Except, I live in the Southern Hemisphere, so it's not winter. Even if it was winter, there'd be no snow.

Oh, there's some snow in South Africa... very occasionally... high atop inaccessible mountains... that are technically really in Lesotho (the land-locked kingdom in the middle of South Africa, for those that didn't know).

I'm just a little sick of people complaining about having the option to go skiing or snowboarding or building snowmen or hospitalising other people with monstrous snowballs.

Yes, I'm aware that slush is crappy and the roads are dangerous and that shovelling snow is about as appealing as sexual congress with a cactus, but that kind of logic has no effect on someone who's never even been in snow.

Stop complaining about being able to enjoy a white Christmas, people - it's like complaining about the calorie content of the BigMac you're busy savaging in front of a homeless person.

(/rant)

Well, based on the fact that I didn't really care for Assassin's Creed, it seemed a little foolish to keep my Altair-phile banner up.

Wasn't really sure what to put up in its stead, but I figured I wouldn't jump the gun and advertise my (ignorant) alligence to an unknown entity again.

I'm currently playing The Witcher, and enjoying it thoroughly (so much so that I may break my review virginity in the next week or two), so I present to you Gerald of Rivier.

That is all. Back to your business. ;)

A while ago I read an entirely forgettable book about the differences between men and women. Entirely forgettable, that is, save for one "factoid".

The writers of the book claim that men and women have quotas for the amount of words they use in a day. Once the quota is reached, the person becomes unwilling to communicate. Not surprisingly, women have a much higher quota then men. This is purportedly why men are so quiet once they get home from work - they've used up all their words already.

It's pop-psych, I know, but I kinda like it. Since reading the book, I've kept an eye on how many words I use and when. Most importantly, I try to eliminate superfluous word wastage. I became even more stringent when I got into journalism. As an editor, I think of myself as a sentence engineer. It's my job to cut away the detritus, and leave a simple, elegant structure that conveys meaning (which isn't really the case on this blog, where I tend to wax lyrical and pay scant regard to strict grammar etc.).

Nowadays, I find myself editing other people's speech internally, pressing the delete button with mind-numbing regularity. It's become something of an affliction. It's not that these people are inarticulate or stupid, it just that once I've got the meaning, the rest of the sentence is sort of unnecessary. The exception, of course, is beautiful or poetic speaking, but that's so rare it can be confidently discounted.

But questions like in the comic to the right (by the hugely talented guys from Penny Arcade) really irk me because not only is the question stupid, the answer is a drain on my word reserve.

Between houses, as I am, I'm now staying with a friend and his father. The father is a kind enough guy, but he's slightly deaf, Scottish, and prone to saying "no" when he's stuck for words. "Conversations" between us normally go thus:

Me: "Hi. How was work?"
Him: "Wha?"
Me: "I said, 'How was work?'"
Him: "Oh. No. No. No. It was fine. You?"
Me: "Good. Are you going out tonight?"
Him: "Wha?"
Me: "I said, 'Good. Are you going out tonight?'"
Him: "Oh. No. No. No... No."
Me: "What?"
Him: "Wha?"

You get the idea. It's drainingly recursive - like going mad when you're already crazy. But what can I do? He's not a bad person for being slightly deaf and Scottish. But see how many words I lose from my quota? It's like tax - use one, lose one. It's almost more than I can bear.

I finally got to play some Assassin's Creed last week, and I have to say I was severely under whelmed.

As you can see from my banner, I've been eagerly awaiting this game for some time. Ever since the first gameplay video, I'd get embarrassingly hot and bothered, and my breath would take on the haggard aspect of lecherous prank call at the mere mention of the game. I mean, how could a game with parkour (free-running), swordplay, and neck stabbing possibly be bad?

Well, it's not really bad, per se. It just manages to straddle that awkward grey area where you can't put it down in case it gets better, but playing through still feels like a labour.

I guess I only have myself to blame. I bought into the hype, and my overblown expectations of the game were probably impossible to realise.

Or at least that was my initial reaction. The more I played, the more I realised that the foundations of a brilliant game were all there. The combat, while not exactly intellectually taxing, is fun and rewarding. The free-running is intuitive and well integrated. And the assassinations themselves - well, what could be better than plunging a pointy spike into someone's soft, fleshy neck?

On the balance though, the whole thing is put together poorly. There is just waaaaay too much time spent doing, well, nothing at all. And I'd have to agree with other GS users that the three-point investigations are frustratingly monotonous.

