Console Wars Episode VII

By Daniel Moir

First a message to fan boys. Nothing sickens me more than seeing lame comments like "everybody knows Sony will come out on top eventually" followed by no sources, no data, nothing more than a biased hope that their console of choice comes out on top presented as fact. We saw this with Xbox supposedly outselling the PS2, and let's not get started on the brokenhearted and desperate GameCube fans. "Resident Evil will save us!" Uh... yeah if the game had remained exclusive a few more systems might have been sold but realistically without heavy hitters like Halo, or GTA GCN was simply dead before its time.

Now for the first time in over a decade Nintendo fans DO have something to rejoice in. For the last year Wii has been outselling their competitors to the point that no one can ever find them. Market data is not showing a slow down in demand, so where do market analysts and PS3 gamers get off making absurd proclamations like "PS3 will eventually take the lead?" What evidence do you have that confirms this? That the PS1 & 2 were the market leaders of their generation? Well by that logic then Nintendo 64 won its console war which means GameCube won it's meaning you now have a nullified argument because now the Wii winning is the next logical step in this once concord always dominated market.

The success of a game system can help establish a recognizable brand name, but that's as far as it can go. A name alone does not guarantee success of a system. Look at the N64. I will repeat this argument. We all loved the NES, and SNES, but PS1 shifted out affections its way much to the surprise of an increasingly turbulent market.

Why? People go where the games are that they want to play. For me the turning point was Resident Evil followed by FFVII. Those games (plus the cheaper cost of PS1 games $50 compared to N64's $60... sound familiar anyone?) made me set aside my 64 despite the fact that aside from FMV sequences the 64 had dramatically better in-game visuals. Graphics didn't save the day then, it won't now.

The market trend is as follows people. # 1 System with biggest demand Wii, 2nd place is 360 with the PS3 in 3rd. And I will now do what NONE of you do and cite a source to back up my argument since this is how intelligent people argue.

"" The latest dispatch from the console-war front leaves no doubt as to the victor. More than 981,000 Wiis were sold during NPD's November reporting period, besting the Xbox 360's 770,000-unit total and more than doubling the PlayStation 3's 466,000-unit tally. Sony's most venerable platform, the PlayStation 2, continued to outpace its younger brother with 496,000 units in sales. (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6184008.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop;title;7)

According to the same article the Wii has sold more than double what the PS3 in November. How does this tell us that the PS3 is going to eventually over-take Wii when current market data tells us that the Wii is selling twice what the PS3 is? According to this same article the PS2 is outselling the PS3 with 496,000 units sold opposed to PS3's 466,000 units sold. If the current Gen system is being beaten by its predicessr that is a pretty sad state. So please do tell me where you are getting the idea that the PS3 will somehow overcome insurmountable odds and become market leader again when there is simply no empirical evidence to support such an absurd thesis. It has to beat its own predicessor before it can even take on the 360, let alone the Wii, and if you can take my challenge to prove to me that the PS3 will not remain in 3rd (or 4th if you factor in the PS2)place please do so with just actual facts and data not biased speculation.

 The X3 game is out, and now I won’t buy it. Why? I love the X-Men! I really do, but it bothers me that there is not a single website I frequent who has posted a review of this game, and lately any time I have spent money on something that didn't have a pre-release review available I have regretted it. So with that said I have to ask what is it that the developers are hiding that they have not made it available for critics to review?

   I've been hearing rumors that the story's cut scenes are still images to make them more "comic book like" which does not work with the games art style, more over there is no lip movement which is simply inexcusable with today's technology. However, this is just a rumor, and may not be enough to completely destroy a game. What I want to know is how does the game play? Why should I shell out $60 for an Xbox 360 game when no one can tell me if they think it's any good?

   Frankly I miss the Capcom X-men games. It seems like (aside from Legends) there has not been many great games based on that license, and I have been waiting for a game based on the films for some time. It would be a severe disappointment in X3 the official game of the movie ends up sucking. Yet it would not be a surprise. So for now, I will not buy the game. If the developers are too afraid to let this game be reviewed than it is usually a telling sign that the game is going to be crap.

