I'm back baby! (I'm going to pause for the applause to die down.) ... ... ... Okay that should do it. Anyway as I was saying... ... Seriously folks, thanks a bunch. Moving on. Neither ChiliDragon or I wanted to mention it, since we were still speculating at the time, but one of the big reasons that we both took our recent one-week vacation is because we were looking around at new houses. I'm happy to say that today, in less than two hours time, I'll be presenting our offer to the realtor of one of the houses we've been looking closely at. As you can probably imagine, we both have some butterflies in our stomachs today and I'm beginning to regret that second Red Bull of the morning that I chugged. The house we're looking at is around seven years old, 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms, has a split-bedroom layout, is 1932 square feet (all on one-floor) has wooden floors in some of the common areas, high vaulted ceilings, a walk-in closet off the master bedroom, Jacuzzi/whirlpool bath, three car garage, a skylight in the kitchen, and no neighbors on two of the four sides of the house. I feel like Stitch probably felt when Lilo gave him that coffee in the movie.

Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about what blogging I'll be doing in the near future. Near the top of my list is revisiting the "Ten Fearless Prediction" blogs that are now almost a year old (my how time flies) and seeing how my predictions matched up with reality. Also on my radar are a couple of "Stupidest People in the World" blogs, a couple more "Issue" blogs comparable to the recent one I did on Gay Marriage, some political analysis of the upcoming U.S. Presidential and Congressional elections and maybe a "State of the Union" type gaming industry thoughts blog. I may also give out some of my updated thoughts on a few of the games that I've played recently. (Hints: Uncharted: Drake's Fortune and Chains of Olympus were excellent, GTAIV and Condemned 2 were a little disappointing, and Conan was pretty much what I thought it would be. Still undecided on Folklore.) That's all for now. Short blog I know, but I'm having a difficult time concentrating today for some reason.

Hey folks, I've got a vacation starting tomorrow, and I'm going to take the opportunity to relax and do as little as possible. Because of that stance, I'm going to be gone for a couple of weeks. Everyone have fun and I'll see you soon. Jim

"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, dissenting to the 6-3 vote that struck down a variety of anti-sodomy laws Before I go further, I'd like to state that my opinions are solely my own. In no way do I hold the opinions of those among my readers (and I can think of at least a couple) who are very likely to disagree with me against them. Moving on.

I read a lot. Frankly, I read enough to get myself depressed from time to time. Frequently, the people I see commenting on political blogs are very passionate and, unfortunately, very stupid. It is fashionable these days to hold oneself somewhat distant or above the fray on the significant issues of our time, particularly if you're an intelligent individual who doesn't really want to offend. By holding oneself removed, you can then criticize the arguments of others from upon high without exposing your own arguments to legitimate criticism.



Unfortunately, this tendency, which in some ways strikes me as mildly cowardly, does not serve society at large. Quite the opposite, if people who are capable of enunciating the issues of our time clearly and arguing a specific point of view passionately don't do so then it is left for the reactionary elements in our society to dumb down the discourse with badly formed arguments and crude analysis. That is why I've decided to write this article. (Yes, I'm egotistical enough to believe in my own intelligence.) I do not believe in dismissing opposing arguments out of hand, without attempting to understand and analyze the validity of those arguments. Therefore, this essay will specifically list and discuss the most common arguments against homosexuality. I've seen the following main arguments: 1. Allowing gays to marry will weaken the institution of marriage 2. Homosexuality is an immoral practice. It will lead to further immoral practices. 3. The Homosexual agenda is an attack on Christianity 4. Homosexuality is the cause for diseases such as AIDS and other STDs. 5. Homosexuals don't want "equal' rights. They want "special" rights. 6. God is against it. Allowing gays to marry will weaken the institution of marriage. This argument largely hinges on the underlying implication that allowing gays to marry will somehow damage straight marriages by watering down the meaning behind marriage. It relies heavily on the old stereotype that gays are extremely promiscuous and immoral individuals that have no interest in a lifelong commitment to one partner. Unfortunately, both logically and statistically this argument doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. Let's start with the logic. My wife and I are married. Let's say that our next door neighbors are gay and get married to each other. What exactly will happen the following morning that will make us somehow less married than we were before our gay neighbors tied the knot? Will some sort of gay voodoo beams soak through the walls of our house and make us no longer love each other? Will my wife suddenly gain forty pounds and somehow become less physically attractive? Will my penis shrink three inches? Thankfully, the answer to all of these questions is no. Whether or not we continue to have a successful marriage is completely unrelated to whether or not our gay neighbors get married. Our marriage will survive or fail based solely on the effort the two of us put into it. Do we talk about our problems? Do we help each other when one of us has had a rough day? Are we considerate of each others' feelings? Do we remain faithful? The answers to these questions are what will make our marriage work or not. We won't consider ourselves to be somehow less married than we were just because gays are allowed to get married. Frankly, the statistics also back this up. Right now, Massachusetts is the only state in the U.S. that has legalized gay marriage. As of 2005, it has the lowest divorce rate per capita out of any state in the U.S. Homosexuality is an immoral practice. It will lead to further immoral practices. This argument hinges on the acceptance of one basic premise: that anyone listening to it agrees with the underlying assumption that homosexuality is immoral. Therefore, the argument falls apart either if it cannot be proven conclusively that homosexuality is immoral or no evidence exists that it will lead to further immoral behavior. So, is homosexuality immoral? Many religious conservatives cite various Bible passages that they say proves that god believes that homosexuality is immoral. When asked to explain rationally why it is immoral, their explanations are often unconvincing. Some variation of religious reasoning ("god says so!")is often given in lieu of any logical explanation that homosexual sex is more immoral than heterosexual sex. Since the U.S. is, ostentatiously at least, still a secular democracy, I am going to disallow religious sourcing when trying to prove that homosexuality is immoral. Let's examine the issue logically. Homosexuals that are old enough to get married qualify as adults; therefore they are both old enough to consent to sex. Therefore, statutory rape is not relevant. Homosexuals have sex together because they want to, not because one is forcing the other. (Generally speaking, otherwise it is rape and already outlawed.) Therefore, we have a situation where sex is taking place between two consenting adults where nobody is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. I have a hard time figuring out where that can be construed as immoral from a logical standpoint. It could be argued that it is against natural law. In other words, the "natural" act is for sex to be between a man and a woman for purposes of procreation. However, homosexual behavior has been extensively observed and recorded in the animal kingdom in modern times. As for procreation, does that then mean that marriages where the couples either don't want to procreate, or are incapable of doing so, should be outlawed?



