My offline job involves pricing for a very, very large company. Therefore, I have a different perspective on the subject of price reductions in the gaming industry that a lot of other people do. This subject comes up time and time again in the gaming industry, particularly on the console side where price comparisons are done much more easily than they are on the PC side of the fence. Just about any idiot can (and does) compare the price point of the PS3 vs. the 360 for example. The 360 fans argue that their console can play all the same games as the PS3 can at the same specs the PS3 can, has a better library of games, and is easier to code for. The PS3 fans always counter that they have wireless, Bluray, a bigger hard drive, etc. built right in by default, that their console doesn't get the Red Ring of Death if you fart on it, etc. Blah, blah, blah, yak, yak, yak. What often gets lost in these discussions on how the PS3 NEEDS to lower their price is the simple fact that Sony is losing money on each PS3 sold. I suspect the 360 is as well. In both cases, the idea for both companies is to sell the consoles at a loss and make up the difference on the games. They just differ a bit on their operating expenses and how much of a loss to take. This is fascinating to me because, while this is an abstract concept to many people, it is one that I deal with first hand every day. Today, for example, I get a pricing escalation sent to me that deals with the sales folks wanting to lower the price of a particular widget that the customer has already agreed to purchase at a particular price point because, since the time the customer signed a contract to purchase the aforementioned widget, the business I work for has decided to lower the price of the widget going forward. In other words, the customer already said that they were willing to buy the widget from us at price point X. Since that happened, we've agreed to lower the price of the widget to price point Y going forward for new customers. Sales wants to give their customer the benefit of price point Y, even though they already said they were fine with buying at price point X. Oh, by the way, the business loses money selling the widget at price point X. We lose even more money selling it at price point Y. Sales doesn't care of course, because a large part of their salary is commission based so they just want to sell more widgets. Does this sound familiar to anyone? It should. How many blogs and forum posts have you all read complaining about pricing in the gaming industry? How many people have said how absurd Sony's original price point of $600 for a PS3 was even though most independent analysts believed that the cost of making a PS3 at the time of release was around $900-$1000 dollars? Most people who come to this site view the arguments about the tradeoff around being price competitive vs making a profit as an interesting thing to debate about. For me, it is an actual real life Soloman style decision that I'm forced to make every day. Believe me, being price competitive and making money aren't necessarily one and the same thing. I see the actual difference between simply selling more widgets and making more money, and the decision isn't always as cut and dry as it appears on the surface. Lowering the price of your widget to sell more widgets isn't always a GOOD thing if it means you lose money on every widget sold! Sometimes, it is worth selling less widgets if you at least make a profit on smaller number of sold widgets. Just food for thought for everyone out there who immediately jumps to conclusions every time you see a price debate in the gaming industry. Author's Note: I do not work in the gaming industry. I do not represent any major game related company of any kind.

An article is currently being featured on Gamespot's main page about the PC version of Gears of War. This version will, apparently, come loaded with extra content and exclusives. It also, for the first time, made me stop and give a long, hard look to the 360 version of Mass Effect coming out in November. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I have a major fondness for Bioware and their games. So why would I even consider not buying my Game of the Year prediction? Because Bioware also has a precedent in place of eventually releasing a PC version of their games that adds content that the console version did not have. (Cue snarky Arcadius commentary about the inherent superiority of the PC over all other gaming medium....now!) I can easily see Bioware doing the same thing here. This game will likely be a timed exclusive for the 360 due to an agreement between Microsoft and Bioware to put another killer exclusive on their console, while still eventually allowing Bioware to bring the game to a larger audience in the PC market. When and if Mass Effect does go to the PC, it will have to have extra content included to add value to a game that was already released previously. It always works that way. Look at Jade Empire. That will then leave me in an uncomfortable position. I either buy a game that I already have for the 360 for the PC in order to get both the extra content and any user created content that will likely be available, or decline and be happy with the fact that while I didn't get everything Mass Effect in the game, I will at least have gotten the game about a year ahead of the fortunate PC folks who got an updated version. Given my history of completely lacking in patience, and how hard it has been to wait on this game, I will almost certainly get it in November for the 360, but does anyone else here think that I may be onto something and that this game eventually comes to the PC with extra goodies attached? Edit for Bonus Blogging Goodness: I had a fairly random thought while cruising around the Wii section of the site today. (I'm still considering getting a Wii off and on, so I wanted to see what they have in the works.) I noticed that NBA Live08 came out for the Wii, and got a rating of 3.0 from Gamespot. This surprised me a bit. To me, sports games and the Wii's motion sensing technology are a natural fit. So I clicked to see why NBA Live08 on the Wii scored so much lower than the PS3 and the 360 versions. One click led to another, and I was eventually brought to this page that shows how users rated the game. About 11.5% of all users rated the game, which Gamespot gave a 3 to, as a 10.

