Foreword : This is a satirical look at a mission in Grand Theft Auto 4 called 'First Date'. Given the content of this mission, I wouldn't have been worried if it had been spoiled for me, but consider this your spoiler warning if you are particularly sensitive to this sort of thing.

I was nervous as I drove; I always feel nervous on a first date. I had seen Michelle before, and though we hadn't talked a lot, she seemed nice, and I had wanted to see her again. I finally arrived, got out the car, approached her door and rang her door bell.
"Coming." There was a brief pause. "Who is it?"
"Hey, it's Niko."
"Hey," she said as she opened the door, "I'm just finishing my hair. Come on in."
"Thank you," I say as I walk inside.
"I'll be with you in a minute." I look around at the apartment and everything seems new.
"Did you just move in?" I ask.
"No... why?"
"All your stuff is new. Some even still have tags on."
"Yeah, well, I like things clean."
"I can see that, but err... everything is new"
"Yeah, I'm kind of obsessed with cleanliness... things get on my nerves and I just throw them out." Really? Such a waste, I'm thinking to myself. On the other hand, maybe if she keeps buying new stuff, she is pretty rich. "OCD or something?" she continues. Oh great. There's always got to be something wrong with them.
"Oh," is all I can manage.
"So... where are you taking me?" Don't say the line, don't say the line...
"Ah... you look good." She does look pretty decent.
"Aw thanks."
"I don't know - I'm new here, I thought maybe we could go to the, uh..." Don't say party in my pants! Don't say party in my pants! "Funfair!" Nice save Niko.
"Yeah, great" she says a little too excitedly after a brief pause. The pause that said 'You want to take me where? I guess he thinks that is a good location, so I'd better act excited'. "Let's go, love the fun fair!" she says as she is waves her hands. I know English is my second language, but I think she might be mocking me. "Actually," she continues as she walks towards the door and opens it, "we call it, um, carnival here, just a little difference. Ah, whoop-de-doo," she finishes as we exit.

So we get in the car. So I'm looking to impress my girl, right? I keep my foot on the brake as I rev it up, and start doing a burnout. Acting all cool, like it's nothing, I turn to my date and ask "So Michelle, what do you like to do?"
"What do you like to do?" What? Can't women just answer the damn questions?
"Come on, I asked you first." I'm not sure if I'm impressed or not that she is acting totally cool as I keep burning out in a perfect circle. It's obviously not exciting her, but she isn't taking offence either. Cars swerve out on the road while I'm burning out, including a cop car. I guess he saw Michelle in the car and decided to let me have my fun trying to impress my girl, even though I'm screwing with traffic. Good thing too, given that I've just come off the boat and don't have a licence. I decide it's time to start driving to our destination.
"I like to keep active I guess. Sports, working out, things like that." Nice. Maybe she'll give Niko a bit of a workout later on, eh? "I'd like to know about you though. See the places you hang out."
"Yeah, maybe another time," I reply. Come on. I just got here. And she knows that. Is she daft? I haven't had any time to hang out anywhere yet.

I careen down the road. Maybe if burnouts don't please here, speed will. But I'm still not used to driving the car, so I go over a slight bump, fly into the air, hit a curb, sending the car flying. The car flies into the air, over a cop car, does a full sideways roll, to land screeching back onto the road; the car slides out, travels into a back alley, and the drivers side slams into a wall. I look over at Michelle. She is still acting totally cool. Guess she is too polite to point out my bad driving skills. The cop drives past. Guess they must be really lenient here.

The car is still in good enough nick to drive, so I accelerate out of there. We approach the Carnival, and I see the boardwalk ahead. I don't know what comes over me. I see the ramp leading up to the deck, and I floor it. Michelle has acted pretty cool so far. What if I jump the car into the ocean? Surely she has to do something then. I'm just looking to get a reaction. But then I don't know what happens. My consience must take over or something, and I bring the car to a stop in record time outside the carnival. We get out, but the carnival is closed.

"You know, the carnival is closed this time of year," she says as we close the doors. Really? No I didn't know. But you obviously did. Could have told me this back at your house. Silly wench. "I didn't know if it would pass safety regulations anyway. There's a bowling alley over on the boardwalk. Why don't we play a few frames?"
"Cool. Let's go bowling then," I say casually. But then I see the minigolf park. She keeps talking to me, and I talk back, but I'm on autopilot. I run over to the minigolf park, and run around it for a while with her following, but she doesn't get the hint. Eventually I run up the ramp to the boardwalk and towards the bowling alley.

So we go do some bowling at Memory Lanes. Cute name, I see what they did there. The clerk at the counter repeats himself a couple of times, like I didn't hear him the first time. Man there are some stupid people in this town. So we take the left lane. My play is very inconsistent. Even though I'm doing poorly, it's no reason not to boast about my skills, right? Nevertheless, Michelle beats me, and comments that she thought I would be a better bowler. Guess I hurt my arm when the car slammed into the wall earlier.