 What happened to Bethesda Software is absolutely sickening. Even if their character models were anatomically correct what was released in the retail version of the game featured clothed women. Clothed women that, because of someone messing with and altering the code, can now run around without their tops.

  What hasn't been made clear to me is whether or not this is Sim/Barbie style nudity, of if there are indeed nipples, but either way I don't think its fair to penalize Bethesda for something a hacker did!

   Furthermore the ESRB's accusation that the game is more violent than Bethesda disclosed is absolute nonsense. This game is one of the least violent titles I've played in a long time. Limbs don't go flying everywhere, there's no guts exploding everywhere, and only a minimal spray of blood occurs ones in a great while. There is no legitimate reason for this game to be rated M.

   Consequently, while I had intended to aim for a T rating for the games I develop in the future I am not going to bother now. If a hacker can come in and tamper with my code and the ESRB responds by penalizing me then there is no point to holding back with the gore. No point at all.

Today was a special day for me. My tax return came in, and that means I can finally buy 3Ds Max Pro 8! (Student version, of course, because I am not rich and cannot afford the full version... plus I am a student, and i need this program for my next class anyway...)

   I went to AutoDesk’s website and to my shock made a discovery. Alias Maya Unlimited Bundle was the primary software that they are advertising... I mean AutoDesk Maya... While this does make things easier for me (as Maya is popular in the area I live) I am wondering... when the hell did this happen? This is big news! Why didn't Gamespot cover it! The merger of AutoDesk and Alias is a massive deal for developers.

   The other good news is that because AutoDesk is now shifting focus to their newly acquired Maya line that means I saved some extra on the License I bought for 3DS max Pro, but now I have to wonder will this come back to bite me later in the school year? 3Ds Max Pro is required for my next quarter, but after that, since it appears that AutoDesk will be focused on Maya now, will I have to buy Maya? So many questions! And its okay, really (sans the money needed for it) because like I said Maya is the tool most developers in my side of the nation use... so I guess I'd be better off getting Maya eventually any way...

   But its so much money....

 I am a cross platformer. The only system I absolutely hate is PSP and only because I bought one and it had the audacity to collect dust. I'm still bitter, but plan to buy one again (since I sold it) when the price comes down, and there are some solid games for it.

  Nevertheless I do have a love for Nintendo. Say what you will about their business decisions they still make some of the best games available. That is why the DS has outsold the PSP, which is why it will continue to do so.

  This isn't the first time Nintendo has had a weaker system against more powerful handhelds. Nintendo beat Game Gear, Nomad, Lynx, N-Gage, Game.com, and so on. They will beat the PSP. They are beating the PSP. It’s possible that this success could eventually translate to the console market.

  Yet despite my belief that Nintendo will continue to do well enough to remain in business (GameCube has sold over 20 million units world wide after all. Nothing to scoff at, especially considering Xbox only out sold it by 2 million units according to wikipedia.com.) I cannot help but feel disappointed in the choice of name given the Revolution.

   We've been talking Revolution for a long time now. Nintendo will have to start all over building anticipation for a Wii. I can't imagine the amount of money that they are going to have to spend to build awareness for this rename.

   Revolution was also a declaration of war against stale and stagnate game play. Wii is what? What does that name do for me? Nothing.

   Nintendo's claims are that they are trying to bring people together with this system. Hence the name "Wii", (pronounced "we"). I don't see that working because people will rally for a Revolution. They know what a Revolution is, and what Revolution means. They don’t know what Wii means. In fact most people will see the name and say “WTF?” They want to see revolutions, revolutions are often a good thing, especially in entertainment. But now will wii have a Revolution? Will wii be able to rally behind this new name and with it challenge the mainstream game market with innovation? Will wii feel inspired to gather for the cause?