This contrasts with almost 33% rating the game as abysmal (which essentially agrees with the gamespot review). The first question that came to my mind was, "why on earth would 11.5% of the people playing this game, which had so many problems clearly called out in the review and noticed by so many other people, give this game a perfect rating?" My immediate answer was, of course, the disease of fanboyism. And that, ladies in gentlemen, is why I seldom put much stock in user reviews. I don't trust your average user to review a game for their favorite gaming medium fairly and impartially. There is a reason why user reviews are, always, always, always, higher than critic reviews for a game. Naturally of course, this problem isn't limited to Nintendo fans. I give you, Monster Hunter Freedom 2 for the PSP. Gamespot rating? 5.0. User rating? 9.1. Percentage of users who rated the game as "perfect"? A whopping 53.83%!

I have written and posted a review of Heavenly Sword for the PS3. Not to spoil the surprise, but Nariko has cured me of my man crush on Kratos. I now have a crush of the more traditional variety. I have just one thing to say: The critics penalized this game too harshly for being short. It IS short, but worth it.

If I had to pick the single biggest reason why Bioshock will not get Game of the Year I would point to the terrible way the achievements are setup. I'm not talking about the choice of what the achievements are for per se. No, I am referring to the fact that some of them are some of the most frustrating that I've ever seen put on any game. Take, for example, the "Historian" achievement. This is the only one that I have not gotten for the game. I'm not generally an achievement hound. When I find a game that I really like though, I'll try my best to get all the achievements as sort of a tribute to the game. But getting Historian in Bioshock is an act of pure torture for a couple of reasons. 1. You MUST get every single one of the close to 150 diary entries in a SINGLE run-through the game. In other words, if you get 149 of them and then start over to play through again and happen across the ones you missed in a second play through. The game doesn't "remember" which diaries you found and which ones you missed in your other playthrough the game. (Incidentally, both Weapons Specialist and Research PhD are the same stupid way.) 2. The very first two diary entries are impossible to get after around the first 15 minutes of the game if you somehow miss them. In my particular case, I got every single diary entry in the game...except those first two. I only found out that I missed them after checking an online guide. Since they are the VERY FIRST TWO diaries, you can't just load an earlier save file to get them. You need to start completely from scratch if you want this achievement. And frankly, it isn't the only achievement in the game that is like that. Weapons Specialist is the same. If you make a wrong choice earlier in the game, guess what? Yep. You need to either start over, or reload an earlier save file when you eventually discover hours and hours later that you screwed yourself over. Tonic Collector is another one. If for some reason you spent all your eve, and you missed a single plasmid/tonic, then guess what? You're starting over. Alternatively, if you chose the evil route, you miss out on a couple of tonics that you can only get by choosing not to harvest the little sisters. All told, there are nearly a half dozen achievements that have this stupid method applied in this game. Historian is by far the worst of the lot though, because literally you have to start COMPLETELY over if you miss those first two diaries. Talk about leaving a sour taste in the mouth after an overall stunning game. I hope Mass Effect doesn't make such a mistake.

Last week, I picked up Eternal Sonata a couple of days after it was released. Since I was busy with such heavyweight titles as Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock and, soon, Halo 3, I didn't immediately start playing despite it being in my "Now Playing" list. However, one of my readers messaged me asking me for an opinion. I told him that I would have an opinion ready after the weekend concerning my first impressions of the game. As the topic title indicates, that opinion is ready for launch now. Eternal Sonata is the best next generation console RPG to date. The fact that I can say that with conviction after getting only 3.5 hours into the game so far speaks volumes for how much this game has grabbed onto me. With all due respect to Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Heavenly Sword, Bioshock and Halo 3, there is now about to be only one game in my Now Playing list. For the record, I do not consider Oblivion to be a RPG title. I consider it to be an action-rpg title, which means that I am calling it a psuedo-rpg. Even were I not, Oblivion had plenty of faults that would stand out like a sore thumb when placed side by side against Eternal Sonata. It is not fair for me to do a full review of this game when I am still just getting into it, but I did want to highlight some of the things that I have noticed very early on about this game that has flown beneath so many peoples' radars thus far in the hopes that I can spread the good word about this to anyone who is a fan of the rpg genre. 1. This game is breathtaking looking.