I decide to run down to the end of the lane, and punch the sign at the end. I don't know why. Strangely, no one tells me off. I run across to other patrons lanes, expecting plenty of abuse; strangely, Michelle followed me across the lanes. I don't know why I did it. I just get crazy like that sometimes. But they must have been crazy too. They bowled straight at me! I guess I had no business being in their lane, but surely they must know hitting someone with a bowling ball is seriously going to hurt. But they did not know my trick! Just as the ball was about to hit me, I levitated from the ground just above the ball until it was no longer beneath me. They weren't even impressed. They just kept bowling.

Michelle had requested we finish up the date, and I had promised to do so a few minutes earlier. But she didn't push me during my alley antics. It was time to go. I was just about to leave and saw a fellow standing by the door. I think he was giving me the evil eye. At that moment, I had something like a psychic moment. Maybe it was a daydream, or a flash of a possible future, or alternate reality. In this dream, I attacked the guy giving me the eye, but it did not impress Michelle. It looked like that future meant this was a first and last date. I snapped out of my trance, and passed the man by to walk outside.

It was very dark outside. How long did those 5 frames take? Wow, time went fast. I had another psychic flash. I had a vision of me punching a guy I saw on the sidewalk, but I was within eyesight of a cop that I didn't see. If my vision is a true indication of what happens in this town, they must really take violence seriously. I only punched the guy once, and the cop opened fire on me. Man, things weren't anywhere near that bad in Russia. Maybe Liberty City was not as safe as I was hoping. But I broke from the trance, and laughed in my head. There was no way that cops here would shoot anyone just for punching a guy! Right?

I alternated between walking, running, and sprinting while Michelle kept trying to talk to me. She just kept on talking normally. No amount of running around put her out of breath. She obviously did work out if she could keep talking so cool with that physical workout. I ran with her following, then did a quick turn and she ran into me.
"Sorry," she says. Odd, given that it is kind of my fault. We stand there, looking at each other. After probably half an hour (of in-game time) just standing stupidly on the boardwalk looking at each other without saying anything, I head off to the car, and she follows. We get in the bonnet-less car, and head back to Michelle's. Driving really crazy didn't seem to impress her before, so this time I take it easy. I wonder if I'll get any action?

We get back to her place, and I pull up.
"That was nice," she says, "I'm really interested in seeing you again."
Damn. Guess that means I'm not getting any action tonight. "Yeah, that would be good. I'll give you a call."
"Please do Niko. See you soon" She seemed sincere. She opened the door, got out of the car and went to her house.

I think I like Michelle. As I've described, I do some pretty crazy things. Usually these scare off the ladies, but she didn't blink an eyelid to some pretty crazy stunts and weird occurrences. And I think I like that. Hey, there goes my phone. Who is it? Oh, it's my good for nothing cousin. Wonder what sort of trouble he is in now...

Footer : This wasn't a jab at GTA4, I'm having a blast playing it. It does show some leaps in programming and AI, but I think it is still going to be some time before we get near really believable AI in open world environments as envisioned in Liberty City.

Recently there was an announcement that Grand Theft Auto IV has presold more Playstation 3 copies than Xbox 360 in Australia. Perhaps I should know better by now than to check out the messages for that type of article. Perhaps I should know better than to write about it. But who knows, maybe one fanboy will read this and realise that bashing other systems unnecessarily is pointless.

I'm not talking about people who are fanatical about Grand Theft Auto. I'm talking about those who think it is going to be inferior on the other system, or that they don't deserve it, for no reason other than to fan the flames.

The first point I'd like to address is that Grand Theft Auto is a 'Sony/Playstation game, always has been, always will be' (and the same argument was made about Devil May Cry 4) No, it isn't. The original Grand Theft Auto was released on the PC in February 1998, 4 months before it was released on the original Playstation. This does change once we get to the 3D versions (GTA 3), which all lead on the Playstation 2, then make their way to other platforms, including Xbox. And this time around (GTA 4) it launches on Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 simultaneously; no date yet on PC.

But all of this history is pretty irrelevant anyway. Games don't belong to consoles. They belong to companies. Companies want to make money. We've had plenty of rumours of games that have previously been Playstation exclusives being considered for the Xbox 360. Chief among them are Final Fantasy XIII and Metal Gear Solid 4. Why? Because the companies want to make money. Whether they get it from a console manufacturer to keep it exclusive, or from the general public by releasing the game multiplatform, the majority won't care (I don't want to imply there is no loyalty at all, but they are in business to make money, and in the case of public companies, need to satisfy the needs of their shareholders). Just because something was exclusive to one console last generation, doesn't mean it makes business sense to release it only on its successor this generation.

