hot  /  reviews  /  videos  /  cblogs  /  qposts


MonkeyKing1969's blog

3:18 PM on 05.12.2012

Monsters in the House

Lately the concept of the zombie has really taken over gaming. It has been a slow burn of course there were dozens of zombie games even before Capcom mad the Biohazard/Resident Evil series, but we see how that the zombie has become a “stock” character in a lot of games from shooters to causal party games.

I have a new concept for a zombie that is different from the typical slow, fast or monstrous that we have seen in past media. I think my new concept which is a mix of some other “horror” memes and tropes has merit, but you tell me what you think

My idea is the following what if there were a sickness where the outcome is not shambling zombies, but rather passionless sociopath. When you become ill you lose all sense of right or wrong, love, and emotion; but you retain your intellect, your knowledge, and even the ability to dissemble (lie or hide the truth). You can know you are infected, but you do no care. Once infected you don’t just slaughter everyone but rather YOU COULD. It might takes days, weeks or even months before you kill, but you will and it could be anyone or anything.

Now why is this interesting? I think it is interesting because it increases the paranoia and at the same time gives no “out” for lacking humanity. A slow zombie or a fast zombie is easy to spot. A monster zombie is even easier to spot. But the smart zombie/psychopath that could be anyone so everyone is a potential monster. But, as I said this new monster has reason, so you can talk to this psychopath monster. The infected person is passionless, but is still very human it is like sitting across from Dr. Hannibal Lecter…if Dr. Lecter were you neighbor, dentist, or sister/brother.

Now there always has to be a twist, right? Well, my twist is an oldie but a goodie. Only children between 3 and 10 get infected. In my concept is after you are a toddler and become a child you hormone levels change, and then when you become a teen your hormone levels change again. The infection can only strike when you are between those ages at the right hormone level. Once puberty hits your get a high fever that lasts for a week, and if you survive that, you that emotional parts of your brain turn back on. Do you see where we are going here…you can save them…but do you risk saving your child…do you risk someone else trying to save their child? See that is where the tension is in this idea. You have a smart, methodical killer that could kill anyone at a whim…but they are human in so many ways..and can be saved. And, (there is always an AND), because it is a specific group - what would be done to save kids, what harebrained schemes would people try to protect themselves from kids or would be tried to reverse the disease. Communities without children? Communities where children are imprisoned? Communities where people scarified ANYONE ELSE to the whims of their psychopathic children?

What do you do when your ability to love and want to protect children is at odds with the disease that makes something that CANNOT love and does not care? What happens when the enemy is hidden, but hidden in something you want to protect more than yourself? What happens when you see a sly smile on the face of a child slowly hiding a knife it took from the dinner table…do you kill the child before the cold chill down you back takes over your ability to act? How do you live never fully trusting a child, or always having some doubt? What is a family like, even a 'post apocalypse' family life, when children are something to be respected and feared like a poisonous snake or a wild lion?


11:07 AM on 04.28.2012

Too Hard to Balance?...why balance let me cheat!!!

You often hear in development circles that the more characters you have the more styles of play you allow the greater the headaches. The common laments that comes from that is “Geeze, balancing all that characters is hard that game gets too easy or too hard if one character runs slower/faster, carries more/less, jumps taller/shorter, etc.” But my questions is…why FIX THAT? Why not just make sure tam game works and then allow the player to experiment?

The thought arises that UN-equal abilities are something that could make RPGs and adventure games more interesting. What if in an open world RPG you chose to make the smallest lightest slowest character or the tallest, most muscular, and fastest character? Would that really be BAD? Would it be bad if up front you talk the player that their choices matter and the attributes you choose would affect how the player could play or even if they could win?

In my mind, I see an RPG that is has naturally running systems in it and real world physics. You make your character, you have some choices about who they are & what they look like and what skills you want them to have. You cannot choose everything, what you know you will gain more skills in, what you can learn you can learn after hard practice, but anything you don’t know and have no affinity for will be impossible to learn beyond the basics. If I choose not have little agility then I’ll never be a second story thief, I’ll never free climb a mountain side, and I’ll never catch myself in a tricky fall. There will be all the same skills as in most RPGs…but what you choose matters…a lot. If you choose to be good with blades, but you choose to be weak & small you better choose a small sword to wield. If you choose to have “slick city skills” you better not try living off the land or hunting game in the woods very successfully. Real world rules apply big characters won’t fit into small spaces, weak characters won’t have stamina or vast reserves of health, and agile characters won’t intimidate anyone or cast a spell ever.