I considered games like Oblivion or The Darkness to be stunning achievements visually. They were remarkable testimonies to the potential of the new hardware generation. This game may well be even more beautiful than those were. I mean, it takes a lot to make a sewer (one of the first dungeons you explore) look like it came right out of a fairy tale. 2. The voices are excellent, and the sound levels are spot on.

One of my big pet peeves with regards to games these days is that, often times, the sound mixing isn't done quite right. In other words, voices have a tendency to get drowned out by the music and sound effects, making it almost mandatory to have intrusive subtitles turned on. This game doesn't have that problem. In addition, the voice acting so far has been great. Granted, you have issues with some lip syncing being off because the dialogue was originally in Japanese, but that is minor. 3. The characters grab you immediately. Sometimes it takes a little while to warm up to a cast of characters in an rpg. Not this time. These characters get you emotionally invested in them right from the start. I can't wait to see what happens to them next. I think this is in large part due to the how they are introduced, and the surprisingly deep issues being addressed by the storyline. The characters are introduced one or two at a time, and none of them are silent. Through the dialogue that is taking place, and the cut scenes given, you are instantly introduced to both their personalities and problems.

4. Surprisingly mature story themes keep the game from getting TOO kiddie feeling.

The issues that are being introduced right off the bat, such as a surprisingly intelligent discussion concerning taxation from Alegretto with Beat, make you blink a bit in surprise. Granted, the analysis and the conversations tend to be a bit on the black and white side (clear lines of demarcation between good and evil), but it fits with the Fairy Tale atmosphere. Later on, Polka shows Chopin something in the forest that is jaw dropping in her analysis and thinking. 5. The music is superb. The musical score is every bit as good as you would expect for a game based on the fevered dreams of a famous musical composer. 6. The battle system is not a step forward for rpgs...it is a giant leap. First off, it allows you to play cooperatively with other players on the same screen. This has now become an activity that the ChiliDragon and I can do together. It does this because you can assign up to four players to control some of the other characters. So, for example, if I am controlling Polka in battle, the ChiliDragon can control Chopin in the same room with me. We can talk in real time about our actions and yell at each other when one or the other of us screws up a round. This brings me to the next part of the battle sequence. It slowly scales up the difficulty of the gameplay. The combat round is divided up into "Tactical Time" and "Action Time". Tactical time is used before you make your first action when it is your turn. Action Time (which is set at 5 seconds) is used after you make your first move. As you progress and do more and more fights, the way the combat sequences plays out gets gradually more difficult. At Level One, for example, you have unlimited Tactical Time and five seconds of Action Time. Moreover, your action time only decreases when you are actually doing something. So, for example, you could move your character from the sun to the shade (you get different abilities depending on if you are in a light area or a dark area) and then stop the character completely to decide what you want to do next and your Action Time stops decreasing. When you reach Party Level 2 though, your five seconds of Action TIme happen regardless of what you're doing once you make your first movement. You still have unlimited Tactical Time to plan, but once you make the first move with your character the five seconds decreases no matter if you stop or not. So it is entirely possible to waste your turn. My guess is that once I reach Party Level 3, Tactical Time will no longer be unlimited. When you factor in the different abilities between light and dark, and the fact that some monsters also have different abilities when they move from light to dark, you have a surprisingly simple and yet strategically complex battle system that keeps you on your toes as you get better at the game. To make matters even more interesting, the game really encourages teamwork. It introduces an "echo" system that work a little like Limit Breaks from Final Fantasy. Your attacks are divided up between weak regular and strong special attacks. Hitting an enemy repeatedly with regular attacks builds up echoes, which make your special attacks exponentially stronger. So, a good team will have one person build up a bunch of echoes for another to use up. Now, these are early times for me in the game so far and the game could still end up tailing off and turning into a bit of a disappointment (see: Overlord), but thus far I think this barely hyped game has been the best release in months. Go pick it up and take it for a spin. You will not be disappointed.