Which brings us to the exclusive downloadable content Microsoft purchased for GTA4. There were plenty of comments talking about the content being something along the lines of a few new cars and a couple of new suits to buy. I don't think Microsoft spent $50,000,000 to secure some new skins. Of course, no one knows what the content will be, considering that we don't even know the full extent of what is in the game when it will be released. But that doesn't really matter.

What I did find hilarious were PS3 fanboys insulting Xbox 360 owners because they would have to pay to download the content, while they would be off playing other games. Xbox 360 owners won't be forced to pay for the downloadable content. They will be given the choice to pay for the content if they want it. This is something that Playstation 3 owners don't have. If an Xbox 360 owner doesn't think the content is worth it, they won't buy it. If a PS3 owner thinks the content is worth it, they don't have access to it. So I'm not sure how PS3 owners think it is an advantage that they aren't being offered something that Xbox 360 owners are.

I will agree that Microsoft has dropped the ball, and should have been advertising the fact that it has secured this downloadable content for the last month if they wanted any impact on sales in the first week. Uneducated gamers probably have no idea about the exclusive content that will be coming some time in the future.

So what about the numbers? If they say the PS3 version is outselling the Xbox 360 version, it is. Does that mean it is better than the 360? I fail to see how the presales of one game is evidence that the console, or the game running on that console, is better. Both versions are going to look fantastic. Both versions are going to sound fantastic. My guess is the differences will be extremely minor, and relate to the consoles themselves. Slightly different colour and lighting effects that are mentioned in most multiplatform game reviews. Achievements on the 360. Probably faster load times on the PS3 given a one-time install. Your preference of controller.

Pre-orders don't necessarily extrapolate into actual sales. But what if PS3 sales of GTA4 are double what the Xbox 360 does after the first week or month? Does the console in your house suddenly get faster or produce a clearer picture when sales beat the competitor? I must have missed that feature. Nowadays I just skim over 'numbers' articles. I've realised sales and units shipped mean nothing to me as a consumer.

So it's disclosure time. I own an Xbox 360 and a Wii, but don't own a PS3. So I guess that makes me a Microsoft fanboy, and I've been defending the Xbox 360. It appears that way, but only because the PS3 fanboys were out in force. In fact, my first blog here was in defence of the PS3 while it was being bashed, even though I don't own one. If the downloadable content was for the PS3 and higher pre-sales were for the Xbox 360, I'd be saying the same about the 360 fanboys, if they reacted the same. I'm just against fanboys in general, who think the opposing console is inferior in many ways and by many magnitudes, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

I don't have a PS3, so I must be getting the Xbox 360 version, right? Well, I'll probably buy a PS3 next month. The PS3/GTA4 bundle is enticing, but the apparent lack of a Dual Shock 3 is offputting. Seeing as I have an Xbox 360, I'll probably err towards that version due to the option of downloadable content in the future. But it won't be because I think it will be better right out of the box.

Every PS3 and Xbox 360 owner who wants to play Grand Theft Auto can do so next week, and is likely to have a blast doing so, no matter what the platform. Stop bashing platforms and have fun playing them.

The English language is full of curiosities. For nearly every rule, there are exceptions. There are plenty of suffixes and prefixes, some which mean almost (if not exactly) the same thing, not all of which are used universally. Why is something impossible instead of unpossible? Last night at a family dinner, someone asked what sort of coffee we were having. Being simple people, the options were caffeinated or decaffeinated (I'm writing this in Word, and caffeinated is not in the dictionary, but decaffeinated is. Interesting). Being silly, I said "Morrocan. Or how about Antarctica... uh..."

After stumbling over that, I got to thinking about the suffixes we apply when referring to countries (Research tells me Antarctica is not a country). For example, I live in Australia, therefore I am Australian. If you live in Indonesia, you are Indonesian. Aha! A pattern! If your country ends in 'ia', just add an 'n'. Looking at a list of countries, this seems to hold true. Until you get to Slovakia. They're Slavik (although I'm pretty sure Slovakian is commonly used). You'd think people from Somalia were Somalians, but they're Somali's (again, I think Somalian is commonly used).

A similar rule applies to some countries that just end in 'a', but without an 'i' preceding it. People from Jamaica are Jaimaican. People from either Korea are Korean. People from Kenya are Kenyan. So how about those Burman people? What do you mean people from Burma are called Burmese? Similarly, people from Malta are Maltese, not Maltans. And nobody would know what you are talking about if you were referring to a Chinan.

There are some countries that end in 'land'. People from Ireland are called Irish. Sounds fair; drop the 'land', add 'ish'. Well, perhaps we will add another 'n' when we convert Finland to Finnish. And we'll keep the 'l' for the Polish; Poish just sounds silly. Let's get lazy, drop 'land' and add nothing to the people who come from Thailand. Heck let's do the same with Somaliland (yes, the same title as those from Somalia). People from Scotland are called Scots (although I think Scottish is regularly used). People from New Zealand are called New Zeaish... I mean New Zealanders. So let's start adding 'er' then, shall we? So someone from Scotland must be called a Scotlander (Scot), from Iceland an Icelander (Icelandic) , and Greenland a Greenlander (Greenlandic), right?