In my mind I see a party system as well. But even choosing a party in the real world has complications. If you choose NPCs to help you that have other skills they makes what the party can do more diverse. Yet, what happens when the smallest most agile character can only fit into the secrete magical cave? Party members can wait outside, but they won’t wait forever nor do you have their help carrying loot. There are advantages to making a more homogeneous group, yet when a problem only a mage can solve is encountered what do you do without a mage? A group of thieves might clean up as a gang, but can you trust another thief? A group of warriors might make a formidable team, but what if you don’t have the charisma to lead or loot to keep them interested.

The key would be to sometimes have multiple solutions to problems, but sometimes NOT have a solution. Sometimes there is one easy solution and one super hard tricky solution…yet as I said it is a living physicals based world. If you can use your mind to MAKE A SOLUTION then that’s great, because that where the game is doing what I want it to do. I want players that say, I couldn’t get to that cave on that cliff so I when into town and I stole a rope ladder off a ship. Then I hired an acrobat to bring the ladder up to the cave mouth so I could climb up. I want people to say, I couldn’t defeat the wizard in the cave….so I got a bottle of poison and when the cart was in town that would bring him supplies I poured poison on all the contents…but that killed the wizard and the wagon driver too…so when I stole the wizards loot and brought it to another town is the wagon I took as well….I then went to the wagon drivers wife who after not seeing her husband for three months was willing to marry me. WIN-WIN-WIN.   read

3:38 PM on 03.03.2012

Baby, we need to talk...our Erotophobia is driving us nutz!

This has been a rough few weeks on the sexism front. We have that eye popping business in the “Tekken/Street Fighter gaming community. We have had Rush Limbaugh call a law school student a sl_t. And we have all sorts of nonsense in other corners of news about Sport Illustrated models, if Angelina Jolie is too thin, and many other things.

There is the notion that nobody in American is comfortable talking about race, but if you want some real fear and bizarre nonsense start talking about sexuality. It seems no matter where you turn there is a concept about what is proper and improper…most of it conflicting.

Erotophobia- Fear of sexual love or sexual questions.

Here are my feelings
- Sex is normal. We are supposed to do it. Human females are “plumbed” to ovulate once a month after all.
- Once you pass puberty there is a sexual aspect to your life in some form…SORRY THAT’S BIOLOGIAL TRUTH.
- The fear of seeing nudity even for adults seems to be pathologically paralyzing these days, and that is unhealthy.
- We fear being considered (not considered) as sexuallly active to such a gegree that we lie about it...or boast about it...or do both.

Above you see a nude male and female..or you would just that would DRIVE PEOPLE nutz if they saw it...Admit it you'd feel weird if I put that picture here. Kinda sad.

I have to ask, how did we become so uncomfortable with naked people? How did we become uncomfortable with our own sexuality? Why are we on a course legislated, criminalize, and penalize sexuality among teens?

I have to say that in my view we have a warped point of view on sexuality. We make the subject so taboo that it is shocking that anyone has any rational view on the subject at all. More troublesome, the people who do study the subject or human sexuality we deem perverts. It is as if we want to control the idea of sex and our own bodies as if they had just been created so we will legislate them like a pack of cigarettes.

- Is it any wonder men call woman whores in online games?
- Is it any wonder a man like Rush Limbaugh would demand someone seeking female contraception would have video proof of it?
- Is it any wonder boys and girls “sext” each other when that is just the use of technology to do what boys & girls did in the hay-loft 60 years ago?

We are sexual beings, and when we are not allowed to be those 'sexual beings' we crack up. We we fear our own sexuality we crack up. And when we pretend teens are not sexula being too..ones that still need guidance...we crack them up too.

I think most of the social problems we THINK we have are due to sex. No enough, and a lack of understanding aboiut how to view sexuality in a healthy way.   read

5:44 PM on 05.30.2010

THUNDERCATS!!! Ho--noooo!

