush over some of the basics. Besides, I feel a need to write, and I'm not quite ready for another editorial at the moment (which will likely be a comparison of the MPAA and ESRB, as one of the commenters on my last fire bomb suggested).

Headcrabs:

About a month and a half ago, one of our children's teachers (who's also a family friend, and absolutely adores our two younger children) gave her a very unusual birthday gift:

(That's not a picture of the actual one, by the way...)

Her name is Ariel. She's about 3 inches long, and eats coconut and drinks sea water. She's not very cuddly (I've already been pinched several times), prefers a warm humid environment, and likes to change shells every few days.

I've been teasing the kids by calling them "headcrabs," by the way... the reaction is too funny to describe. :lol:

Kidding aside: easiest pet ever. So easy, we got another one to keep Ariel company. :D

Guild Wars

I've beaten 3 of the campaigns now (Prophecies and Factions with my ranger, Nightfall with my paragon) and am working on Eye of the North off and on. One of the biggest reasons it has taken this long is because I've been trying to help several people through stickier parts of the campaigns (which has thrown off any time-table I may have had) and because my natural instinct to tinker has compelled me to fill 5 of my 8 character slots with experiments (so far, I've deleted an assassin and necromancer: one because can rein myself in during combat, the other because it's too creepy...).

Rating the ****s by how comfortable I am with them, I get:

1. Ranger (20+ years of playing them in D&D and other games... of course I'm comfortable! :lol: )
2. Paragon (As close to a ranger as you get without being one)
3. Warrior (Turn off brain, swing sword...)
4. Ritualist (Spirit artillery for the win)
5. Elementalist (Who doesn't like a big "boom" now and then?)
6. Dervish (Would be better if micro-managing enchantments wasn't so annoying)
7. Monk (Being blamed for letting the assassin die is never fun)
8. Necromancer (I've watched Dawn of the Dead too many times for this to be fun to play)
9. Mesmer (...okay, I haven't played one yet... but the ****doesn't appeal to me)
10. Assassin (Too many Naruto clones have just ruined the **** "more glass than cannon" as one of my guild mates put it)

I'd also like to give a shout-out to the Eagle Talons guild for being extremely helpful to a newcomer. I may have joined by accident, but it was a happy accident. :D

The new avatar is my warrior. His name is Miyamoto Yakamo (Five Rings references there), and no... he's not pretty. He's functional, though. :)

Musically Inclined

I picked up the newest Iced Earth CD (awesome!!! 4 stars!!!), the newest DragonForce CD (jury's still out, but it doesn't sound much different from Inhuman Rampage), and the Megadeth boxed set (by happy accident, I bought it on a day when used CDs were selling for 40% off, meaning I got it for a very steep discount :D ).

I also found a cheap copy of Guitar Hero: Rocks the 80's, and I'm very glad I didn't pay full price on release: it's the worst of the bunch for several reasons:

Poor covers: The guitar solo for "Metal Health" was totally deleted, for example;

Incorrectly-credited covers: "Radar Love" was not made famous by White Lion {???} and "Ballroom Blitz" was not made famous by Krokus;

And the difficulty assignments for songs is baffling: Winger's "Seventeen" more difficult than Dio's "Holy Diver???" (Winger's inclusion makes the whole collection suspect, to be honest.)

When there's only 2 songs you want to play over again (Extreme's "Play With Me" and Anthrax's "Caught in a Mosh") $50 seems like a complete rip-off. Hell, the $10 I paid seems pretty steep at the moment.

News that "Peace Sells" will be on Rock Band 2 has put it on my radar, by the way. It also makes the list of games Megadeth has appeared on or been associated with truly impressive...

Duke Nukem, Guitar Hero 1 & 2, one of the NHL games, Gears of War, True Crime: Streets of LA,GTA Vice City (I think)... a few others I've probably missed...

SO...

I'm going to start researching the next Soapbox now (with increased scrutiny, I need to increase my standards... *sigh*... :lol: ). Take care of yourselves, and hope that October is a little more lively than September was. :D

It has been one of those weeks that makes a person want to find a nice, solid brick wall and slam their head against it. Repeatedly.