My wife and I do not plan on having children. That's a personal choice for us. Whenever we have sex, it is for the purpose of expressing our love for one another and for pleasure - reasons that gay people would also be able to cite. Therefore, logically following, if you're going to outlaw gay marriages because they cannot have children, marriages between a man and a women that are either incapable of having children or choose not to have children should also be outlawed. The Homosexual agenda is an attack on Christianity This is the first issue that I think conservatives may have a legitimate complaint on, even if they word it rather poorly. In a country where the separation of church and state is supposedly guaranteed, is it fair for the state (in the form of federal or local governments) to force Christian churches to perform marriages when their religious beliefs specifically disallow it? The answer is, of course, that it is not fair. The solution to this is the difference between "Civil" marriage and "Religious" marriage. The word "marriage" has certain religious connotations, but marriage is also a recognized civil state of affairs. The solution is to not require churches to perform marriages that they disagree with, since that would be persecution of any religion that refused, but to insist that secular marriages between same sex couples be recognized and all the secular benefits of marriage, such as hospital visitation rights and inheritance rights, be conveyed. Homosexuality is the cause for and/or spreads diseases such as AIDS and other STDs. This particular argument originated in the 1980's when AIDS was running rampant among the gay community, the federal government was turning a blind eye, and religious leaders like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were claiming it was a gay plague" sent by god to punish the wicked. When the first heterosexual cases of AIDS were discovered a couple of years later, the myth that AIDS was limited merely to the gay population, and divinely sent, was punctured. Today most educated people know that AIDS, like any other STD, can be spread through promiscuous sex with multiple anonymous partners without protection not just by promiscuous gay sex.



When Magic Johnson, perhaps the most famous basketball player in the world at the time, announced in 1991 that he was infected and blamed it entirely on rampant heterosexual sex, the myth was killed for good. A complete timeline of this horrible disease can be found here. Homosexuals don't want "equal' rights. They want "special" rights. Advocates of this view claim that homosexuals already have equal rights. They can marry any person of the opposite gender that they like, just like heterosexuals can. By wanting to marry someone of the same gender they are asking for a special right. People who express this view are largely missing the point: Gays are arguing that they should be able to marry anyone that that they are sexually attracted to! Sexual attraction, and sexual activity, are a cornerstone of a successful marriage. Heterosexuals are allowed to marry anyone they want, because anyone they want is someone of the opposite gender. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry anyone they want, because the only people they actually want is someone of the same gender. In other words, by not allowing homosexuals to marry someone they are attracted to you're limiting their choices to either marry someone that they are not at all attracted to or remain single and alone their entire life. That's hardly a very fair choice, and certainly not a very loving or generous one. That's like a parent telling their kid, "You can date anyone you want, so long as I fully approve of the person you choose". It presents the illusion of choice, but only the illusion. What the parent is really saying is that they'll pick and choose who it is acceptable for the kid to date for them. That's fine when you're a parent winnowing down the acceptable options for your children. But homosexuals wanting to get married aren't children. It is unacceptable to take this approach. God is against it. The odd thing about God is that what he is against tends to vary over time. A few short decades ago, he was apparently against blacks and whites getting married. Before that, he was for blacks being used as slave labor in the U.S. The theory went something like this: 1. God put a mark of original sin on Cain (who slew his brother Abel in the Bible) 2. This mark was, according to many during the time period, black skin 3. Black people were tainted by original sin in the eyes of god 4. Therefore it is okay to use them as slaves because it is their just punishment

As recently as 1978, the Mormon church still didn't allow black people into the priesthood. At that time the chuch was apparently given a divine revelation that god had forgiven blacks for their sins and it was okay for them to be priests now. This revelation was well timed since they were facing several pending lawsuits for racism. Now my intent with this little snippet of history isn't to pick on any particular church. God knows, my own church (Catholic) has had more than its fair share of screw ups over the centuries. My intent is to point out that what god does and doesn't like often conveniently dovetails with the prejudices of his worshipers.



Therefore I generally tend to side with the most compassionate viewpoint possible when it comes to interpreting God's will. Since I can't really think of any logical reason why God would believe gays are evil, I tend to think he probably doesn't have that belief.

Conclusion

I can find no reasonable explanation or logical excuse for why gays in society should not be extended every right and legal protection that they want, up to and including full secular marriage privileges.

I realize that I probably ruffled some feathers out there among my readers. Keep in mind that one of the noblest pursuits that mankind can engage in is the search for truth, and that search is often best described as a bunch of drunken monkeys stumbling around in the dark in the middle of the night looking for the light switch. So if I didn't phrase something well, keep in mind that I'm probably drunk while writing this!