Mitsuru Kirijo from Persona 3 is hot. Not just a little hot either. She's DAMN hot. As in, I would plow that action. I suppose there isn't any real point to this observation other than that. But seriously, I'd hit it. And no, I am not at all drunk while making this observation. AT ALL. Not. At. All. ... Okay...maybe just a little bit. But that doesn't change the underlying premise that she is very tappable. This of course brings up an interesting question. Obviously, Mitsuru is not the only character in video games that I've ever seen who has been hot and desirable. We, each of us, have at times thought, "You know, that's some good action right there. I could see her as a strict teacher and me as the underachieving student who needs some extra discipline." with regards to a character in games. And please don't give me that bull**** "It is just pixels on a screen ****." There is nothing wrong or perverted in recognizing the fact that some characters in games that are developed well, either artistically or in the literary sense, can be appealing. The only people who are concerned with that triviality are those who are insecure and looking to bolster their own sexual identity by claiming that they are above such observations. And I'm not limiting this to males either. I guarantee you that there are females out there who have seen video game characters and thought, "Yeah...that's the right stuff baby. Now how about getting that shirt ripped a bit in a fight...just accidentally mind you..." (Prince of Persia ladies?) So fess up all. And yeah, I realize that this is kind of a throwaway blog. I mean, the topic "who is the hottest male/female character" has been done to death. I don't care. We can't bring our "A" game every blog entry now can we?

The newest entry on the "Stupidest People in the World" segment of my blog comes from the stellar nomination submitted by Fade2gray. That's right O.J. Simpson, I'm talking about you! Come on down and be honored. You are one of the stupidest people in the entire world. But wait you say, doesn't everyone deserve a trial when they're accused of something? Why yes, you of all people would know that they do. With that in mind, before we get right to it and declare you to be inflicted with copious amounts of retardation, let's take a look at the evidence. I invite the people following along at home to take a look. I report. You decide. Fair and balanced. That's me. Most people in the free world already know who O.J. Simpson is. For those who do not, a brief Cliff's Notes version shall now be provided. O.J. was a star running back in the NFL (National Football League) nicknamed "The Juice" before retiring. Yes, his nickname was "The Juice", a term commonly used to refer to steroids in present day times. When he retired and for years afterwards, he was considered to be the greatest running back in football history by many fans of the game. Alas, the good times were not to last. (Cue the dramatic shift in music.) In 1995 he was arrested and charged with two felony counts of premeditated murder. He hired the famous defense attorney Johnny Cochran, who got him acquitted in October of that year. Mr. Cochran would later go on to fame and fortune. His famous courtroom line "if it doesn't fit, then you must acquit" referring to the bloody glove that police entered into evidence became a part of the national consciousness and most people who were over the age of 10 in 1995 still remember the trial to this day. Heck, a popular character named "Jackie Chiles" was later introduced into "Seinfeld" based on Mr. Cochran. Upon his release, Mr. Simpson pledged to spend the rest of his days searching for "the real killers." This noble sentiment has since taken him to most of the golf courses in the known world in search of the real killers. At this time I have not yet been able to confirm or deny the rumor that he has compared notes with Arnold Schwarzenegger, who promised to investigate fully as his first official act as governor, the allegations that he is a serial groper of every woman he comes into contact with that surfaced when he was running for that esteemed office. Other run-ins with the law that O.J. has had since include: • February '97: Found liable in civil trial in deaths of two people; ordered to pay $33.5 million • November '02: Paid $130 fine for speeding in a powerboat • January '03: Daughter called 911 after fight; no charges filed • March '04: Ordered to pay $33,678 for pirating DirecTV signals • July '05: Police called after reports of fight at Miami home; not charged (Sources: AP, ESPN research) This is a tragic story up to this point, but hasn't yet introduced enough evidence to get O.J. onto my "Stupidest People in the World" list. After all, competition is fierce. No, it takes something special. It takes a cosmic level of Neanderthal thinking to get onto my list. Earlier this year, Mr. Simpson published a book titled "If I did it" that went on to tell, in detail, exactly how he would have committed the two murders he was accused and later acquitted of. That font coloring isn't an accident. And then the clincher, within the last week O.J. Simpson has been arrested with two accomplices and accused of multiple felony counts of kidnapping and armed robbery in connection with a sports memorabilia store. According to news reports, O.J. tried to rob the store to get back some belongings that once were his and he believes were stolen. Once again, O.J. faces going away to jail for the rest of his natural life. For the record, the items that O.J. wanted back are said to include Simpson's Pro Football Hall of Fame certificate, a photograph of him with J. Edgar Hoover (say what?! As in, the former head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover?) and a video from his first wedding. Apparently, this man, who has been so blessed with fame and fortune throughout his life, cannot stop himself from blowing it. He's so dumb that if he was given a winning lottery ticket, he'd find a way to set it, and his pubic hair, on fire on the way to cashing it. But that isn't what bothers me here. O.J. Simpson is now sixty years old. Think about that for a moment. The man is sixty years old! He's still, somehow, rich. Why on earth is this idiot getting his own hands dirty? Why didn't he call the police if he thought the stuff was stolen? Personally deciding to Rambo his way into the store, take the owners hostage, and try and rob them at gunpoint to get back belongings that he believes are his is really the best plan he could think up when he is eligible for senior citizen discounts? Let's face it, this man is not going to become a criminal mastermind if this is the best plan he can come up with. To make matters worse, he forgot to check in on his legal resources this time around. Johnny Cochran died in April, 2005. I was looking forward to hearing what Mr. Cochran had to say about this. ("If the stuff belonged to The Juice, then you must let him loose.") We do have to give O.J. credit for one thing though: he can throw out a pithy one-liner, even in his declining years. As he told a reporter over the weekend, "I thought what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas."