When I wrote the last blog, I figured I would have plenty of opportunity to respond, and keep up with the responses. Unfortunately, all Hell broke loose, and I'm just now beginning to rein it in.

First, the video card in our main PC died a smoky, violent death. It wasn't anywhere near a high-end card to begin with (a 128MB GeForce 6200), and the fact that it had a heat sink with no fan made me somewhat leery of it. It held together for a year and a half, though, so I didn't give it a second thought.

That is, until it imploded on me last Thursday. There was a "pop!" and a smell of fried silicon (very acrid, very unmistakable) and everything went black on-screen.

I replaced it right away (BestBuy had only one AGP card in stock: a 512MB GeForce 7300) but configuration issues hung me up for several days. I would think that the drivers would work without having to reinstall them: Forceware drivers work across all the GeForce cards, so I just plugged and played... and things kept going wrong. Once I finally did the uninstall/reinstall waltz, everything worked perfectly and I was safe.

At least, on the graphics front, I was safe.

Sometime in the midst of the video card shuffle, the internet connection went south on me. I would be surfing, or playing Guild Wars, and it would just die off with no warning. I tried everything to get it back to normal (which, for a non-networking person, isn't much), but it's still somewhat unstable. If I actually manage to hold it long enough to post this blog, it'll be a miracle.

When I got it steady enough to check mail and minor surfing, the family took over. Days without access to the computer add up: I couldn't get anywhere near the PC or my laptop. When I did, it would be for about a half-hour or so, and the connection would cut out. There's no way to respond to 100+ people in 30 minutes, and no way at all to give them justice. Later this week, when I get an hour or so, I'll sit down w/ a piece of paper and a pencil, and hit the broader points.

One serious upside: games that didn't work well with the old card now run smoothly at medium-to-high settings. I went back to Prey, Doom 3, and the Half-Life 2 episodes to really push the card as hard as I could and see where the limits are (which are pretty far, really). I even picked up F.E.A.R. (which I played the demo of a while back) and plyed a bit of that (so far... not too impressed; when I finish it, I'll review it, and possibly write a blog comparing it to Doom 3).

And now... I'll click the "Submit" button, and see if I lost connection yet again. :| Enjoy your week, amigos.

Try this: type in "violence in video games" in Google (or any other search engine) and check the results. If you get the same ones as I did, you'll see over 2 miilion hits that, when paged through, reference studies into their effects (many of them conflicting), defenses of the games, legislation targeting violent video games ("to protect the children"), counter-suits attempting to strike down said legislation... you get the point.

Violence has become a favored target of anti-game activists, who claim it desensitizes children to real violence, corrupts young minds, leads to heinous crimes, teaches kids to kill...the list goes on.

Nowhere in that list (and trust me: I looked for a long time for a hit... then again, this position piece may sway that result :D ) does anyone ask a simple, but vital, question:

Why do games have violent content at all?

It would childishly easy to end the controversy, and remove a big target from game developers', publishers', and retailers' backs if violent content were eliminated henceforth from all future projects, making them 100% family friendly. No blood, no foul. Right?

Or... we could look at what violence is used for in the games we have today, and understand why many games (almost 8000 according to the ESRB) contain violence. It makes for a more difficult path... but a much more rewarding one, considering the alternatives.

So why do many games contain viloence?

Violence sells. It's the least defensible reason, but no less valid. The biggest selling games of the year thus far (Grand Theft Auto IV, for example) contain violence. If more copies of family-themed games sold, more of those games would be made.

It's a great motivator. Shooting at enemies is easy. Shooting at enemies that shoot back takes skill. Rather than taking bullets over and over again with no visible result, the conflict will force you to develop skills to counteract the adversaries in a game.

It gives a game a sense of realism. One of the most important objectives of any story-teller is to give the reader, the viewer, the participant in a fictional media is"suspension of disbelief." If the audience stops questioning how realistic the story/movie/game/etc. is, then the teller has done his job.

In this sense,violence is tool to achieve this objective, in much the same way voice acting, sound effects, or real-time physics are tools. If I fire a gun at an enemy in Half-Life 2, I expect him to bleed; in fact, I expect to have that gun to fire at it in the first place.