As a couple of you may be aware, Sunday was my birthday. This is significant to me because I got some fresh gaming loot to savor and enjoy, and it is significant to everyone reading this because it means that I'm going to be passing along my thoughts and experiences on the loot in question to each and every one of you. Let's start with a quick listing of the new items: 1. Condemned 2: Bloodshot for the 360 (Thanks ChiliDragon!) 2. Dualshock 3 PS3 Controller (Thanks ChiliDragon!) 3. Conan for the PS3 (Courtesy of my little sister. I'd have loved to have been there when she got carded trying to buy this game for me. Hell, I'd have loved to be there to see the look on the face of the 16 year old girl who sold this game to her when my little blonde girl sister bought this. Good times!) 4. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (Thanks dad!) 5. Condemned 2: Bloodshot for the 360 (From my mom. I exchanged this for the final season of Sopranos. I merely mention this here because my mother buying this game for me is about as significant and life altering of a moment as a young man losing his virginity. You never expected it to actually happen and yet it was way more awesome than you could have possibly have imagined when it did.) 6. A new headset for the 360 for me to play games on Xbox Live (Parents again.) 7. The Karate Kid: Special Edition (Parents...and how in the world is this movie not prominently mentioned in the Movie Recommendation thread on the Monkeys Writing Shakespeare Union board?) Now then, I have some thoughts on each of these presents coming in just a moment. But first I want to acknowledge another very generous gift from a completely unexpected source. supreuph, one of my long time readers, accidentally ended up with two copies of Folklore for the PS3 and mailed me one of them. It was a very nice thing he did and I wanted to take a moment to thank him. Now then, let's move onto some brief insights into the loot to date. I'll start with Condemned 2: Bloodshot. I gave some thoughts on the first game last month and after playing the second game for a couple of hours, I am pleased to say that it feels very much like the first one in terms of mood and atmosphere. In fact, it feels so similar to the last game that I found myself having a difficult time sleeping the following night because I was having visions of someone breaking into my house, killing me, and raping ChiliDragon. (Yes, it is an intense game.) Well, it prompted me to go downstairs (in my underwear mind you) to double check that I locked the door. I had not. So the moral of the story is that this game will scare you into actually taking normal, everyday safety precautions late at night. Take that Jack Thompson! One other thing that I have noticed is that the game is much harder than the first one. There is a lot more combat and, for the most part, it is a much bigger challenge because the system of combat has a greater amount of depth that you have to master. Speaking of combat, let's move onto talking about Conan. Others, including Gamespot itself, have mentioned that it feels a bit like a God of War spinoff, and I tend to agree. Where I have been pleasantly surprised is the variety of moves and attack sty.le that a person can master. There is a real difference in how the game plays depending on if you go with two weapons, a two handed weapon, or a weapon and a shield. The story is nothing special thus far, but you do get plenty of the promised boobs. I'm already thinking that this would be a fun game for someone to pick up if they can get it for $40 and avoid expecting a masterpiece. It has a visceral, primitive feel to it. Granted, Perlman as the voice of Conan is an appallingly bad choice, but really, who picks up a Conan game expecting first rate voice acting? I have not yet had a chance to play Uncharted: Drake's Fortune yet so I am going to skip talking about that one, though I will mention that from my time playing Conan I am a big fan of the Dualshock 3 controller. It feels much more solid and firm in my hands than the lousy controller that came with my PS3 when I purchased it. If you have a PS3 and plan on playing it extensively, I would highly recommend that you pony up the cash for the Dualshock 3. It has had a huge impact on my PS3 enjoyment. For the time being, I'm going to skip commenting on Folklore. My feelings on this game so far are mixed. Being an RPG, it takes a little longer to really get a feel for the game than it does for a game like, for example, Conan. I want to play it a little longer first before giving my take. Since this leaves me one game without comments, I'm going to swap in my thoughts on the final season of Sopranos instead. Before I go further, it is time to introduce some new terminology into the awareness of my readers. If you use this terminology elsewhere mention me kindly....pretty please? Spoiler Mercy Rule: This rule is invoked when the giving of a spoiler to something is not a cruelty nor an intent to deprive people of being able to experience that which was spoiled first hand themselves. Rather, the dispensing of the spoiler is an act of kindness. It spares the people who have the spoiler bestowed upon on them the pain, misery, and disappointment that comes with a lousy freaking ending to an otherwise good game, show, or movie. I hereby invoke the Spoiler Mercy Rule on the final episode of the Sopranos. For those of you who are unaware, which probably includes everyone but ChiliDragon since I've never mentioned it in any blog or comment of mine on Gamespot that I can recall, the show Sopranos has long been one of my absolute favorites. Therefore, it was with great satisfaction that I blew through the remaining episodes of the Sopranos eagerly awaiting an undoubtedly sensational and climactic ending. When the ending to one of the best TV shows of all time is such that at first you wonder if the DVDs that you got from the local Best Buy are somehow defective, you know that you have just experienced a true turd of an ending. Those were my first thoughts on the ending to the final episode of The Sopranos. Tony and his family are sitting in a diner somewhere. A guy who looks like he may be a hitman for a rival family comes into the diner, and then eventually disappears into the bathroom behind Tony. Just when his daughter Meadow comes into the diner, the screen goes all black. That's it. That's flipping it! (Note to anyone involved in the thread on swearing in the MWSU board...it is situations like this that swearing was invented to cover.) Seriously. There's nothing else. You don't find out if Silvio, who has been shot and is in the hospital, lives or dies. You don't find out if Tony or his family lives or dies. You don't find out what happens in the ongoing FBI case that they've been putting together against Tony Soprano for the last eight and half freaking years real life time! You find out nothing. Zero. Zip. Nadda. The final episode of The Sopranos is now forever immortalized in my blog as the innagural example of what the Spoiler Mercy Rule was made for. What a poopy freaking ending. I'm going to go drink heavily and watch the Laker game. I feel so...used.