I've posted a long overdue review of Persona 3. Feedback welcome and appreciated.

It has been a very long time since I posted about my poker playing results, largely since it has been a very long time since I played poker for any significant stakes. I've played small time games, a $20 game here, a $40 game there, but I've been avoiding my usual game where I tend to sit for around $250 for a while now. I've got several reasons why I haven't been sitting at the game I usually make so much money at. 1. Poker is a game where you have to be extremely sharp mentally, and extremely calm emotionally, in order to do consistently well. I haven't really been feeling that way the last few weeks. Since I tend to play on Friday nights, after the end of the work weeks, sometimes I am just very tired and worn out by the time my game night rolls around. It is extremely hazardous to play poker in those conditions because no matter how good you are, you still are at a huge disadvantage when you're tired playing against a table of nine other people who are fully energized. 2. I hadn't been having a lot of fun the last couple of times that I'd gone there prior to my break from the game. Poker is an extremely competitive game, but it is one where a certain degree of unwritten etiquette is supposed to be observed by gentleman players. (I would add lady players as well, but most poker players, even these days, are still guys...particularly at the house I play at.) When you play, you aren't supposed to make an a.ss out of yourself. Don't rip other players' moves at the table. Don't spend the entire night whining about how bad your luck is, or how good your opponents' luck is. Don't hit and run. ("Hit and run" refers to coming, getting lucky and winning a big pot early in the night, and then leaving immediately afterwards. This is considered rude by many poker players, and is bad for the game as well. It also leaves the table short handed on nights when replacements aren't already waiting and ready to sit down.) I could go on. But suffice to say, that when this unwritten etiquette is broken, the game is nowhere near as fun. Even if you are winning, it becomes difficult to endure 7 hours of bad etiquette at a poker table. Imagine sitting down at a dinner table with that crazy, drunk uncle. Every person has at least one crazy, drunk uncle in their family. He's the guy who always makes the really awkward statements that make everyone uncomfortable and ruin the entire dinner conversation. Now imagine at a table of ten people, that about 4-5 of them are all crazy, drunk uncles and you're stuck there for 7-10 hours straight. At that point, it wouldn't matter how delicious the dinner is, you want to get up and go. 3. The level of competition had risen dramatically. Mike Caro, nicknamed "The Mad Professor" by poker players, once said "Beating good players earns much respect, and little money. Beating bad players earns a lot of money, but little respect." What he was trying to convey was that it just often times isn't worth trying to beat a game full of good players when the house is taking a rake out of each pot. The odds of winning become much steeper. (For you laypeople, professional gambling establishments make their money with the "rake" at the table. A rake is a certain percentage of each pot that is taken out and claimed by the house for providing the services that support the game and so that the house can make a profit.) At the house I play at, the rake is 10% up to a maximum of $5 out of each pot. In practical terms, it means that I have to win that much more in order to have a profitable night, because in addition to the rake, it is customary to tip the dealer after each pot you win. The point being, that for a while there, I didn't think that the game I was playing at was a good one to be playing. Not enough fish, players showing bad etiquette and me being tired and worn out. Well, as any true gambler will tell you, the urge to go back and play can be very strong. Last night I was feeling very good. I was a little on the tired side, but my personal condition was good enough to play in. I went to the game and, while points 2 and 3 were still in effect, they were lessened a bit. There was only a couple of people showing bad etiquette and there were some suckers at the table to balance out the sharks. Result? I went there with $450 in my pocket. I came home seven hours later with $1700 exactly. Damn I've missed the game.