ThunderCats Writer Murdered?

I just saw this story at Kotaku and it just made me sad. In short: Stephen Perry, who was a writer for 1980s cartoon ThunderCats, recently went missing. His van was found last Sunday. Inside it, a man's severed arm. Stephen Perry, police now report, is dead.

Even sadder what happened in his life since the 80s, it sounds like from reading teh rest of the story that he hit some really hard times. Crazy roommates -- Kids with a baby momma half his age -- court dates -- and the picture of his house just makes me sad. Nobody should live likd that even thought I know people do every day in America

ThunderCats was just a really neat, I'd not go so far as to say good, but a really neat concept that brought together some really weird stuff. Was it high art? Maybe! It sure was creative in that it made some crazy weird stuff seem normal and cool. I don't know....but it has to be said one last time

THUNDERCATS HO!!!!!   read

7:24 AM on 05.14.2010

Wait...Let me get this straight

Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta creator)
It looks like there's pornographic Bayonetta fan comics. That's bound to disturb fans of the game, and I can't imagine the creators of said manga have any love for the game.

If I understand him correctly, he is confused that the game character who is viewed by way of crotch & butt shots and is in fact clothed by magic body hair is viewed in a sexualized way.

Okay, I'll accept that. However, I also accept that Hideki Kamiya suffers from a form of autism that makes the world confusing to him or he is so full of ____ that he has custom made clothing entirely made of toilet paper.

On a more serious note, that a few of you might not thing the blog will discuss, I do think the concept of fan fiction is and always will be a sensitive topic to some writers. In fact I would say any artist will always have some sensitivity to their art, be that painting, sculpture, photography, movie, game, being used in way they never intended of considered. That is nothing more then human nature. You make something and then as an artist you share it and because of the dialectic between artist and viewer there is a response. Most artists hope for the response of the viewer giving their impression of the original work as-is, but we all know that often the response can be, "Here is how you could have done it better."

The desire to mold art to our own point of view is not new, it is as old as art itself. It can be as officious as a Pope having loin cloths painted over the genitalia of the Sistine Chapel or as mundane as people singing the wrong lyrics to Rolling Stones songs.

Sometimes we 're-write' in only our minds, and sometimes we take out the red pen and scratch bit of art out. We do this out of necessity because art is communication that requires at least two parties. The artist states something by their work, the viewer responds by what they think, and the discussion continues as the artist creates more and the viewer becomes a follower of the work.

The problem arises when either artist or public comes to feel they have more control. Art is only art when shared, much like a tree falling in the woods, does it really exist without it being viewed. A better analogy could be Schrödinger's cat where only when the box is opened does anything meaningful occur. If the artist start to believe only they can have an impression of their own art and only they should have control over the art then a problem occurs. In the same way a problem occurs when the viewers thinks once art is released the artist role is over and the art now belongs to the viewer alone. Things works when the dialectic between artist and viewer is cordial and respectful, things work poorly when the artist resents the viewer or when they viewer dismisses any ownership of art to artist once it is released. And problems also occur when either party becomes thin skinned because the conversation turns sullen.

In this case I think the 'artist' is being sullen for a very bad reason. Bayonetta is a game about a sexy witch who is portrayed in a sexy way in the 'official work', therefore her sexualization being move a few step more is too be expected. But I also wonder if any of these fan-fic artists are trying to profit from these other work of art they are making. But with that said, Hideki Kamiya is going to use the argument of Bayonetta being over sexualized in the fan fic meaning a lack of love for the game or character is full garbage. A better argument is sexualized fan-fic is to be expected, but it such fan fic misses the point if it ignored the characters other attributes aside from sexiness and is unfair to the original work if it is trying to profit off of the IP.


I don't know what do you think?   read

3:22 PM on 05.06.2010

What do you think: Michael Pachter says the Wii 2 delay is hurting Nintendo

In an article at MVC, the discuss how Michael Pachter accuses Nintendo of being “complacent” in face of falling Wii software sales.

On the surface I think it is a bit silly so see gloom and doom for Nintendo and the current Wii, but he does makes some good points about if Wii 2 had the power of a PS3 or XB360 that porting games too its system would be easier. It is a good point, even if it is just a single point of view trying to explain a bigger issue. Making all things equal might make developers happier and therfore provide more games.