Well, I know that at some point I need to crank out that video blog I promised people. I also have part 2 of my Lost Odyssey character review to write. But right now, neither of those are really exciting me. I figure one of the truly great parts about blogging as opposed to being paid to write is that I can write whatever I want, whenever I want, and timelines be damned. With that in mind, I've decided to pull a topic out of left field and do a critical analysis of the Gamespot rating philosophy. With so much attention having been paid in the last couple of months to the quality, integrity and timeliness of the Gamespot reviews it seems to me that a quick look at the philosophy behind them might be relevant and interesting subject material to our community. I'm going to do this point by point. Gamespot's information will be marked as such of course, but the full page that discusses their system in detail can be found here. Gamespot says: We Cater to the Discriminating Game Player Our reviews are written with the prospective customer in mind--someone who's naturally interested in playing a new game and has a limited amount of time and money to spend. Our editors approach each review strictly from that perspective. In turn, our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcore fans, nor are they intended to provide feedback to developers or publishers about how a given game could have been improved. Our reviews are only designed to tell you, the game player, to what extent a game is worth your while. This is a good place to start. In particular, the phrase "our reviews are not intended to validate or support the beliefs of hardcare fans" is quite pertinent. To me, the best way to explain this particular point is that Gamespot is saying that they intend to target their reviews towards the median or average gamer. So, therefore, the hardcore fans of each particular genre will tend to feel that Gamespot has a tendency to "hate" their genre. I see this a lot with fans of JRPGs for instance. Many JRPGs aren't that accessible to the "average" gamer, and aren't intended to be. They're made and marketed to appeal to hardcore JRPG fans. Therefore, it isn't surprising that they seem to be consistently underrated to fans of the JRPG genre. Or, to put it another way, to hardcore fans of the genre it isn't surprising that Gamespot seems to "hate" the genre. We Consider Games On Their Own Merits First and foremost, our reviews are an assessment of one particular game at a time. We approach each review assignment without assuming anything about the quality of the game, irrespective of prerelease preview coverage, the history of any previous games in the series, any perceptions about the developer's or publisher's track records, and so forth. That is, every game we review gets a fair shake, and is treated with the same level of care and attention with which we approach every review assignment. This is nice to hear, even if I suspect it of being complete BS. While I am not doubting that Gamespot attempts to do this, as anyone who has written a few reviews knows, when you have familiarity with the track record of folks making a game you tend to be alert for the same sort of flaws that the previous games by the same developers have had. I like Obsidian's games, but I'm well aware of the fact that they tend to be extremely buggy and so I tend to watch for bugs in their games without even realizing it when I'm playing them. To me, this seems more like a "goal" than something that Gamespot does consistently well. Of course, that statement is an opinion one based on my perspective. Nevertheless, listing it in their philosophy is a good sign. We Take Time and Originality Into Account We judge more critically as time goes by, because our expectations as game players are constantly increasing. When we review a game, we consider it at the exact point in time at which the evaluation is taking place (generally, the week of a game's release) and compare it to what we believe to be the current standards of quality at that time. In general, GameSpot does not favor highly derivative games, which mostly recycle elements from other, previous games. Instead, we appreciate original concepts and ideas that are executed well. This also means that each time an excellent game is released, it becomes incrementally more difficult for another game to be as good in the grand scheme of things. This has things to both agree and disagree with. While judging a game based on when it is released is, in general, a very good thing it is also the most misunderstood concept by Gamespot users. (Anyone remember how the PS3 forums went up in flames when Oblivion for the PS3 got a rating .1 lower than the 360 version despite coming out about a year later? I suspect reactions like this are the main reason gamespot went to its .5 point rating system.) Where I tend to find some areas of disagreement with the statement above is around how "derivative" games are treated. While it is true that the ultimate goal of a game developer should be to be innovative, change just for the sake of change can be bad as well. God of War II was almost exactly like God of War I from a combat perspective, and you know what? That's why I loved it. I didn't want a complete reinvention. God of War I found a system that worked and the sequel was smart enough to not try and fix something that wasn't broken. Granted this can be taken to extremes and, over time, even the best concept can grow a little stale. But the opposite extreme is just as bad. Final Fantasy X-2 was a complete and total departure in everything from gameplay, to combat, to the tone of the storyline, from Final Fantasy X. It was also a complete disaster when compared to the previous title. There's a happy middle ground to be had, but I don't think a game should be automatically docked in the ratings just because it borrows some very good ideas that have already been used from the competition. We Do Not Inflate Our Scores As the quality of gaming experiences naturally improves over time, we do not simply rate new games higher, even if they're technically better. Instead, we adjust our expectations and continually recalibrate our numeric rating scale accordingly. What this means in practice is that a high score awarded today by GameSpot is worth more than if we awarded the same score yesterday. In other words, a game that earns a high score today is probably superior in overall quality to a game that earned the same score on our scale several years ago. This is another often misunderstood concept by the Gamespot community. A game released tomorrow that is just as good as one released a year ago will get a lower score by Gamespot. You often see complaints about this when a game that was previously released on one platform gets re-released on another platform at a later date. In many ways, the PC version of Jade Empire was a superior game than the Xbox version, but because it was released so far after, it got an overall lower rating. This is intended to constantly raise the bar on game developers and overall is a good thing for gamers. The Legend of Zelda for the original NES was one of the greatest games of its time, but if it was released tomorrow for the first time instead of decades ago, it would be destroyed in the Gamespot ratings because when compared to the game standards of today it doesn't hold up that well. We Rate Games According to the Current Standards of Their Platforms and Genres Every gaming platform is different, especially in terms of its technical features. However, we believe high-quality gaming experiences are possible on all the gaming platforms that we cover. So we review games against the standards of their respective platforms by implicitly comparing them to other games on that same platform and, to a lesser extent, to other games in that genre. As a result, our ratings of games on different platforms are not intended to be directly compared to one