Where have all the good men gone And where are all the gods? Where's the street-wise Hercules To fight the rising odds? Isn't there a white knight upon a fiery steed? Late at night I toss and I turn and I dream of what I need -Bonnie Tyler, "Holding Out For A Hero" No, me opening with the topic up above or the Bonnie Tyler lyrics is not some massive prelude to revealing to the world that I am secretly gay I submit to you all that only a very secure man would open a blog with Bonnie Tyler lyrics. Instead, I found it to be the most appropriate title and quote I could find to begin my blog about something that the video game industry is largely missing and desperately needs.

I'm not talking about sexual ambiguity. Let's face it, the Japanese have that covered. I am instead talking about the need for more video games having a Main Protagonist with a personality. Inspired from my recently blogged reflections on the Persona 3 game I have decided to delve a little deeper into this dreadfully underdeveloped feature of gaming. (By the way, if you haven't seen my blog about Persona 3 don't feel bad. It was my lead item for all of about a half hour or so...the time it took for me to write the blog you are currently reading.)

What is it that makes so many game developers decide to go with a silent, lifeless and otherwise faceless leading man/woman? I fail to understand how this makes games funner to play or how it makes the lead character more memorable. I suppose an argument could be made that by making the protagonist silent, it leaves the gamer free to imagine any personality that you want for him. Further, it is probably a lot easier to code a game where pesky little things like free will don't get in the way. But it doesn't really contribute to the protagonist feeling like a hero if he/she has no say or control over the direction of his life. (I'm just going to use the male forms "he, his, etc" to save time and space for the rest of the blog.) How heroic can the leader be if he doesn't say anything, doesn't inspire the troops, set the battle strategy, make decisions, etc.? How heroic can he be if he just lets the other characters in the game dictate what happens next? Even some of the best games of all time are guilty of this. Remember Chrono Trigger? If you're over the age of 20 and are at least a little bit interested in rpg games you've probably played this one since it shows up regularly on most peoples' "Best RPGs of All Time" lists. Yet, the main character of that game was a silent protagonist as well. He had the least amount of personality out of any of the characters in the game. How does it make sense to give the least amount of character development to the character that the gamer has to control for 20 or so hours of gameplay? I'll go further back. I'm going way back now to the original "Dragon Warrior" game for the old NES. After you have saved the princess and returned her to the castle, when you talk with her, the conversation goes like this: "Dost thou love me?" (Yes, No) If you answer "No" then you got endless repetitions of "But thou must!" until you selected the correct answer. In other words, the "hero" who was tasked with saving the world was a whipped dog who couldn't stand up to a spoiled, fifteen year old princess. Ouch. Talk about making it hard for a gamer to feel suitably heroic. Nor are rpg games alone with this underdeveloped protagonist issue. The Max Payne games have a very talkative main protagonist, and are a couple of the best shooters of all time because of it. Ditto for Chronicles of Riddick. But once you get past the exception cases, pretty much all other genres are equally guilty. I am focusing on the rpg genre because, while it would sure be nice if other genres developed their protagonist more, character development is absolutely essential in rpg's. You cannot have a good rpg if the majority of the characters in the game are not developed. You just cannot. Period. End of discussion. I'm not willing to debate this point. Sure, 20 years ago in the Dragon Warrior days you could have a good rpg without it, but that was then and this is now. The bar for modern gaming is higher. This brings me to the upcoming Mass Effect game by Bioware, If you've looked at the trailers on Xbox Live and didn't get at least a little hot and bothered (in a good way) from the level of interaction and conversation dialog that you, as Commander Sheppard, get to have with other characters in the game then you should never play another rpg again. Bioware has long been the leader in getting rid of the silent protagonist once and for all. Knights of the Old Republic was revolutionary because it had real, actual dialog trees that gave you real, actual conversation choices. Your personality grew and developed because of those choices. Even before them though, games like Planescape: Torment, Fallout, and Star Control 2 justifiably landed themselves on Gamespot's "Greatest Games of All Time' list because they had notable levels of protagonist interactions with other people in the game. Put simply, they forced you to actually roleplay in a roleplaying game. Looking towards the future, I hope more games take this approach. I hope that Mass Effect wins Game of the Year not because I can't stand for a non-rpg winning the award, but because if it does win then it is much more likely that other developers will copy it to duplicate its success. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. If that happens, then maybe we can look forward to more and more games where you play a character that has an actual personality.