However, even if the above is true it trods upon the idea that the millions who bought Wii would be happy about this? Also, who would be pleased by these ports? It would only be the 15% of Wii owners who actually would want more hardcore games, right? Those are people like me and you sure, but that’s not the bulk of mothers, uncles and old people who bought the Wii. I think a lot of people are very happy with content taht isn't the same and doesn't allow instant ports of PS3 or XB360 games.

The solution in my eyes is for Nintendo to put the BILLIONS they have made off Wii and create two or three in house development teams to make more games that fit the Wii ethos. Its not like Nintendo needs to put out many more of their own games. I would say they need only three in house titles and maybe only half a dozen 2nd part titles worth looking forward to then they have now.

A quick and dirty olution would be three in-house teams, two to make new intellectual property and one to dig into the vault and make updates to classic properties. Then, take some of the money and invest in small a few development teams to turn into second party development. In all cases Nintendo should be willing to allow some ideas to be tossed out without malace, but then take the time to polish the games that do go forward. The answer isn’t to make more game faster; it would be to build up the ability to make more good games themselves that are great.

Stage two would need be to STOP allowing shovelware. Nintendo must tighten up the firehose of junk that is giving the Wii a bad name. I bet half of the issue of declining sales can be attributed to the fact that new casual users don’t know games are reviewed and rated on websites and magazines. Most of these people bought Wii Fit and Will Part games and they accidently bought a few of those shovel ware titles. They felt burned after that because they didn’t know there was a way to find out those games were crap. These are new gamers and returning gamers who have not been brought up in the culture of there being extreme difference in quality. All they know is it a Wii game, right? They have no idea that in gaming culture there is the concept of shovelware. Moreover, how did Nintendo stray so far they they forgot some of why video game consoles got a bad name in the learly 80s when Atari lost control of what was put out on their system. They forgot why a 'Seal of Quality' was a good idea.

In the end Nintendo must use the money they made to invest in themselves. It is a CRIME that they makes billions and don’t build up more development teams and invest in more game studios. They seem to be actually very miserly with the good fortune they have had in the generation. Even while Sony and MS struggle they invest in new developers, what is wrong at Nintendo that they don’t do this? What good are all the profit if they don’t invest them towards making games?

BOTTOME LINE: Nintendo doesn't need a new system they need a new 'less crass' point of view about what being profitable is about. If they invest in themselves they can only profit more.   read

3:12 PM on 04.10.2010

Virtual Actors - Coming No Matter What

I wonder when a real life actor will contract out their virtual avatar for use in games, movies all the time? I mean making a new business out of 'virtual acting with a formal 'data set' of them self that can be used over and over.

Think about it, as game graphics get better and better it will take more and more time to make really high fidelity avatars with believable detail and human qualities. So why not scan a live actors faces in super high detail, motion capture the expressions and emoting, and then motion capture their body in all forms of motion (walking, sitting, fighting, etc). All that data, the deep scan and tens of hours of motion capture, is then made into a complete data-set and contracted/licensed for used in games, movies, etc.

Why would an actor do this? When it makes financial sense for all parties. The actor and their agent, manager, publicist all profit from just a few days work done in the past each time the data is used. It is a re-usable profit generating system for that actor. Therefore, the actor can appear in games or movies without lifting a finger; but they also still have control of choosing to appear in projects they want since it all under contracts. Also, they are already doing it Kristen Bell was in Assassins Creed 2. The Godfather games had many of the actors too. But it shouldn't be so specail the whole process should be easier so that teh heavy lifting is done so actors can pop in do some voice mo-cap and leave to work on other projects.

If you want Kristen Bell (Veronica Mars) in your game you get the whole data set that can be used in-game with only a few restrictions like nudity, sex, extreme violence. Of course, special contracts could be set up for 'extremes like nudity, etc if that is what is needed. You get a contract for the virtual Kristen in the same was a the real actress, it is negotiated up front, perhaps part of the contact is to see the finished product. So its not like just anyone can buy the data set and use it how they like, its is all negotiated and managed like the real actress with over site, but the actress is not on set or even on call.