While those three groups form the more common endings for countries (those ending with 'ia', 'a' and 'land'), there are a bunch of other countries that have different endings, making it hard to decipher what their people might be called if you don't already know. Some common known ones are Norwegians from Norway (no other country ends in 'way'), Spanish stuff comes from Spain (but people from Spain are Spaniards), and Israel is the home of Israeli. Turns out this brief research shows my ignorance; I thought Holland and the Netherlands were two different countries, but North Holland and South Holland are two provinces in the Netherlands. A common mistake apparently; I wonder why that is? Nevertheless, what are people from the Netherlands called? Nope, not Nethers or Netherians. They are Dutch. That one throws all naming conventions out the window.

If this interests you at all, you can have a look at a list of countries on this wikipedia page. See how many you know or can guess correctly. Most listings for countries in wikipedia have a demonym listing in the information panel on the right (what you call the people from that country). I also found this, which is a list someone has created if you just want to browse. If you can't be bothered with a link, here are a few tough ones you might want to attempt:
Chile
Bangladesh
Botswana
Cyprus
Laos
Mozambique
Turkmenistan
Vanuatu

This also got me thinking about terms used to describe things from different planets. As far as I can tell, things from Mars are Martian, things from Mercury are Mercurian, things from Saturn are Saturnian, things from Pluto are Plutonian... but what do we refer to things from Earth? I've never heard of anything called Earthian, that's for sure. I think Terran is the most popular term; looks like our exceptions in language are everywhere.

Foreword : This is my own paraphrasing of a chapter of a book called Awaken The Giant Within by Anthony Robbins. While I will be covering the same topic as in the book, it is in my own words. I felt the information was powerful stuff, and I wanted to share it, and by writing it in my own words, it helps me cement the ideas in my own mind.

Questions are floating around all the time. We ask questions of others, and they ask questions of us. What is thinking? Is thinking the act of presenting the brain with a question, and then looking for an answer? I believe that is a pretty good distinction. Many questions are asked and answered unconsciously.

The main topic I would like to cover is asking the right questions. The quality of the question we ask ourselves, particularly during challenging times, can change the quality of the answer.

Imagine for a moment you have lost your job. Perhaps you start asking yourself questions like "How could this happen to me?", "How am I going to live?", "Why does this always happen to me?". The thing about the brain is that it will look for answers to those questions. It will start looking for reasons to back up those questions, even if the question was silly. Perhaps your brain might answer the question "How could this happen to me?" with disempowering answers like "Well, I'm not that good at the job", "I always have bad luck" or "I'm just not supposed to be happy". What a set of disenchanting answers! But what if you had asked yourself a different question?

What if you asked yourself "What opportunities are open to me?". Perhaps "What other firms could utilise my skills?", or "How can I maximise my potential?" Those questions are much more likely to turn up more positive answers, leave you in a better and more productive state, and lead you to taking more positive actions.

What can make a question a bad or disempowering one? Presuppositions with negative or limiting connotations certainly affect the quality of your answer. If you ask yourself "What's wrong with me?" the presupposition is that there is something wrong with you. You are no longer considering whether something is wrong; you've already built the idea that there is something wrong with you right into the question. Turning those presuppositions around into positive ones is an excellent way to produce quality answers. For example, in the question above "What opportunities are open to me?" presupposes that there are opportunities out there, and that you have the skill to identify them.

An example of a person who asked positive questions despite the challenges in his life is given in the book. As I do not have the book with me at this point in time, I don't recall his name. However, he was in what most of us would consider a tragic accident. He fell off his motorcycle, which then exploded, and suffered multiple injuries, not the least of which were severe burns to three quarters of his body, including his face. After the accident, he asked himself questions like "How can I contribute to society?" "Is there anything I can do now that I couldn't before? Can I use this to my advantage to help others?" He went on to run for congress, and his slogan was "If you vote for me, you know I won't be just another pretty face"!

As if that trial was not enough, he was later involved in another accident and became a paraplegic. While in the hospital, he was attended by a nurse. One question ran through his head; "How can I get a date with her?". Where many people may have asked questions like "How could this happen to me?" and "What will people think when they look at me?", he wanted to hit on his nurse! And you know what? A year later, he married her.

Another example of a burning desire to have a question answered occurred during the Holocaust. Upon arriving at the camps, he asked himself and others, "How can I escape?" Others scoffed at him, and said there was no escape. Anyone who tried was killed. While he stopped asking other people, he still constantly asked himself, "How can I escape?" It didn't matter that no-one else shared his conviction. He kept on asking, looking for an answer. Eventually, he saw his way out. He saw a cart loaded with naked dead bodies. When no-one was looking, he stripped and jumped into the pile of dead bodies. He remained still for hours until he was dumped into a mass grave. He waited until dark, then ran for his life. He managed to escape because his question presupposed that he could escape, he just had to look in the right place.