another. However, relative comparisons do apply, so a game that scores poorly is a poor game by any standards, while a game that scores extremely high is an outstanding game by any standards. This is the first thing in the philosophy so far that I completely disagree with, primarily because I don't think it is in the best interest of people reading the reviews because each system does not exist in isolation. How good a game is should not be on a relative value scale against only other games on the same platform, but on an absolute value scale compared to other games available at the time. If you're a gamer trying to decide which system is the best one to get, what is the first thing you do? If you're anything like me then chances are you look to see which platform has the highest rated games. By only comparing Xbox360 games to other Xbox360 games, you're making it more difficult for an average consumer to decide whether to get a 360 or a PS3. This is also punishing companies that come out with superior platforms by raising the bar by which their games are measured. In the example of the DS vs the PSP, the PSP is a more powerful platform than the DS. It would benefit by having its games directly compared to the competition. Similarly, when the original Xbox came out it was more powerful than the PS2 and would have benefited from direct comparisons. My belief is that games that are released at the same time should be rated and directly compared to other games released around the same time. If the Wii has gameplay features that are unique to it (and it does), then that's a selling point of the system, but it shouldn't have the graphics of its games only compared to other Wii games. It should have the graphics of its games compared to those of the PS3 or the 360. We Acknowledge That New Games Do Not Exist In a Vacuum Each game we review exists in a competitive environment. That is, a game always has direct or indirect competition from other, possibly very similar games, which causes the game in question to be held to a higher standard. In other words, while technical merits are generally particular to a specific gaming platform, we believe that certain collective, universal standards also exist. GameSpot editors are expected to be familiar with current games on all platforms, in order to maintain an acute sense of global standards for gaming at all times. This seems to be in direct contradiction to the point we just discussed, but in actuality, it is likely a direct response to criticisms of the like that I just stated to the previous point. It is a hat-tip in the direction of those who would make arguments similar to mine above. To me this is a very fine and very hard line to draw and to a certain extent, the last two points are mutually exclusive. I don't think you can have it both ways, simultaneously having "technical merits are generally particular to a specific gaming platform" and compare games to "certain collective, universal standards" as your goals. Collective, universal standards don't make allowances for technical differences between platforms. It is nice that Gamespot notices the contradiction, but I think that they should eliminate one out of the two previous points from their ratings philosophy. Given that I fully believe it is in the best interest of the consumer to have direct comparisons between games on each of the main selling points (gameplay, graphics, tilt and fun, etc.) my preference is obvious. We Consider Multiplatform Games Comparatively But Also for Each Platform Games come out for multiple platforms all the time. When GameSpot reviews a game that's on multiple platforms, you'll often see references to other versions of the same game on a different platform. We do this to give context to our reviews for the sake of game players with access to or interest in multiple game systems. GameSpot reserves the right to reuse review text for multiplatform games, especially if the game has the same exact features on different platforms. No arguments here. I have both a PS3 and a 360. I appreciate when Gamespot takes the time to point out the differences in the two versions. We Own Up To Our Errors We have the highest standards when it comes to the accuracy and validity of our reviews, and will never knowingly make factual assertions that are not completely correct. However, in the event that the facts stated in one of our reviews are refuted, we swiftly investigate the claims. Consequently, we reserve the right to amend our reviews after they are published. Any time we substantively modify the facts of a review, we will acknowledge the changes in an editor's note at the end of the review. I'll probably catch some flak about this...but I believe this statement is true. I don't think that Gamespot could knowingly and repeatedly make false factual claims and continue to stay in existence. You can get away with this for a while, but after that your credibility vanishes and the site follows after. I'm not sure that they're so swift in their investigations at this time since they are short staffed but I believe that this is their intention and a good one...obviously. The People Who Write GameSpot's Reviews Are All Different We do our best to make each of our reviews live up to our standards and fit well in the context of all our other reviews. However, we take pride in the diversity and collective expertise of our editorial staff. Each individual who writes for GameSpot offers a different perspective and writing **** and we encourage each editor to bring his or her own experiences to bear with each new assignment. We only assign reviews to individuals that are naturally interested in the given ****of game. For example, we will never assign someone to review a sports game if he or she isn't personally interested in and knowledgeable about the real-world sport the game is simulating. But it's not just about personal preferences, either. GameSpot's reviews all go through a rigorous screening process by our reviews team, so you can rest assured that we collectively stand behind and support the statements made in each new review we publish. This is a good thing to include. It reminds everyone that, behind it all, it is people writing reviews. People are inherently subjective creatures, who each are looking for different things. It is enough for me that only fans of a given genre will write reviews for that genre, although obviously that creates the risk that they'll over inflate their scores. Overall, I think the main problem is that when you write dozens of reviews, you're going to be caught from time to time with a bad and apparently biased review like the one for Army of Two slipping through because everyone brings their own opinions, perspectives and experiences to the table. Heck, to me the most interesting thing about this part of the philosophy is that Gamespot's filters censored parts of their own gaming philosophy. The Bottom Line We believe games are meant to be enjoyed, and our reviews seek to express what it is about a given game that is or isn't particularly enjoyable, entertaining, fun, amusing, interesting, memorable--any and all of these things, and more. Our philosophy is that if we succeed at reviewing each game on its own merits, against the standards of the point in time at which it was evaluated, then overall consistency of our ratings should naturally result. Ultimately, we believe that each of our reviews should be useful and engaging to you as a prospective player. I don't have anything really to say about this point that hasn't already been said up above. And since I think I'm bumping into the word limit for this blog, I'll just end things with a Happy Monday to all readers. Author's Note: This blog previously contained a reference to Gamespot not having gone back and modified their mention of long load times in Lost Odyssey. I have since been informed that they did so back in February and removed this part. I apologize for the inaccuracy.