   Or will wii ignore this new console because wii're not sure what to make of Wii... It’s not exactly a name that draws your attention the way that Revolution does. In fact the only attention this name is going to draw is fan outrage at the stupidity of the name! It will also draw the attention of Nintendo detractors who will inevitably say that this is a sign of Nintendo's impending doom...

   I'm not saying that this system won't sell. I am saying that it would sell a whole lot better with a cool attention-grabbing name. Especially one that is more or less a declaration of war against corporate manufactured garbage like Revolution.

   It's a shame Nintendo is no longer willing to lead us in a Revolution. I guess wii'll have to settle for mediocrity afterall.

  Back in the late 90’s we had been playing Resident Evil and Alone in the Dark for a while, and the horror fans of the world were already complaining that the game play had began to turn stale. We’re always crying for innovation (especially in films, but I’ll spare you that complaint.) Konami answered our cries for innovation by presenting us with a very different kind of horror in Silent Hill.

  Most horror games relied heavily on zombies, and quick “Boo… Ahh!” scare to get it’s job done. Silent Hill didn’t do that very often, but what it did do was expose you to extremely disturbing images, and monsters that defy any conventional explanation. Are they Demons? Are they undead? Or more disturbing, Silent Hill 3’s “They look like monsters to you?”

  The best thing about Silent Hill was it’s amazing story which revolved around a young woman named Alessa Gillespie who had extraordinary powers, powers, her mother Dahlia wanted to use to benefit the Cult of Samael. Everything that happened to Alessa was at the hands of her abusive mother, including being lit on fire. Dahlia even went so far as to misguide and trick Harry into working against Alessa who was trying to prevent the coming of Samael when Harry had to break a seal at a certain place and time where Alessa would be doing some sort of incantation, thus halting Alessa’s progress… what I’m getting at is that it’s true that in the Bad and Bad+ ending of Silent Hill Alessa was the end boss, however, and it is true that she was the root cause of the twisted world of Silent Hill. But, the witches, Dahlia, and the Order (AKA Cult of Samael) were indeed the bad guys, and in the ending I got Samael herself was the end boss. (I say her because of Silent Hill 3’s revelations.)

   Silent Hill the movie starts off similarly enough to the game that for the first hour or so a fan of the game will indeed be at the edge of their seat waiting, and waiting, and waiting for the scares to come. People who haven’t played the game may enjoy the story, and the visuals, but aren’t likely going to be getting scared by this film either. Non-fans will say that they never got the impression that Rose was ever in any real danger. The moment death was at hand the enemies (Whether they be skinless demon children who now have eyes and mouths making them less creepy) or the infamous Pyramid Head (Originally a delusion by James Sunderland in Silent Hill 2) just dissolve the moment Rose is about to be killed, thus eliminating any real feeling of danger.

   Fans of the series can simply complain that Christophe Gans strayed too far from the original story. While he nailed most of the visuals dead on the plot doesn’t seem Silent Hill like at all. For a while this film was code-named Centralia. I left this film wondering if the original story was going to be Centralia, but that Konami, who was seeking to do a Silent Hill film felt that the two were similar enough that they could both save some time and money by combining their efforts. This, if true, hurt the production. Silent Hill’s original story could have saved this production, and or Centralia could have been saved by not limiting itself to the Silent Hill universe. If Gans wanted to do his own thing, he should have, instead I now have no way to present the original story that I love to my family members who don’t play games, and I had talked this one up quite a bit.

   The first half of the movie, as I stated, is not scary, but is pretty cool nonetheless. Pyramid Head doesn’t do anything uber-disturbing like his video game counterpart, but he does cause a really awesome fatality to one of the unimportant characters. Later on when the towns folks start screaming “ a witch! A witch!” I found myself feeling nostalgic for Monty Python rather than the original Silent Hill. These movie folks need to stop straying for the original material.