It gives a player a "lesser" alternative to peaceful resolution of a problem. Remember "Deus Ex?" It's a first-person shooter (which usually rings the "violent content" bells in player's heads), but it can actually be beaten without killing a single person. It takes a lot of patience, concentration, dedication, and time to achieve. If you don't have a lot of any of these things, there's a much less satisfying (and somewhat less rewarding) alternative, which involves a lot of violence.

Another example: in Knights of the Old Republic, there's a puzzle that involves answering questions from a Sith-programmed computer. Answer like a Jedi, and you are ambushed by killer robots. Answer like a Sith, and you unlock the puzzle... but take a few Dark Side points. Since part of being a Jedi is knowing when not to fight, it makes sense (to me, at least) to "lie" a little bit now, and work those points off later... avoiding the "lesser" choice of provoking a fight... and getting innocent people hurt (a definite Jedi no-no).

Violence can be used to deliver a message. Several months back, I wrote a blog about the pro-peace messages that can be found in games about war. Without depicting the consequences of warfare (such as bloodshed and death), the impact of the message is dulled, and can be easily lost.

**********************************************************************

Naturally, I expect that many will disagree with the necessity of violence in any game. I'll try to address some of the ones I can anticipate:

Not all games need to be violent to sell. This is true. However, games like Halo 3 or GTA IV do sell better, and they do have violent content.

Violent games are bad for kids. As a parent, I feel this point is moot. I have plenty of tools at my disposal (ESRB ratings, for example) and my own playing experience to guide me in helping my kids play games I feel comfortable with them playing. Since the same tools are available for every parent, there's no reason short of lazy parenting or willful ignorance that a game meant for adults should fall into a child's hands.

There's too much violence in today's games. This is too subjective to address. What might be "too intense" for one person may be too tame for another... or just right for a third player. If you feel it's too violent, just stop playing; don't preach about it.

Finally, not every game needs violence to be good. This is also true... and also subjective. While some players may enjoy a Mario game (picture Mario running around hacking up Koopas and Goombas with an axe or chainsaw... and when you stop laughing at the absurdity, read on), others may enjoy something grittier or more mature. Neither is "right" or "wrong" in their choice of pastimes.

*********************************************************************

Now it's your turn to sound off. Do you agree? Disagree? Regardless of which, give me your reasons why you agree, or disagree. Your opinions are important, and discussion could shed light on areas of this debate that have yet to be explored.

Finally: don't confine your discussions to just GameSpot. Spread the word; spread the knowledge. Ignorance drives the anti-gaming debate: the less of it there is, the better.

Hey, with a title like that, it must be true... :lol:

Right now, I'm trying like mad to get used to the new layout. A little warning would have been nice... but I'm not going to rant on about that.

There are some nice things about it. However, there's this predominance of orange that's bothering me... orange isn't one of my "happy" colors. It makes me want to grab a bag, don a costume and trick-or-treat... not talk about games.

A massive overhaul may have been needed, but moving everything around in places they never were before...

/end layout rant :lol:

I saw "The Dark Knight" with my son today. I came away with the impression that Batman was really secondary to the story: it mostly focused on the Joker, played brilliantly by Heath Ledger (Jack Nicholson was good... but Ledger's performance was a quantum leap better). Come Oscar time, I expect a heated race between Robert Downey Jr.'s Tony Stark and Ledger's Joker... with a very slight nod to Ledger.

It seems like the superhero movie has really grown up. The contrast between Tim Burton's "Batman" (surreal, cartoonish, but OK) and Chris Nolan's "The Dark Night" (mature, gritty, and frighteningly realistic) is so sharp, it's as if they were about two different comic books. Even "Iron Man" tackled real-world issues of the War on Terror and arms manufacturer's roles in a way you wouldn't expect in a summer action blockbuster.

Guild Wars is still the only game around. I've had the opportunity to introduce it to my best friend and my son, and we've done some adventuring together several times. I have all the campaigns, and so far, "Nightfall" strikes me as the most "balanced" in terms of player character development. "Factions" is the most veteran-friendly (it accelerates you into the game like a rocket) and "Prophecies" (the original) is the most newb-friendly (it essentially spoon-feeds you the game). I haven't mucked around in "Eye of the North" much, but what little I have seen is enough to convince me it's more of a cap to the campaigns than a campaign itself.