A couple of weeks back I wrote a blog about the efforts of U.S. Intelligence Agencies to counter terrorism in MMO games. Now, apparently unconvinced that the efforts taken to date to combat the threat of Al Qaeda in Second Life have been sufficient, Congress has begun holding hearings to combat the threat.

As a blogger, I pay very close attention to the comments people leave in response to my blog. I'm always grateful not only for the feedback people leave, but for their taking the time to read in the first place. I truly would not still be a blogger today if I hadn't gathered such a wonderful bunch of readers that I'm so happy to get responses from. Thus, I try hard to make sure what I write about will be at least mildly interesting to those readers. Therefore, it was with great interest that I noted the rise in comments left behind on Some Call Me...Jim? Five Unknown Things About Me. Last I checked, there were 36 comments to a blog post with my hairy posterior region being the first topic of my writing. For comparison, here are the other blogs I wrote in the month of March and the number of comments. Bring down the sky?: A blog about the new downloadable Mass Effect Module - 20 comments Full rubbery one.: My first response to news that Max Payne 3 was possibly being worked on again - 13 comments U.S. Intelligence Inserting Spies into MMO games? Documenting U.S. efforts to catch terrorists in places like WoW - 33 Comments My Review of "Bringing Down the Sky: Exactly what it sounds like - 30 Comments Mass Effect: Rating the Characters: A rating of Mass Effect characters for both personality and usefulness - 33 comments Cojones check! F.E.A.R. vs. Condemned: A comparison of the two scary games F.E.A.R. and Condemned - 30 comments Lost Odyssey Character Review Part 1Same as what I did for Mass Effect only for Lost Odyssey - 29 comments MY EYES! MY EARS! It's Raining McCain!: A short video by people supporting John McCain for President of the U.S. - 26 comments Gamespot Suspension: What's in a word?Some thoughts on a recent suspension of mine and Gamespot's disciplinary procedures - 22 comments The Causes of the Current Poker Boom: A short theory based article attempting to explain poker's explosion in popularity - 20 comments My parents are buying a PS3? No way!?: My reaction to the possibility of my parents buying a gaming console and request for reader assistance in making it happen - 30 comments So there you have it, when all is said and done, I have to go back to the month of Febuary when I made a blog about EA in order to find a blog of mine that got more attention than the one about my hairy butt did. Well, so be it. The people have spoken! Let it not be known that I do not take my reader preferences into account. From here onwards, I shall strive to include more furryness into my blogging endeavours. Have I mentioned I'm considering doing a video blog in the future?

Author's Disclaimer: I'm tired and a bit moody at the moment. Work has been hammering me pretty hard lately so keep that in mind for a couple of weeks. Gracias folks. Allllllllrighty then! Yeah Write "tagged" me and asked me to list five things about myself that are not generally known. In general, I have mixed feelings about this whole fad going around. As SydoggXxX phrased it in his reply to Chili's blog, it is a bit like "the spread of a disease". On the one hand, all this blogging about ourselves could easily be blogs written about games, politics, religion, etc. Topics that people outside of our friends and close readers would find worthwhile to read about. On the other hand, I confess that I've enjoyed learning some new things about some of the other people I know about on this site. I suppose the deciding factors were as follows: A. Being a man, I really feel quite comfortable talking about myself for seemingly interminable amounts of time. B. It is an easy "Get out of jail free" card from really taking the time and effort that writing a more serious blog would take and, since C. Procrastination is a key part of my strategy for making it through any given day... ...I've decided to go ahead and enjoy this game. Without further ado, or procrastination if you want to be more specific, here are five things that are not widely known by the Gamespot community about me. 1. I have more butt hair than any man has any right to possess. Before I go any further, I'll kindly remind everyone that the fascinating mental image you're currently experiencing is thanks to Yeah_Write's tagging of me to write this blog. Therefore, I am not to blame for any nightmares about dirty apes you may experience during the rest of your night tonight. Speaking of apes, the Monkeys Writing Shakespeare union currently has a thread going on discussing the tension between faith and science. The subject of the "Missing Link" issue of the Theory of Evolution detailing mankind's evolution from monkeys was raised. I did not mention it at the time, but the "Missing Link" issue has more or less been resolved in none other than...me. One look at my hindquarters, generously endowed with fur to survive the cold months, would answer the question of where that "Missing Link" is. At least where it comes to body hair...I AM the Missing Link between Neanderthal and human evolution. Moving on! 2. The most serious fist fight that I've ever been in was during school hours in my drama cla.ss I generally describe myself as more of a lover than a fighter, but I've been in a couple of fights in my stupid youth. To really get a sense of how stupid I was back then, a little context is in order. Prior to the fight in question, the day before in fact, I had broken my hand and never got it tended to by a doctor. My school had a couple of inches of matting on the walls behind each of the baskets on the basketball court. They were placed there to prevent injuries to players driving to the basket for a layup who lost control and weren't able to stop themselves from running into the wall. A couple of inches of wrestling mat softened the impact of people running into that wall. Anyway, the day before my fight a friend of the guy I was to fight (a fight I was unaware was scheduled at the time) was chatting with me and asked me to show him how hard I could punch that mat. (Did I mention that I was an idiot as a kid?) Well, I punched that mat as hard as I could and, wouldn't you know it, a couple of inches of wrestling mat between my hand and a very solid oak wood wall isn't as much cushion as you might think. I broke a bone in my dominant hand in two places, but was too damned embarrassed to admit it to my parents.