Let's, say for Uncharted 5 Naughty Dog wants Kristen Bell be Drake's sister in five cut-scenes that are not too physical or interactive,. but the game studio really need something special for those few scenes. So, Naughty Dog outlines the games plot, script, and role Virtual Bell would play and sends it off to Kristen Bell's agent. Bells agent and Bell agree and sign a contact that "Virtual Bell" with 6 hours of studio voice with mo-cap from the real Bell for $??0K and back end residuals for each game sold. The contract stipulates what she can wear (or not wear), what physical actions are restricted (no sex, no shooting or violence that includes gore). When the contracts are signed Naughty Dog gets the data set and voice time for a decent price, which sounds weird when they could just get any actress and "doll up" the virtual face and body. But remember for games the graphics fidelity needed is high, so do you pay some guy to make a character over a few months? No you get a REAL actress! You get her face, her smile, her walk, her hair flip and all her other subtle movements and facial expressions; and you get dozens of hours of the real actress doing mo-cap that totally captures that her. It saves time and money and you don't get sued by someone saying, "That looks like me!!!" No! It looks like Kristen Bell because we paid her, we used her data, and here is the documentation.

Someone like Kristen Bell might choose to only appear in four games each year, but someone like Don Cheadle or John Leguizamo could appear in 15 games. Maybe, some really good interesting C-List actors might appear in even more games. Just as Nolan North seems to be in every other game as a voice, maybe Steve Buscemi could be in dozens of games as supporting characters just as in real movies he is a supporting actor.

However, there is one other advantage for actors who do this. That advantage is archival, in a sense the real actor making a digital actor is creating a achieve of themselves at a certain age, with a certain look, and even a certain physically look. Today a movie actor might say, "Damn we really need 'this actress' for this bit part , but we needed her when she was 25 not now at 40!" Well if you have the data set that actress at 25 is still available. That face, that smirk, that way of moving her hands when she talks fast is all captured; but more importantly it is captured for that actresses profit even years later. Have you ever seen Helen Mirin at age 20?

Smoking hot folks! Even in here sixties she is a beautiful woman and a fantastic actress, but imagine if we had that data-set of her at 20...she could make a great deal of money digitally acting if she had that data. Also, any directors cuts that happen 25 years later can be tweaked because that actress has a data set that can be used to fill-in.

That is why I think digital actors being everywhere is inevitable. There is just too much money to be made and too much utility in having a huge data set made of yourself if you are a top tier actor. And even B-level actors would find profit in contacting their data for a low cost.   read

1:49 PM on 03.28.2010

Fun? No Thanks, but I'll take a scoop of thrills.

"...The fact that in 2009 we were not able to sell more than we did in 2008 was simply that in comparison, we were not able to produce fun-enough products."
~Shigeru Miyamoto~

I saw this quote on the front page because it struck me that I don't really 'enjoy' fun games. I don't even want to get into the quote in terms of if he is right, but I do feel intrigued by the concept of games being fun. For him that must be important, from the types of game she makes that makes a certain amount of sense and from past quests once could surmise he has build a reputation on fun games.

But I really don't like 'fun games', which is not to say I don't like fun at all. But when I approaching a game I'm seeking entertainment and maybe what could be boiled don to thrills or adventure. Of all the words to describe games I like I think fun is not among them unless I were to misuse the term. I think people sometimes say games are fun in a very flippant way which only adds to the confusion of talking to non gamers.

"Why do you play games, Billy?

Grandma, they're fun!

Shooting people in fun to you?!

No! Well yeah, it is, you know, exiting, fun to play. Its a GAME....(said as if that explains it)

What that gamers is saying is often more akin to "enjoyment" or "satisfaction" in a way that might be best described as entertaining. Which is not to say there are not games that can be categorized as fun and that people don't enjoy them for exactly that quality. Games being games, which are really 'tools' maybe the oldest tools aide from rocks and sticks, satisfy all sorts of functions and satisfy many human needs. Fun may even be a major subset of game types, but to use fun in term of many popular games would be odd. Is Modern Warfare 2 fun? Is Heavy Rain fun? (Okay, HR is inadvertently funny...Jason....but is it fun?) Will Civilization V be fun? To some of you maybe these games would/will be, but again we should not confuse ideas like compelling, thrilling, thought provoking or entertaining as fun.