Frankly I've been having more fun playing The Witcher, which (and I don't mean this as an indictment on the RPG) is a sad state of affairs.

Hopefully Ubisoft will come to their senses for the sequel.

EDIT: Here's Yahtzee's take on the game. Warning: This video review features a lot of swearing.

On the Jeff issue: I'm a little embarrassed about my response to Jeff being fired. I'm not normally one to jump on the bandwagon without a good reason, and at the time of writing my last post (the day after Jeff went) I didn't really know the facts. I still don't really know the facts, but I have a suspicion that's not going to change. As things stand, GS still holds an inordinate appeal for me - thanks largely to Thinking Outside the Box, so I plan to stick around for some time.

On my semi-silence: I've never been a terribly prolific blogger, but the last couple of weeks have been slow even by my standards. The reason, I'm happy to say, is that I got promoted (woot! Level up :D). Unfortunately, the increase in workload and responsibility has severely limited my free time. I've got loads of scribbled notes and half-baked ideas for blogs, but no time to flesh them out or write them. Typically speaking, things tend to slow down this time of year, so hopefully some of those ideas will come to fruition, but I promise nothing.

Just so you know...

Well, it certainly seems like the rumours are true. The deafening sound of silence from the GameSpot staff speaks volumes: Jeff is gone.

The issue, if it proves to be true, is scandalous. Quite apart from the fact that an honest man has been fired for adhering to his principals, the implications are that GameSpot can never again be trusted.

And it's not just the reviews I don't trust (I don't really pay much attention to reviews anyway). Surely, if you follow this trend to its logical conclusion, this mean that companies can "advertise" their way out of unfavourable news too.

My heart goes out not only to Jeff, but the remaining staff at GameSpot too - they now have to work in a climate of fear and oppression, constantly kowtowing to their corporate overlords.

I'm absolutely disgusted.

Were it not for Thinking Outside the Box, I'd terminate my account immediately.

As things stand, I may leave anyway...

Gordon Brown has been busy. It seems the new British PM is very keen reach the gaming vote; or perhaps it has more to do with education. Or maybe, as -INKling- suggested in my previous post, it has to do with him trying to show that being a head of state isn't quite as easy as we think it is.

Got another press release today which I just had to share (the cartoon was included):

Gordon Brown Turns To 'Democracy' For Helpful Hints

BRING THE TROOPS HOME FOR CHRISTMAS? INJECT A SPENDING BOOST FOR BIRD FLU PREVENTION?

Following consultation with his ally in the US, the UK's Prime Minister has turned to Democracy, a political strategy game for PC for some 'serious' inspiration.

With mounting pressure from the back benchers to review unpopular policy, the PM needs to carefully assess political strategy to gain the largest share of the vote to stay in power. But you won't be able to keep everyone happy all of the time, so tread cautiously as popular policy may not be in the best interests of the country.

With an unpopular war being waged in the East and financial meltdown coming from the sub prime markets in the West, the UK government needs to take a firm and steady stance to appeal to the mass vote and win through. Tough political decisions lie ahead...

Do you withdraw British troops from Iraq to gain approval from the masses back home but expose the world to the increasing threat of terrorism? Do you maintain the unpopular increase in interest rates to safe guard from recession or opt for the more popular cut in interest rates and risk increasing the level of consumer debt in the UK? Winter bird flu is back on the agenda - do health services need a boost?

You know, I'm not even going to speculate about a game of this nature. I'll leave that to you lot...

Just got sent this gem of a press release. It's long and repetitive, so I won't reprint the whole thing, but here's a snip:

"Gordon Brown joins a virtual Paris Hilton, Alistair Darling and Keira Knightley as 3D characters in the downloadable SeriousPolicy Game. Developed by educational simulation specialist, PlayGen, the computer game sees the player on a mission to win Treasury funding for a new policy.

But this isn't satire. SeriousPolicy is designed as an example of how computer games can be put to use for both citizen engagement and education. With its clever blend of fun and seriousness, it encourages flagging public engagement in political processes and is an ideal tool for winning over Britain's younger voters - especially with Ms Hilton in situ."

Fine, fine. Educational games are good and all. But surely they can also be fun? Personally, I would rather eat crushed glass than try to "win Treasury funding for a new policy".

And why is Paris Hilton in the game? Isn't she the antithesis of education?

Honestly, it boggles the mind.