The next day, the kid who I was scheduled (still unawares) to fight jumped me offstage of my drama clas.sroom We traded some punches, and my key learning from the experience that I'd impart to anyone reading this is that if you have a broken hand you should probably punch someone with the other hand because it hurts like hell otherwise. We were eventually separated and that was that. It was a completely pointless experience with really nothing to be gained. I'm not even positive I remember the kid's name anymore. 3. I went to a Roman Catholic private High School...and then promptly joined a Greek Fraternity in college. First some explanation for those outside of the U.S.: Greek Fraternities in the U.S. are more or less houses of debauchery. (At least the ones on the campus that I was a part of.) They are great places to get drunk, stoned or laid, but not so great for actually getting good grades in clas.ses. So you can read into this that I went from a very conservative, very structured Catholic environment in high school - complete with mandatory theology cla.sses and church attendance - to the complete polar opposite in my first year in college. "They" say that most kids/teens go through a period of rebellion before they grow up to become functional adults. I suppose I'm pretty darn normal in that aspect. 4. I won a couple of rare engineering scholarships before going to college Yep. At one point yours truly was going to be a software programmer. When I left high school I had no clue what I wanted to do with my life. (Sometimes I wonder if I've figured it out even now, but that's beside the point.) I figured that a career as a programmer, working on making video games, could be pretty interesting. Two years into college I couldn't stand programming any longer. If something more boring than writing and debugging code exists in this world I've never found it. 5. I did not like Final Fantasy VII. In fact, I think it is the worst Final Fantasy game (aside from the very first one) that I have ever played. RPG is, by far, my favorite genre. I consider myself something of a connoisseur of the genre. With that having been stated I feel that Final Fantasy VII was just plain ordinary at best. It had plot holes by the dozen. It completely failed to draw me into the story or the characters in any meaningful way and it is the only Final Fantasy game that I've ever played that I just stopped playing without finishing it. To this day I completely fail to understand why so many people go so completely gaga over this game. I theorize that it is an overreaction to it being the first Final Fantasy game released on the next generation platform of its time (PS1), but I don't really know for sure. Sephiroth was an absurdly whiny baby with a complete Oedipus complex who was completely unworthy of being worshiped as one of the best villains of all time, Cloud was a wimp and Aeris was bland and boring.



Well then...hopefully the five things that I picked out were mildly interesting to everyone. If not, well, I'm generally open to questions so if you have specific ones feel free to let me know.

Greetings and a Happy Monday to my readers. As the topic title indicates, I was stunned over the weekend with revelations of a possible purchase by my parents of a Sony PS3. To understand why this is so surprising to me, allow me to put some context around this. (Although I imagine Sony critics need no further explanation beyond what I have already given as to why I am surprised.) My parents, particularly my mother, have long despised video games. Specifically, they thought it was a corrupting, anti-social activity for me to engage in growing up. If I didn't do well in a class in school, then video games were the main culprit. If I lacked friends at any point during the growing up process, then video games were responsible.



I have, at heart, a fairly obsessive personality. Specifically, when I find something that I like I tend to go a wee bit overboard and do it nonstop until I find something else to do. Some folks who are on my Xbox Live friends list may have noticed me playing a new hit video game at all hours of the night at some point, and then not seen me log onto Live for weeks after that after I beat the game and moved onto something else.



My parents are big believers in "balance". To them, playing a new video game for eight hours straight is a sign of problems. As you can imagine, these differences in attitude towards one of my favorite sources of entertainment were a source of conflict between us. This conflict has, of course, softened over the years as I've gotten my own house, a full-time (lucrative) job, and even a pretty wife. I think that accomplishing all these things without giving up my video games has shown them that being a productive, balanced member of society and occasionally playing marathon sessions of Oblivion or Mass Effect aren't mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, when my dad casually mentioned over this weekend while we were doing some furnace work together that he was considering buying a PS3, I was more than a little shocked. Well, my old man is nothing if not intelligent. Dad explained to me that he's looking to upgrade to a Bluray player now that the format war between Bluray and HD-DVD has finally been decided. Looking at the cost of stand-alone Bluray players, he's observed that there really just isn't that much of a difference in price between a Bluray player and a PS3, and that the PS3 carries with it a much greater amount of functionality. So, if he's going to get a Bluray player anyway, why not go with the PS3? Is there some quality difference that he needs to be aware of? Well, I haven't been following this that closely, but my initial response was that there was pretty much no difference between a stand-alone Bluray player and the one embedded inside of a PS3. (I'm sure someone will correct me if I made an incorrect statement there...) I told him that if he's willing to wait, the stand-alone Bluray players will likely drop in price faster than a PS3 will, but that the PS3 offered a lot of extra things that my mom and him would enjoy. 1. A hard drive to store MP3's on so they can play music through the TV's surround sound system on 2. A hard drive to store pictures on so they can be viewed on his 50" plasma 3. Access to firmware updates via the internet 4. Access to a web browser to surf the web on a large screen 5. Access to the Playstation store to buy goodies from (I presume that at some point the PS3 store will reach some degree of parity to the Xbox Live one though it certainly isn't there yet) 6. The ability to play games like Rockband that my parents actually like (Rockband gets a lot of credit for softening my family's attitude towards video games. They loved playing it over at my house. "Your mom doesn't think of it as a video game" my dad explained. Far be it for me to correct this thinking.) What else am I missing? I am actually very excited about the possibility of my parents getting a PS3. If they buy a video game console for themselves, I'm pretty much immune from any nagging in this area for the rest of my life. Help me Obi Wan Kenobis! You're all my only hopes. Throw down other benefits of going the PS3 route that might appeal to my parents that I have overlooked or missed.