This change in the way you think about questions doesn't just apply to the ones you ask yourself. It also applies to the ones you ask other people. Sometimes if someone asks you a question, you might be able to replace it with a better question. Perhaps instead of asking someone "What's wrong with you?" if you notice they are down, you could ask "How can I help you with your troubles?" which should turn up a much more effective answer. If you catch someone asking the question "Why does this always happen to me?", you can offer them "How are you going to improve your life from here?"

This doesn't just apply to turning negative or limiting questions on more powerful ones. Sometimes you can change a single word to turn a decent question into a powerful one. Which one sounds more powerful, "What am I going to do today?" or "What am I going to achieve today?" It may not be a huge difference, but it is certainly noticeable. To close this out, I'll offer a question you might want to always keep handy; "Is there a better question?"

This ad is the inspiration for this blog. I'd better add a disclaimer that I'm Australian, and it seems we have slower broadband connections and they are less widespread in our population than some places overseas. However, I'm sure a lot of what I cover here will still be applicable to the rest of the world.

The advert makes it appear that everyone can get hooked up to the household internet connection, and have everyone be happy with the service. What isn't clear, and the non-tech savvy family may not be aware of, is that each computer or device is not going to get the full download bandwidth; it's going to be split between each of them. On my 512kb connection at home, optimum actual speed is somewhere around 50-55kb per second. If my sister is online at the same time, it logically drops to about half. Once you are used to a certain speed, whether you are downloading files or even just browsing the internet, half that speed sucks.

Maybe it's just me, but I think we are becoming more and more impatient when it comes to download speeds and web page loading times. Sometimes I'm impatient just loading a page on Gamespot, even when I'm not doing anything else and my sister is not online.

Dividing the speed in half is enough to make me wince. Dividing by 6 or however many devices? Sure, they may not be demanding that bandwidth at all times. But what if 4 people in the family all head over to youtube on their PC's/laptops at the same time? What happens to Johnny in the lounge room who is playing Call of Duty 4? His lag is probably going to become unbearable.

Of course, I haven't investigated the product they are offering itself, but I'd say with near certainty this is all it is; connecting multiple devices to a single wireless modem, which is nothing new. I doubt most families want to pay extremely exorbitant amounts for faster connections to make this worthwhile. I guess it's better than the alternative; having more phone lines connected to the house so each device has it's own dedicated broadband, but that's just silly.

I'm not saying the integrated household can't happen. But the manner it is being shown in the ad will not be too common today (at least with consistent customer satisfaction). With current technology it will always be a matter of dividing the maximum bandwidth between the devices that want to use it. Most families will still 'take turns' using the internet. It's undeniable we are heading that way though. Many of us have devices, whether they be PC's, laptops, palm pilots, consoles, or hand helds, that are increasingly internet enabled, and we have an increasing desire to make use of these features. While I doubt they demand much bandwidth, even some white goods these days have internet connectivity.

Another issue for us in Australia is that a lot of our internet providers have a cap. Some of our accounts are shaped (once you hit the monthly data limit, you are dropped back to a lower speed), or are charged extra for data over your limit. I haven't done research, but I don't think there are many plans that have unlimited downloads in Australia, and I think those that are, are of lower speeds anyway. These would certainly factor into the 'integrated household' model.

So how is internet usage divided in your household? I'd like to hear about lag from online players while other devices are using the bandwidth, as I don't have any experience myself. For those in other countries, how does your internet stack up; can it handle the 'integrated household' model?

I've had an idea for a game floating around in my head for months, so I thought I'd flesh it out for the Developer 4 a Day competition. It's an action RPG which draws its inspiration from Baldurs Gate 2 : Dark Alliance. Where many games of this type level up the character, I thought I'd level up spells based on their use; when they level up, you can upgrade their range, damage etc. Sounds pretty good in theory. But then I realised that if you focus on one spell and it stands out above the rest... then you will just keep using it and forget about the rest. So perhaps I need to make leveling a bit more generic and spend them how you want... the problem being that then it becomes, well, generic.

While I've got a vision of how I want most of the game mechanics to work, and at least some idea of mission structure, having a story to tie it all together is eluding me. I was thinking something revolving around magic (opposing political views on its use and so forth) because I wanted the gameplay to focus on using spells. But I figure some people will just want to bash things, so I should flesh out combat elements and make a 'fighter' c1ass possible; thus a story or motive that focuses on magic won't make much sense to those not wishing to use it.