That's all for now. I need to get out and research my next block-buster editorial (oh, the fame!!! :lol: ), and I want it to be more of a "sit up and take notice" article than the last one. If it comes off the way I hope it does... the non-gaming world may be in for a rude awakening. :D

Cheers!!!

A good friend of mine on this site (davidr_pikula) sent me this gem: Thailand has yanked GTA IV because of a taxi robbery and murder. Couple that with NY's governor signing a law regulating the consoles in this state... and it's clear the anti-gaming army is dancing in the streets. Two big victories for them, right?

Well... not so fast.

First, I'll address the NY law. It's in my back yard, so to speak, and there are glaring flaws in the law as it is written. Common sense was obviously on vacation when this was voted on. :?

At the moment, there is only one console which doesn't have the parental controls the law requires: the Nintendo DS. Considering that Nintendo is well-known for its family-friendly line-up, and the DS's library is almost entirely teen-rated or younger, it seems unlikely that NY would freeze them out on purpose; more likely, little to no research was done when the law was written in the first place.

The ESRB rates every game for the consoles and PC. Since 2001, I've seen exactly one game (a PC game) that wasn't rated on store shelves... and it still had "Contains Mature Content for Age 18 and Older" in clear lettering on the back of the box. Mandating that every game be rated seems pointless and redundant.

There have been several studies conducted about the link between violence and video games. What, exactly, does the NY legislature think yet another study will find that other studies didn't?

Finally, the law left one enormous loophole that a canny challenger can exploit: PCs are exempt from the console requirements. The logic is that digital downloads are difficult to regulate, but anyone familiar with the state knows that AMD (a microprocessor manufacturer for PCs) is opening a plant in close proximity to Albany. It could be argued that the exemption is simply a blatant pandering to a major industry in order to continue doing business with them.

By ignoring common sense, New York has managed to damage it's own chances of making this law stick... just as Thailand is currently ignoring common sense in their approach to GTA IV.

Simple math tells me 10 million copies were sold at launch. Thailand's logic says that 10 million potential violent crimes should have happened because of those sales... but they didn't. They did so to protect the children (a common theme), but the perpetrator was 18 years old, the age of legal consent in most countries. Common sense would say he's responsible.

They are not the only ones lacking common sense in this story, though. If it was as easy to rob a taxi in real life as it is in GTA, how many taxis would still be in service? (I'd vote "none.") Also, if the robbery goes bad, wouldn't it be a lot smarter (aside from just not robbing a taxi at all) to run away from the scene, instead of trying to drive away in the crime scene?!? Blaming video games for his actions just makes him look even more absurd than his actions already have.

Before you read the rest of this entry, think about the title, and what song it's from.

Don't worry... if you were born after 1990, you might not recognize it. :lol:

Give up?

I just got back from a concert from one of the most improbable reunion tours in music history: The Police.

For a dedicated metal-head like myself, I have a surprising number of non-metal bands that I respect. Genesis (with Peter Gabriel as singer), Marillion (with Fish as singer), Queen... the list is actually a lot longer than even I really care to admit. :?

The Police are there for the complexity of their lyrics, the energy they conveyed in their music, and the volatility of the band itself. I was surprised to learn just how much friction went on in the background shortly after they broke up in the late 80's... and put them on a list of bands I'd always wish I could see in concert, but never could.

At least... they were on that list... :D

When they were announced for the concert season at Saratoga Performing Arts Center this summer, I was genuinely surprised. "These guys imploded badly," I thought. "This must be an elaborate prank!!!" When they began selling tickets, I really started believing they wouldn't make it to the end of the tour... and we were second-to-last in line. When I found out that we might actually be going... ooooooohhh... :D

Of course, there was drama involved. I didn't mention I'd be going because I didn't want to hope too much, and jinx it all. I'll explain:

***NOTE: IF YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT THE DRAMA, SIMPLY SKIP TO "ANYWAY"***

My friend was dating a woman in another state. She bought the tickets in April (or so) and was planning on flying in for the show. As a special surprise, she bought 4 and was also going to bring my wife and I (I guess to thank us for being there for my friend... I'm still a bit fuzzy on it all...). My wife was excited, I was... cautiously optimistic.