Poker has been around in various forms for centuries. It has seen rises and declines in popularity during that time and the preferred games have changed repeatedly over the years. At times it has been vilified as a source of evil and a corrupting influence upon civilized society. At other times it has been romanticized for the daring of players like James Bond and Maverick. It has been played in illegal houses and in billion dollar casinos alike. But where does the latest poker craze in the United States and - to only a marginally lesser extent the rest of the world - come from? In my opinion, the current levels of poker popularity can be directly traced to four different factors. 1. Amateur Chris Moneymaker's remarkable 2003 World Series of Poker victory on television 2. The advance in technology that allows people viewing at home to see the cards of the people playing on TV. 3. The movie "Rounders" starring Matt Damon, Edward Norton, John Malkovich and Gretchen Mol. 4. The rise of Internet poker leading to the ability to play cards in your underwear To a certain extent, these factors are interrelated as they have enhanced the impact that each one would have had individually.

Chris Moneymaker's 2003 World Series of Poker victory The World Series of Poker had been going on for decades prior to Moneymaker's win in 2003, but it had never really had a story quite like that of the accountant from Tennessee's prior to 2003. Through a combination of remarkable luck and some amount of skill (the exact amount is a hotly debated topic among the poker playing community), Chris Moneymaker advanced to a head's up matchup against seasoned pro Sammy Farha and eventually won. Moneymaker's incredible victory was seen by millions and interpreted (incorrectly for the most part) as a sign that any regular Joe who knows how to play cards could conceivably sit down and, if the cards are falling good for them, win millions of dollars playing poker for a living. This has led to progressively larger and larger fields of players who compete for the WSOP main event title. Where a couple of decades ago the field was limited to a few dozen of the top professionals, now thousands of players try their luck every year.



Roughly 90% of those players lose their $10,000 initial buy-in for the event and go home with nothing but some good stories about how they bluffed this pro or that pro out of a big pot, but since Moneymaker's win no professional player has been able to weather the minefield of amateur players who play unpredictably to win the event. (Though several have come close.) The Rise of Internet Poker With the advent of the Internet, poker rooms like Poker Stars now allow millions of people who formerly lived hundreds of miles away from a casino where they could gamble legally the ability to login from the privacy of their own home and wager billions of dollars annually.

This increased availability, combined with numerous promotions, sign-up perks and bonuses from the multitude of competing poker sites, has spurred a boom in the number of players who can try their luck with almost zero difficulty in getting to a card table. While these poker rooms have come under increased scrutiny at times over the years, including right before the 2006 Congressional Elections when Republicans in Congress introduced a bill to ban it attached to anti-terrorism legislation. Not surprisingly given the record of Democrats in Congress caving to Republicans on pretty much anything whenever the word "terrorism" is used, the bill passed easily.



However enforcement has been sporadic as lawmakers have slowly rolled back regulation and, after an initial decline in online gambling when major sites like Party Poker stopped allowing real money wagering in the U.S. following the 2006 regulation, other sites stepped in to fill the void and these days it is as easy as ever to play poker for real cash in the United States. Rounders: The Romance of the Poker Scene "Listen, here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in your first half hour at the table, then you are the sucker." Matt Damon as "Mike McDermott" in Rounders Rounders is the movie that most modern poker players think about when asked to name their favorite poker movie of all time. It was mostly ignored when released in 1998, but nowadays you would be hard pressed to find anybody who plays poker once every couple of months or more who doesn't own at least one copy.



Rounders tells the story of young poker ace Mike McDermott (played by Matt Damon) and his attempt to help his recently released from prison best friend "Worm" (played by Edward Norton) get out from under poker debts he accrued prior to his incarceration. Along the way it gives people a semi-realistic look at the world of cash-game poker and the life of a New York "grinder" (poker slang for a guy who makes his living by going to various cash games around a given city).



Filled with quotes from some of the legends of the poker scene and some analysis (provided in the head of Mike McDermott) of his situation each step of the way, most poker players can recite a good portion of this script by heart.



Oh my god! He can't win! Why doesn't he fold? When poker first started being televised, there was much debate among the old guard professional players on whether or not using cameras to show a player's cards would be a good thing for the game or not. Well, chalk this one up as one debate that has since been completely resolved. It is a good thing, and it is quite possibly the decision most directly responsible for the sport's entrance into the mainstream. Allowing people watching on their televisions to see the cards of the people playing on their screen, combined with some analysis from commentators, makes the game much easier to understand and appreciate to casual viewers. ("Oh, the guy has an unbeatable full house! So that's why he isn't worried that his opponent just raised him a million chips. That makes sense.") Granted, people who aren't fully educated (and even those who are) won't always have 100% understanding for why a particular player decides to make a particular play at any given time, but at the very least they can, with the help of the announcers, speculate on what is motivating the thinking behind each move and play. It is the same impact that actually knowing how the game of basketball works makes it more fun to watch on TV than it would be otherwise. Adding it all up... Now these things all happening more or less together allows them to have a much greater impact than each one would individually. It is pretty easy to see why when you think about it. For example, if Moneymaker's 2003 WSOP win had happened without the millions of suck...er...fans being allowed to sign onto gambling sites in the U.S. it is likely that poker would have seen a short spike in popularity and then a quick drop-off as all the people who got excited found other things to do in their free time. There are some signs that the rise in popularity has leveled off to some extent. Last year's WSOP, won by Jerry Yang, was the first one since 2003 that didn't set a new record for the number of entrants. But overall, I think that the popularity of poker is here to stay and we can expect to see ESPN continue to put endless reruns of the WSOP on the air for years to come.