Yeah, this isn't as easy as I thought it would be. I'm going to have to mull over my leveling system and figure something out before I make any more progress, I think. I think there are two ways to approach this competition; refine something in an established genre, or create something fairly new and unique. The problem with the former is portraying on paper why it's better or at least as good as what is already out there. The problem with the second is actually developing a concept no one has thought of, having no base to work from, and making it sound like a workable concept on paper.

I do have a couple of other ideas. One is in the 'small twist on an existing genre' category, and a couple in the mostly unexplored realm. I can always fall back on those if I think this idea won't make it.

It might be a bit of a morbid question, but have you ever considered who you would die for, if you had to make the choice? Of course such a perfect hypothetical (where your choice is 100% guaranteed to save one life in trade for another) will likely never come around in our lifetimes, but I find it interesting to contemplate.

I remember some years ago, a friend telling me that she would die for her mother. Her reasoning was that her mother had given her so much in life. While I don't think there is a wrong answer to this question, I certainly wouldn't die for either of my parents. I love my parents, they raised and taught me well, and are very lovely, sensible people. But they are both older than I am. I (hopefully) have a lot more years to live than them. I know that they would want me to live, as I have more potential living to do.

I think I would die for all three of my sisters. They are all younger than me. There is certainly no doubt at all that I would die for my middle sister, as she has a young child and another on the way, while I have no such dependants.

So far I've been looking at family. Would you die for a stranger? Are there any criteria? As can be seen above, I am valuing the potential to live longer. In an ideal situation, I would probably die for someone younger than me. By ideal, I mean someone with a similar outlook on life to mine. But what if they don't? I'm 29. Would I die for a junkie who spent most of their time getting high, and living in squalor if s/he was 20? I think my answer would be no. It's still an ambiguous question; in a years time they could quit their habit, and be living better than I am now. There's really no way of knowing. What about a disabled child of 10, who has a lower quality of life than mine and is in constant pain? That's one tough call, and I guess demands more information about the disability and its effects to really make a judgement. Would I die for someone 10 years older than me if they have young children? I think so.

What if your death could save more than one person? Would I die if it saved both of my parents? Wow. That is super tough. I don't know the answer. I think I would have to think about what they would want. Would they both die to save my life? How would they feel about their son dying before they did? I think they would probably both die to save me, so I would lean in that direction. But that is one tough call, one I hadn't thought about prior to typing that sentence. Would I die if I could save 5 junkies? Guilty as it would make me, I don't view junkies very highly, and I think I would still say no.

Of course, these are all hypothetical situations. The advantage in this forum is that these situations are not real, and we can rationalise them, distil them down to the elements that we think matter. But in any moment where we realise we could be putting our lives at risk to save another; whether it be trying to save an infant from being run over, defending your family from an attacker, or running into a burning building looking for survivors; there will be the momentary thought of self-preservation. We can make all these claims of righteousness, but there is no point in denying your own desire to live. If your answer to the title question is 'no one', it is a valid answer. Will others think you are selfish? Some people might. Some people might think some of my answers are selfish too. If I was faced with any of them, despite my preconceived perception of the action I would take, I may very well decide (or perhaps take no action because of fear might be more appropriate) that I simply do not want to die.

Who would you die for?

I'll clarify the title of this blog, I am rather annoyed at the management of one particular Blockbuster store. This is not indicative of the entire chain of Blockbuster.

I own a video store, and I received a call today from the local Blockbuster. They had 2 movies and a game that belonged to us, that had been dropped into their shop. They gave me the numbers and titles. After I hung up, I was a bit puzzled at the titles. I checked the computer and sure enough, they were all from 3 different people.

Furthermore, one was a movie that we already had a customer replace because they couldn't find it. A month ago. The game was a similar situation; the customer swore black and blue they had returned it, and we wrote it off a few weeks ago (and would now be a month and a half late). The other movie was only a week late, assuming the customer had returned it on the due date (albeit to the wrong store).

Seriously, what the hell? Do they have any obligation to ring us? No, they don't. The same as I have no obligation to tell someone if they drop their wallet and keep it for myself, rather than let them know they dropped it. Sure we are competition, but this makes no business sense. You can be sure as hell the next time the customers wronged by this misdeed will hear all about it from me (and I will be giving back the movie the lady bought for us). Really, the best thing they could have done was kept them forever and not rang as at all (although I think they have done that before also...). Common courtesy works in business too.

I rang back to ask when they had been returned, and the guy didn't know. And quite frankly, didn't seem to care. I'm considering writing a letter to the store, and to the Head Office in Australia, but I doubt it will do much. I'm guessing the managers don't own the stores and could care less.

Rant Over.

If you are reading this, then it's a pretty safe bet you use the internet for video gaming related news. I used to read video game magazines, probably dating back some 15 years ago. There is nothing wrong with video game magazines; if one is handy, no doubt I'll flick through it. However, gone are the days when I will slap down some cash at the newsagent or subscribe to a publication.