Last month, in one of those fluke occurences that leads me to believe that God has a wicked sense of humour, my friend got a call from his fiancee's friend, who somehow dialled it by mistake, asking if she should bring the car back now or if she needed more time with the guy she was... um... you get the picture. :(

So there was drama, tears, and a few angry long-distance phone calls... and in my mind, no Police (furthest thing from my mind, actually... I knew we could still buy them online, and avoid some nastiness in the process).

Monday, an envelope arrived in the mail. In it: the Police tickets.

:0 I'm lost at this point. My wife won't read me the letter that came with them, but said something about a "Thank you for being understanding about the situation."

Oh... and we were supposed to bring my friend and "His new girlfriend" along with us... which wasn't happening, since he doesn't have a new girlfriend... and that's how ticket #4 went to our son. :lol:

ANYWAY...

The show was fantastic... but one thing really stood out for me: how much Andy Summers looked like he really didn't want to be there.

The musicianship was incredible, Sting worked the crowd with ease (I'd seen him on the "Soul Cages" tour in 1991, and he really looks at home on stage; even 17 years later, he hasn't lost a step, and his voice is incredibly well-preserved), Stewart Copeland (one of only 3 non-metal drummers I have any respect for) was a madman on the stage... but Summers just sat in one spot on the stage, played guitar well, and looked remarkably like a man with a large gun to his head. It took most of the 90 minute set for him to eventually smile... and I'm sure that was just because we cheered at the mention of his name.

They played most of the songs they're best known for (with the surprising exceptions of "Spirits in the Material World" and "Synchronicity II") and a few obscure tracks ("When The World Is Running Down, You Make The Best Of What's Still Around," for example), and really put on a show I'll treasure for years to come... because in my heart, I know that's it for them (maybe Copeland and either Sting or Summers will work on something in the future... but I highly doubt all three would coexist in a studio for long).

(The title, by the way, is taken from "King of Pain" from the "Synchronicity" album. If you don't have it, or have never listened to it, find a copy and treat youself. If you guessed correctly... have a cookie on me. :D )

Picture this:

You've been waiting for an important phone call for weeks. Every time the phone rings, you're the first one to the phone; you scan the answering machine with bated breath if you've been out for a half hour; you feel a sense of disappointment when the call doesn't happen that day... or the next day... or the next week.

You just step out of the shower, and the phone starts to ring. You stand there dripping, a towel clenched around your body, while you pick up the phone... and, of course, it's the call you've anticipted! Unfortunately, they haven't exactly caught you at your best moment... :?

That was my last blog: standing in the hallway, soaking wet and half-naked, as complete strangers held a conversation with me. :lol:

It wasn't my best writing. It wasn't really a topic I thought about in-depth for hours on end... in fact, I think it took me a 1/2 hour to write.

It landed me on the front-page for 5 days (or so) on the Soapbox. Caught me way off-guard.:oops:

I said to myself, "OK... I'll just let this go... in about a day or so, a better editorial will come along, and I can breath easy, and think about the next one."

5 DAYS, people... and about 4 times the comments that I'm used to. :shock:

There's a small part of me that's thinking, "What were you thinking?!? Were you thinking?!? Is the meaning of life really 42???"

Then there's the ego thing... "People loved it!!! You're on the front page of a widely-read website!!! You are awesome!!!"

Finally, there's the rational part (a good chunk of my thought process, really): "You're a writer. People are reading what you wrote. It's good... but it can be better next time." ...which is a better control on the ego than beating into a cage with a cooked salami. :lol:

So... if you've suddenly chosen to track me due to the Soapbox, I urge you to go back over the past year of random scribblings and get a better sense of who I am. It may turn you off, or it may make you think... but it's me, and I stand behind all of it. :D

SHAMELESS PLUG!!! Also, if you're interested in being a better writer, or intelligent debate about gaming (and other subjects), there's the Monkeys Writing Shakespeare Union, which can be accessed through the link behind the modular emblem bar at the top of my profile. We're a fun group with different interests and philosophies, but civil and friendly all the same. Come on in and check us out. /END SHAMELESS PLUG!!! :lol:

Movies: My son and I went to see "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" yesterday. It's a solidly entertaining movie, but it suffers from a somewhat recycled plot (the villain needs to get the pieces of a super-powerful item together to rule the Earth; the heroes need to stop him) and some average acting and directing. The creature, effects, however, are outstanding, and the action sequences are spectacular. Three stars overall: worth seeing in the theatre.