So, we've all heard about how games are corrupting the very fabric of society, leading to anti-social behaviour, and encouraging violence. Of course, we all know it's bollocks.

Despite the fact that there have been a plethora of studies that have shown that games improve hand-eye co-ordination, facilitate problem-solving, and enable global socialisation, the nay-sayers are still crying foul.

Pah, it's their loss. There are other life skills hidden in the murky depths of videogames, and whether we realise it or not, we're learning them every time we play.

Gather around kiddies, it's time for (Second) Life Skills 101.

Co-op is key: Lone-wolf strategy not working for you? Enlist some help. Quite apart from the obvious benefits of having another pair of eyes and another trigger finger backing you up, you might actually learn something. Flanking a problem in life or at work is just as effective as flanking the enemy in a game.

Delegation of duties: Digging squad-based games? Congratulations, you're learning about teamwork and management skills. Good leaders are defined by their ability to manage their teams. Draw up a game plan, delegate the best men (or women) to positions where they can make the most impact, and let them get on with it. True leadership requires deft guidance, not heavy-handed intrusion. And remember: micro-management is the enemy of success.

Jack of all trades, master of none: It certainly pays to be knowledgeable in more that one skill set, but in life, as with games, mastering a skill will make you more useful than a Jack of all trades and, hopefully, indispensable. Mastering mediocrity is not an achievement.

Level-up: Are you the kind of gamer who won't move on to the next map until the entire level is explored? Good! Keep it up. Much like games, life does have some moments of drudgery. Plough through them - the experience you gain will pay dividends when you reach the boss. And who knows, you may find some extra loot along the way.

Try, try, and try again: Losing a boss battle isn't going to make you stop playing the game. You look for weaknesses, try different approaches and strategies, or use different tools at your disposal. And the harder the boss, the more rewarded you'll feel when you beat him. Such is life.

And that ends the lesson for today. Class dismissed.

In my third year of varsity I needed a filler course to make up some lost credits. As with all filler courses, I chose something that interested me - as opposed to something useful or necessary for my majors.

The course I chose was the Philosophy of Art and Literature - a suggestive name that promised all of the requisite musing and pontificating that all humanities students like to do (mostly while they're stoned).

It turned out to be one of the most challenging and rewarding courses I did at varsity, eventually eating up so much of my time that my majors started suffering. My digs mates and girlfriend would cast worried looks at each other as I wandered around the house muttering about how Kant was both right and wrong about aesthetics and taste.

I was prone to jumping up in the middle of movies or dinner to write something down, frantically repeating whatever gem I had thought up before I forgot it. Philosophy is weird that way - the thoughts that lead to an insight are normally so tenuously linked that the merest distraction can break the chain of logic.

One of the major sections of the course was the link between morality and beauty, or the ethics of aesthetics, as we called it. I won't go into too much detail (partially because the philosophy behind it is lengthy and detailed, but mostly because this was some years ago, and I've forgotten almost everything except for the main gist), but the crux of the issue was that something can't be truly beautiful if it is in some way morally corrupt.

I took issue with aspects of the stance, because they denied a lot of legitimate art true recognition, and don't take into account various outside influences. Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, for example, could never be considered beautiful or a work of art because of its Nazi content. And this is one of the most important movies of all time - one that revolutionised the industry, and equipped future filmmakers with techniques that are still used to this day.

I maintained that the reason the film was considered morally reprehensible was because the Nazis didn't win the war. If we lived under Nazi rule, the film would be considered a thing of beauty. Moreover, at the time of the film's making (1934), no-one could have foreseen the full nature of Nazis' future war crimes. In other words, the work's temporal and geo-political relativity plays a part in the judgement of its beauty.

For the most part, morality asserts itself in works of art. Films and books (and games) are constrained by it. Even if the main character is a villain, he or she will see the light and become a hero by the end of the book/movie/game. Either that, or he or she will pay penance for their crimes. Immorality has to be punished.

It's frustrating.

For once, I'd like to play a character that is evil to the core - a true villain.

One of my favourite literary characters of all time, Iago (of Othello fame), was the epitome of evil, and he rocked the Kasbah! Of course, literary conventions and the invasive ethics of aesthetics put an untimely end to good ol' Iago. How boring.

I want a RTS where I can play as Nazi Germany, and take over the world; or Communist Russia, and nuke America. What about a FPS where I can take hostages instead of saving them? Or a quest to open the gates to hell instead of closing them?

After all, the world needs evil. There can be no heroes without villains.