  The story also starts out following the original plot closely enough but looses critical things like the hallucinogen that the Order was using, Dr. Huffman was nixed,  and although Nurse Garland makes a brief cameo her character is changed dramatically. As I stated earlier, the original plot didn’t deal with Alessa being nearly killed by witch hunters, rather being subjected to abuse at the hands of the Order, and eventually suffering from being burnt alive by Dahlia, which is why in her room you see messages like “Mom... mom kill…” and “help me…” It’s true that Alessa’s soul was split up like in the movie, but Alessa lured Harry to Silent Hill to help her to defeat the cult of Samael, not for revenge against a bunch of witch hunters.

   Perhaps the biggest complaint I have about Silent Hill the movie is the ending. I know that Silent Hill spreads. It chooses who it wants, and when it will let people go. It’s possible that Rose and Sharon were simply not yet allowed to leave, but many people felt that the ending meant that they had died in the car crash, similar to one of the bad endings in the original game. If this is the case, however, I do wonder how on earth Gans will follow this film up, especially since Alessa is the lead in Silent Hill 3. That’s right, you play as Alessa. The bigger problem is that since the 6th Sense too many writers and directors think that the “Oh and at the end they’re revealed to be dead” ending is still unique. If indeed that is the case here then, no Christophe, this is not a unique ending. It’s another “me too” 6th Sense rip off. If there’s more too it than that then it simply was not clear enough for the uninitiated.

   For Silent Hill fans it should be noted that although it nails most of the visuals dead on, the creepy feel of Silent Hill is lost, largely in part for Gan’s silly “A Witch! A Witch!” replacement of the original story. Fans will likely feel, as I did, that the movie is very cool, especially visually, but will be disappointed that Gans strayed so far from the original plot, and that the monsters are under whelming, and even misused.

    One such example is the demon nurse sequence. The demon nurses work well in the game. One or two at a time the way they move is extremely creepy, but in a large group like this it looked to me like they would break out into the Thriller dance routine. It was silly, not scary. And Pyramid Head should have had a lot more to do with in this film.

    Non-fans will likely walk away with no clue what just happened or what made the game so great.

    Books and game adaptations do have to undergo some changes to make them work on film, and I understand that. However, pretty much every video game to film adaptation except Mortal Kombat has been absolutely terrible because they stray too far from the source material. Hollywood does their own thing, and then slaps a well-known label on it.

    But I have to ask, if the story from the game is good enough to make one want to do an adaptation, then why change the original premise? Silent Hill and Resident Evil have both nixed the original protagonists in favor of less interesting female leads. I felt more for Sean Bean’s Christopher than I did for Rose. Rose was never in any real danger, Christopher was fighting loosing his entire family. That element of the film worked well on an emotional level. There is no good reason that Harry Mason needed to be replaced with a woman. None. Whatever excuses Gans throws out there the only reason this was done is because recent horror films have this idea that women should be the lead protagonists in all horror films, likely because they scream better than men. Fans of Lord of the Rings would have screamed bloody murder for this had Frodo been made a woman. I have nothing against women in lead roles. In fact, in original stories like the Ring or the Grudge I encourage it. But if the lead in the original story the film is based on is a weakly thirty-something male writer who is a widower with a sickly 7 year old girl it aught to stay that way. It is not okay to change the lead protagonist when adapting a book, the same reverence for source material that Hollywood has for novels needs to be extended toward video games as well.

   Simply put this movie would have been infinitely better had it stayed true to the original story, but like Resident Evil before it, it falls apart when it begins to stray. That said, unlike Resident Evil, this movie is still pretty cool based on its visual merits.

    With that said this movie is not un-enjoyable, and is the best video game adaptation since Mortal Kombat. Just don’t expect anything super special, let alone scary.

 Oblivion has made me realize that I want more RPGs for the next generation, and the stellar sales the game has had may yet bring us into another golden age of RPGs, like that of the Playstation era.

  One of the reasons I loved the PS1 and abhorred the N64 is because the PS1 was drowning in epic RPGs. I spent much of my later teens playing one after another even though the N64 had a decent selection of games like Goldeneye, and let us not forget Zelda.