My most recent subscription was for the Official Xbox 360 Magazine (Australian edition), a monthly magazine. The last cover price I recall was $16-25; I think my subscription worked out to around $9 per issue. I came across Gamespot probably at about the same time I started that subscription. So when the subscription came up for renewal towards the latter half of last year, I chose not to renew it.

I'll speculate that when the internet was in its early stages, the print industry crapped its proverbial pants while thinking about it's long term future. A brief search of the internet did show that some publications have had a general downturn, but I didn't find anything terribly recent. However, print media is still a major way of disseminating information on a huge scale of subjects. I'm sure they still have quite a number of years before they disappear.

However, I think video game magazines might be one of the first categories to fall in this internet age. What does Gamespot offer me that magazines can't? (Most of these will apply to any gaming website, not just Gamespot).

Timely News - Most video game publications are monthly. The day a video game is announced, a merger takes place, release dates change, or a variety of other issues, a gaming website will let me know. I might have to wait a few weeks for my newest issue of the gaming mag to give me that information. In most cases, reviews are provided the week of release. Sometimes magazines are given advance copies of games so their review will be in the mag around the release date, but sometimes they can review games that have been out for a few weeks.

Wider field of topics - My Official Xbox 360 magazine gave me news only on Xbox 360 games. Most gaming websites cover all major platforms. It can also cover gaming in a more general fashion.

Deeper field of topics - In addition to being able to cover a wider field of topics, a gaming website is also able to cover those topics in more depth. It would be disappointing to buy a magazine and find 50% of it dedicated to in-depth articles you might not be interested in at all.

Cost - If you want to, you can find all of your gaming information on the web for free. I can't find it at a glance, but I think my subscription to Gamespot was $20 or something, so that I could get HD movies.

No limit to information being provided - Magazines have a certain number of pages to fill. The editors need to fill out the pages the best they can, and leave out the 'lesser' information. Information that may be missed in magazines but may still interest some people will be available on websites. This ties in to the previous 3 topics. If you produce a magazine that included all of the information that Gamespot (or other website) provides in a month, that would be one fat magazine with a fat price tag. Magazines that cover multiple platforms are going to cover less on each platform.

Archives - As soon as you go to an established website, they have vast amounts of news, previews and reviews already waiting for you. When I first came to Gamespot, I spent the first few weeks checking out 'greatest games' and other features, and looking up reviews of highly rated games I had otherwise not heard of.

Second opinion - If you stick to magazines for reviews, you need to buy (or at least read) a second magazine to get a second review. Gamespot offers links to other critics reviews, as well as user reviews; I'm sure most websites offer similar features.

More Media - If I want to look at pictures or movies of a game, it is highly likely there will be a lot more to look at from a gaming website.

Community - Most gaming websites have community features. There's no need to go into it; if you are reading this, you already know about them.

So that sounds like a number of marks against magazines. But I see them every time I go into the local newsagent. They are obviously still selling. So what is it that magazines offer that a gaming website can't?

Accessibility - Magazines can be read anywhere you have light. You don't need to wait for your computer to fire up, or perhaps for other family members to stop using it. You can read it on public transport, in waiting rooms, or during your lunch break at work or school. Computers are becoming more accessible and mobile, but magazines still win this category.

Pretty Pictures - This might seem in contrast to my above comment about more media being available on websites. While I do download videos, I hardly look at pictures on gaming websites. Even on broadband, I'm usually too impatient to wait for them to load. Flicking a page in a magazine is almost instantaneous.

Coverdiscs - Gaming mags often have coverdiscs. However, the content on them is becoming less and less relevant. With the latest consoles being internet ready, demos and video content for games can usually be obtained before it arrives attached to the cover of a magazine. The bonus is that you don't actually have to use bandwidth or hard drive space if you get it from a coverdisc. Many years ago, I remember getting free games on PC coverdiscs, but it appears that is going the way of the internet too.

Really, they are the only 3 advantages I can think of that a magazine has over an internet gaming website, and even those are being mitigated by higher download speeds and increased mobility of computers. Do you still read gaming mags, and if you do, what do you enjoy about them?

Well, I'm pretty sure I'm not getting enough iron in my diet. Err... Look, a unicorn! Oh I'm sorry, it must have just been a regular horse.

Now that I've made a lame topic-related joke and stolen a line from a film, onto the actual topic. I enjoy metal music (as well as plenty of other music genres before I pigeonhole myself) in various forms. I'm not here to debate whether 'nu-metal' is 'real' metal or other such silly topics. A couple of weeks ago I went to the Soundwave Festival which has become an annual event in Australia for metal, rock and alternative acts.

I really do enjoy my music. I like to sing along. When I'm at home I like to make silly noises to accompany cool guitar riffs or drum patterns, or what have you. I haven't been to lots of shows in the last several years, but sometimes I feel I don't fit the 'scene'. Not that I really care, more of an observation really. I don't fit the stereotype that some people might think of when someone says they are into metal. I don't have tatts, piercings, or go to gigs bare-chested and display my rippling 6-pack to show others how 'hard' or 'cool' I am. I just like the music.