Games: I'm almost to the end of the Prophecies campaign in Guild Wars thanks to some good groups and a lot of solo playing for side-quests. My single-player instincts for RPGs haven't dulled at all, and (oddly enough) have actually landed me in the leadership positions of some groups during cooperative missions. Since I look everywhere and do everything in an RPG, my sense of direction is better than average, and my recall is very good, so I've used that to help my son (who has his own account so we can adventure together) and my friend (who has seemingly abandoned HG:L altogether for GW, mostly because he's a fantasy RPG fan) get farther faster than I did.

Once that's done, I'll focus on getting through Factions, then Nightfall, and finally Eye of the North... all with my ranger. If he isn't super-ranger by then, it's not for lack of trying. :lol:

Other than that... nothing new here.

So, until next time, happy adventuring!!!

I'm a very long-time gamer. I've stuck with video games since the first arcades sprouted up in my area oh-so-many years ago, played on the Atari 2600 at home (when I wasn't in trouble for skipping my homework... to play on the 2600 :lol: ), have owned several consoles and a stack of games for each, and in general have logged thousands of hours manipulating little pixel-based objects across video screens.

I do it to sharpen my reflexes. I do it to "escape" to a certain extent. I do it to relax.

I find it stimulating to take an RPG character and put hours of play time into developing him into the uber-hard-core monster-killing machine he can be. I'll skirmish for hours on an RTS with an army I don't know (or like) for the challenge. I'll jump head-first into a shooter just to see if my reaction times can still keep up with the hardest difficulty level.

Short version: I game for fun.

At times, I wish everyone gamed for fun, in much the same way I do. Either I'm in a minority, or a silent majority (take your pick), because the "fun" people are few and far between. Most of the fellow gamers I run into seem to fit the following categories:

The "Professional:" I put this in quotes, because not every gamer could possibly make money playing games. This is the individual who studies replays for hours on end, in order to fine-tune his build orders or strategies. If the real pros don't play a game, then the "professional" won't either... and says so... loudly... and repeatedly.

The Entrepreneur: This seems to be an MMO-centric phenomenon: players whose sole mission is to make gold from those who can't (or won't) do for themselves. Runners (who will take you through an area for a fee), farmers (who'll sell you items they've picked up), etc. ...it makes it difficult to find people who will do the quest you need with you, if they can find a person who'll guarantee they succeed... for a small charge of 1000 gold. :S

The Graphics Junkie: If it doesn't use Pixel Shader 9.99, support pentalinear filtering and have ultra-photorealistic graphics in the first screen shots (even if release is still 18 months away), it's "crap!" and will never sell. Don't believe me? Just ask the graphics junkie, who's "low-end" machine has 4 GPUs, 16TB of memory, and a price tag that would bankrupt several small countries.

The Griefer: Unfortunately, I've run into this a few times in Guild Wars. This is the player who feels good about ruining the fun for the others in the game. It takes many forms, some minor (like heckling the "n00bs") and some not (gutting your way through a mission when 2 people take you in and, 5 minutes later, quit with a "lol gl n00b!!!" leaving the other 2 basically helpless; or having a player who blows the bonus objective deliberately, and blames you). The only defense is to get a thick skin, and really good very quickly.

This is, by no means, a comprehensive list. I'm sure there are other unsavory characters in the gaming world I haven't run across... but, then again, I haven't actively sought them out.

More than likely, it's just my gamer's idealism (if that really exists) that wishes more people would help the newer players instead of hurt them, or take a game for what it is (a fun way to unwind and relax). Then again, I guess every segment of society has their bad apples, and if you look around, you'll find them whether you want to or not.