   In the end of the last generation I had 20 PS1 games, and 10 N64 games, and 10 Dreamcast games (depending on whether you count that as a N64 era system, or a PS2 era system). The PS1 won the living room wars hands down because of the great RPGs.

  This last round Microsoft won. The PS2 served up one disappointment after another, as many developers strayed from the path of innovation and took a more mainstream approach to developing software. Nintendo house the innovation, albeit not in the quantity, or cheap prices offered by Microsoft, who had better versions of most of the good games the PS2 offered.

  But even though I have 35 PS2 games, 45 GCN,  and 61 Xbox games, very few of them, sadly, were RPGS. The ones that were, however, were simply amazing. Jade Empire, and Tales of Symphonia as well as Final Fantasy X were simply breathtaking, but the majority of the games on my shelf this round were horror, or action/adventure titles. Not that I love RPGs any less, but it seemed like Action/Adventure was the big thing this generation.

  Xbox 360 started with a deluge of First Person Shooters, and while I picked up more than a few myself I have begun to worry that this genre would be all that we would see, or would at least dominate this generation. While that still seems to be the case the success of Oblivion has given rise to a new hope for me. That this sends a message to developers that people still want their story rich, single player RPGs.

   I sincerely hope that we will see a revival of the RPG genre soon. I am getting bored of shooting things.

  Clue has always been among my favorite board games. The whodunit game play has always been a blast, and I have always enjoyed having to think, and figure things out.

  The biggest disadvantage clue has had, however, is that the murderer doesn't know he/she is the murderer.

   There's also live action Role Playing whodunit games that I've played, but never once have I been the murderer, or even the murdered. Those usually end up being a fancy dress up party with the whodunit being more of a side note.

   Never in my entire life have I had more fun than what I experienced last night as I, in the game Oblivion, now evil enough to have joined the Dark Brotherhood took on a mission to eliminate 5 of Cyrodill's scummiest rich people.

   Now I could have just gone in and slaughtered everyone, but where's the fun in that? I grabbed my fanciest red silk garbs and put them on instead of my Dark Brotherhood uniform. I played along with everyone, got to know each of my potential victims, their likes, and dislikes, and how they felt about each of the other players. Everyone was looking for a treasure chest filled with gold that actually wasn't there.

  I learned that the Dark Elf was in love with the richest guy there, who was also in love with her. So I told the dark elf to wait for him in his room even though it would be extremely forward. Sadly for her he didn't meet her there. She entered what appeared to be an empty room, I had cast shadow shape on myself so she couldn't see me. Saddened that he didn't meet her there she decided to lay down for a nap. My sword then... err... fell on her.

  This set some pretty interesting debate up amongst the survivors. The Nord and the super rich guy seemed to go for each other's jugular, accusing each other even though both had feelings for the Dark Elf (for very different reasons however.) There was some suspicion cast in the direction of the old Brenton woman who was at the party, none toward the Redguard.

  The Redguard then decided it was time for a nap. So I left the bickering three for a moment, and snuck into the Redguard's room and cast shadow shape before my sword... err, accidentally fell on the Red Guard.

  The surviving three freaked out at that point. The Brenton refused to stop following me so my next hit was extremely difficult. The Imperial started to become suspicious of the old woman, but was more annoyed with her because she had expressed some racist views against the Dark elf and seemed glad she was dead. His primary suspect was the Nord who had decided he was going to drink himself into a stupor. The Brenton was getting protective of the Imperial, and none of the three wanted to be alone.

  Finally the Imperial decided to go down for a nap, and the Brenton began to search around down stairs. She panicked as she realized that this whole thing was an elaborate ruse to kill them all, but never suspected me. I managed to get away from her long enough to cast shadow shape and hit the Nord with... I mean my sword accidentally fell on him too.