There are things that seem to be expected at a metal gig. First up is moshing. I gave up moshing several years ago, at least to any large degree. I can go to the front and get closer to the band. And I could get an elbow in the face, be lifted by the crowd unwillingly, lose a shoe, or have my wallet, phone or keys either fall out of my pocket or stolen. Then there is the circle mosh, which I've never bothered to participate in, where people in the middle of the mosh pit start to run around in a circle. Something else that has been around for a long time but I somehow never saw until Soundwave is the 'Wall of Death'. The band mentions they want everyone to do the wall of death, the crowd obediently follows orders to split down the middle of the stage and move off to the sides, and once the band says it's time, the two sides run back to the middle and into each other. I'm really not sure what this accomplishes, apart from potential injuries. When Killswitch Engage (the closing metal band for the show) mentioned it, you can bet I moved far enough away not to be in the slaughter as the crowd divided almost the entire length of the stage. I'm happy to stand in the middle of the crowd, content to tap my foot and bob my head, singing along if I know the words.

Now, sometimes I don't know the words to all the songs. Maybe it is just my perception, but it seems it isn't very 'metal' to go to a bands show and not know all their songs. Sorry I wasn't able to buy all the CD's guys! So I don't know the single from the last album, sue me. It's like you can't really be a fan unless you own them all and can recite the songs word for word.

Attire seems like a badge that I guess is supposed to say 'look how metal I am'. I tend to see 3 major demographics at these things. You've got the goth, wearing their lacy costumes, colouring everything but their skin black, wearing knee high boots with foot high soles, with more piercings than I have fingers. I saw Nightwish a couple of months ago, who I guess you would call gothic rock. I don't think I've ever seen so much black clothing and make-up in one place. Next time I see live music that has any hint of gothic to it, I think I'm going to wear happy pants, a hyper color t-shirt, and get my face painted like Ronald McDonald and wear a tinsel wig. That would be super metal.

Then you've got the hardcore crowd. They are usually skin heads who don't like to wear shirts to show off their super awesome 6-pack. Sometimes they will be covered in tattoos, which they are showing off instead. One of these hardcore guys had veins rippling all over him at Soundwave as he belted out the lyrics to the song at hand. If he tried any harder, I think he would have had an aneurysm. Most of the time these guys don't look sweaty (but hey, I'm not really looking that hard); they aren't hot, they just want to show off. Both of the above groups seem a bit 'try hard' to me. But hey, maybe I'm just not metal enough to understand.

Then there are the merchandise wearers. I used to be one of these. They'll wear merchandise, usually t-shirts, of the bands in question. There is nothing particularly try hard about this group (in attire at least; behaviour might be a different beast altogether). They spend money to support the bands or events that they like, and there is nothing wrong with that. All 3 groups certainly aren't exclusive to metal or hard rock, but I think they are in higher proportion.

For several years now in true geek-to-chic fashion, I tend to wear collared polo's or shirts. Have you ever seen a collared metal shirt? Nah, me neither. I'm not unique, of course. There are certainly others who dress normal rather than changing their dress code for such events. But sometimes, in an ocean of those above demographics, you feel like you are the one who stands out.

Then there are drugs and alcohol. I don't think your position on either of these affects your 'metalness' but I'm guessing they are more prevalent as opposed to other live music events like pop (although I'm guessing dance clubs would surpass it). I don't do drugs, and I am a light drinker. It blows my mind how some people spend over $100 for these full day events, and then perhaps another $50 to get totally smashed and not remember a thing about the event the next day.

There were a couple of odd moments during the day, which were the inspiration for this blog. One of the bands mentioned that we needed to keep real metal alive and we couldn't submit to 'fake metal'. I really hate it when I'm listening to what I think is metal and later I find out I was listening to R & B. Sneaky fake metal... I don't think I have ever heard the term 'fake rap', 'fake pop', or 'fake dance'. Why does this term even exist?

The other odd moment was during Killswitch Engage. The crowd wasn't packed in tightly so the lead singer (aside; I don't make an effort to know the names of band members either, which probably isn't very metal) started insulting us. I don't think that happens if you go see Elton John. Of course, the crowd obediently packs in tighter and gets closer to the stage. I'm not offended by it, I just thought it was an odd observation that we paid money to come and see the band, and they start calling us names. To be fair, we were asked if we had had a good day, and they were generally supportive, and I think the contrast made it stand out. But this sort of 'taunting' seems to exist mainly in the metal scene.

At the end of the day, I just like music, and I did have a great day. I don't have to dress metal, I don't have to behave metal, and that applies to any type of music. I wonder why so many people do.

Whatever your tastes, enjoy your music!