  Down to two, the Imperial, and the Brenton. Both highly suspicious of each other, neither suspicious of me. The Imperial a woke from his nap, and announced that even though the Brenton appeared old and frail he was certain she was the murderer and was not about to let her strike again. He asked me to stand with him on this, though the game did not give me the option to respond. He drew his sword and killed the old Brenton woman for me right before me sword accidentally fell on him!

  Now mind you, my brothers and sisters in the Dark Brotherhood assured me that our client had been severely wronged by the "host" of this game (whose identity I never learned.) So I don't feel bad about this incident because these people were not innocents. I don't know what they did, but I was assured they were bad people. Nevertheless this was absolutely one of the most brilliant side quests I have ever played in an RPG. The intrigue, the plotting, the execution, brilliant! Clue in reverse! I just wish that there were more innovative side quests like this in other RPGs. Namco could learn a lot from Oblivion. This is how side quests should be done, not like the tedious and even mandatory side-mission in Xenosaga II which did nothing to move the story, or enhance the game play experience.

  Kudos to Bethesda for their brilliant side quests. The best part about this mission is that the way things were playing out left me with the impression that the whole event could have played out a number of different ways. That said this Dark Brotherhood mission in and of itself would have made a great game ^-^.

 The king is dead! Long live the king!

  History has shown us that no empire lasts forever. Translating that history to video games there seems to have been a similar pattern. A system dominates, and then the market is disrupted and that ruler is toppled.

  Sega got killed (as a system builder) in the 90s, Atari, 3D0, Magnavox, NEC (Turbo Graphics) all went before it, and the Phantom died before it ever even had a chance to say "Hey I want to be king!"

  But in this war there is the once and future king. The company who has managed to survive despite being dethroned by Sony, and who happens to still be making money hand over fist, mostly due to their dominance in handhelds. The handheld market has been Nintendo's impenetrable fortress where they have been rebuilding, restructuring, and reforming their sword, and they are about to unleash an army which looks weak on paper, but could very well topple the Juggernaut empire which has been Sony.

  "Through small and simple things, great things shall come to pass."

   The concept is simple. One of the reasons that 3D0 and Atari, and even Sega failed back in the day was because the systems were being sold at around $500-$700 a unit. This was simply too much for the average gamer. It's too much for a lot of people now, except that Sony did manage to get games into the mainstream. PS3 and the Xbox 360 won't suffer the fate of the previous powerful but mega expensive consoles simply because most people in America play games, and there are enough of us so enamored with games that we'll pay whatever the manufacturer asks, even if that means putting ourselves in severe debt. More significantly more wealthier people are playing games than there were in the early 90s.

  However once people get the fancier high priced systems on thier normal TV so far they are hard pressed to see much of an improvement over the previous generation. (I thankfully do have an HDTV and am basking in the glory that is Oblivion.) This may be an edge for Nintendo as well. Why pay $400-600 for a new system that really doesn't do much more unless you buy a $2,000 + TV, when you can get a new system for $200 or less that looks just fine on what you already have?

  There is, a brooding consumer backlash for the high prices of the next gen systems. Many 360 owners I know are complaining that now that they have the system they cannot afford additional games. Some I've talked to about the PS3 nearly died of sticker shock and have even boldly declared that there won't be a PS3 for Christmas, despite the crying on thier kids.

  But then we look at the little Nintendo. They've always been well loved for thier great games, and it seems that they'll be putting out an inexpensive console with inexpensive games, and truth be told with the difference between the Xbox and the 360 so marginal on a normal TV it's possible, even likely that the Revolution could stand up pretty well against the competition so long as its on a standard TV.

  Not to mention the innovative controller, and the virtual console feature. All of this at a price at least half of what the competition is asking for, if not less.

  Throughout most markets there is always a low end, medium, and high end product. Products priced to attract different income brackets. Houses, cars, bathtubs, sinks, MP3 players, DVD players, and so on.

   Sony carved a market for itself with the PSP targeted toward the "high end" gadget guys and gals who don’t mind paying a premium price. Sadly the games have been mediocre at best, but they did establish a new market there.

  Why the PSP is failing to keep up with the DS is because Nintendo put out a device with modest, but still acceptable capabilities, and then upped the anti by introducing a new way to approach handheld games. This has lead to some amazing innovations in the games themselves. Everyone expected the PSP to trump Nintendo, but that did not happen because Nintendo realized that not every gamer out there is super wealthy. Most of us, in fact, are not. My gamming habits cost me thousands every year that were I a responsible 26 year old I would be putting toward bills instead. I am at the point that I can no longer afford the prices Sony, and to a lesser extent, Microsoft are asking for.

  Nintendo has capitalized on a market that no one realized was there, and created a poor man's handheld. It's been a run away success. Odd considering how every other consumer electronics have realized that market, and have been capitalizing on it for years.

  People who are looking at the PS3's price tag this Christmas may have a bad reaction to it. The PS3 will sell (to those who can find it and are willing to pay the mega-premium price) but many may find themselves drawn to the more conservative pricing of Nintendo, and I think that a lot of people underestimate how many of us there are who simply cannot afford $70 games, and $500-600 systems.

  By capitalizing on the not-so rich gamer Nintendo could very well find a back door to once again claim the throne. Just as they managed to maintain their impenetrable handheld fortress by focusing on those of us near or below the poverty line.

I got sold a haunted house. I didn't know it was haunted, and I nearly got killed when I went to sleep. I barely escaped with my life and so I vowed I would hunt down the guy that sold me the place and make him pay.

Well I'm not fond of killing innocents, but I am a tad bit distressed that Oblivion doesn't allow me to press charges when people take advantage of me! It took me forever to figure out how to drag this guy back to the house to help me lift the curse. He kept telling me it's my problem now and I'd have to deal with it.

Eventually I figured out I needed to show him a document I had left on the floor and his grandfather's skeletal hand. So he finally comes back to the house with me, and I am getting trashed by powerful ghosts who seem content to ignore him while he opens up the wall, and then runs away!

No way I was about to let him get away with that! Since I couldn't go complain to the authorities I decided to take matters into my own hands. I hunted him down, talked to him to wrap up the quest then cast an invisibility spell on myself and slew him. Justice was served... except the law didn't agree and a huge flood gate of guards came pouring in!

Now I didn't want to kill any innocents! But there were so many! I started trying to clear my path, but soon I realized that some of the folks that were trying to subdue me were normal everyday villagers! The worst part is that in the confusion I think I actually slew some of the villagers! All I was trying to do was clear a path for my escape!

I was able to escape to the next town where I turned myself in and served the jail time, all the while feeling horrible that I might have slain innocent by standards who simply didn't know that that pampas baboon deserved to die for ripping me off and leaving me to die at the hands of his dead grandfather!

So now I've served my time. Going through Anvil the population seems less dense suddenly, and I am mortified. I feel horrible! I wish there was a way I could take it back (aside from using a previous save)... I'm not even sure who all died because of me! Oh the shame of it! I'm a murderer in this video game, and I really didn't intend to become one… aside from enforcing my own harsh sense of justice, since I can't file complaints about NPCs.

I am literally feeling a tremendous amount of guilt over this, the battle was so confusing... Anyway this got me thinking...

I'm feeling guilty over the massacre of a bunch of polygons and texture maps. These people are not real, and I feel bad about it.

According to Hillary Clinton video games are supposed to turn people into mindless killers... Yet I've never killed anyone in real life, and if anything my experience in Oblivion tells me that it is possible to still have a conscious while engaging in a fictional world, and interacting with fictional people.

For me, killing the bad guys are one thing, but killing innocents is inexcusable, even if by accident. I feel horrible, and yet I must stress this is a fictional environment, and what happened in the game didn't happen in real life.

Therefore I would like to submit for consideration the idea that one's own conscious determines their actions in real life. If someone doesn't feel bad about killing people in real life odds are that they are going to kill with or without the influence of video games, and if one is inclined to more peaceful solutions they will seek after more peaceful solutions with or without the influence of video games.