Is Heavy Rain fun? I find it a little scary and pulse pounding, but not fun like a Mario game would be to play.

As I sit here I'm trying to recall the last fun game I played or wanted to play. Maybe, you could say there are 'fun aspects' to many games: shooting your friend in the back in a team shooter...that's fun. That second when you beat a level or a game the brief second of child-like 'Christmas day' joy...that's fun. When I watch my nephew play Lego Batman and he explain it to me like "I'm a dumb adult'...that's fun. But, most of that 'fun spark' is really just lighting my 'main burner' of satisfaction of playing. I honestly couldn't play a Shigeru Miyamoto game for more then a few minutes without saying, "Well, lets play a real game now." There is a toy like quality to his games I just can't compute. I'm not knocking him, his games or his fans; but if what he was trying to make was fun and that is what he's doing: them I am at-odds with his idea of entertainment. Some people like his games and tehy must for good reason, but they just don't spark my interest at all. What I want games is different, not better, just very different.

So what about you fine folks, is 'fun' what you are after in game play? If it is would that be sometimes or for all your games?   read

8:56 AM on 03.17.2010

Nier...but so far

WTF, I look at the game Nier by Cavia games and all I can do is get angry and feel slapped across the face. That game just packs everything I hate about this generation of gaming coming from Japan and boils it down to a noxious sludge.

I can freely admit my taste are no everyone's, but I like to think under my crusty exterior I like to think I have warm fluffy interior that can appreciate things for their own merits. But a few times a year there are just games, like Nier, that make me ask a developer, "Why are you so damn stupid?" Even as I say that I feel bad because the game isn't even out yet; but, no, I must stand firm when it comes to a game like Nier I truly believe the developer is making a steaming bowl of diarrhea soup.

On the surface Nier (or Nier Gestalt in JP) would seem like a terrific step forward. Its an action role-playing game with a decidedly Japanese aesthetic for the art and characters. I've been waiting for something like that for a long time since I've grown increasingly dissatisfied with typical jRPGs. I actually make the art and worlds most Japanese developers make, if nothing else they have a creative aesthetic that is different and often refreshing. If the Final Fantasy art were dropped into an RPG with Elder Scrolls game play and game mechanics I think it would make an incredible combination. And even the idea of Nier could be good, adding a bit more depth to an action game with a look that is close but not exactly like Dragon Age from what I have seen.

The problem is when I see videos and screen shots of Nier it makes me want to puke. This game is being made for a western audience that is clear or at the very least made for a world wide audience give Square-Enix want to publish this game for PS3, XB360 in multiple territories and has planed that from the start. However, when you watch the teaser trailers alls you see if dad voice acting, impenetrable bizarre & ugly characters, idiotic story, and a melodramatic presentation that saps any 'gravitas' from the admittedly already poor presentation. And that is why when I see this game and read about it I'm left questioning the developer's sanity. It is not that Cavia, the developer, hasn't had issues making decent games before too. In the west, they likely best known lately for Bullet Witch. That was a terrible game that was poorly made and lazily executed.

I mean what si up with this guys face? No, really who though this Beauty & The Best idea as cool?

The above would be bad enough but despite saying it is an action RPG, the majority of the game takes place from a third-person perspective and plays like standard action games with a similar perspective. That means that in reality this game is completing against Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, and God of War in terms of game play. Oh sure, It could go one of two ways: The RPG elements add a tiny amount of spice to the typical action slasher OR the RPG bits bogged down fast game play with menus you must fiddle with between fights.   read

7:48 AM on 03.13.2010

Mr Cranky Pants Post: Modern Warfare 2 Firings

I'll admit it, I'm confused.

Three months ago while talking about Modern Warfare 2 by Infinity Ward most people were saying things like, "...the multi player is a bit unbalanced even today, but it sure is fun" or "...the single player campaign was a bit vapid, the dialogue jingoistic, and it was too damn short." Then two weeks ago happened and somehow Modern Warfare 2 is the greatest game ever made and some sort of technical achievement. It sold a lot of units folks, but that really is the technical achievement of the game. Realiosticly speaking MW2 was over rated and over hyped, not a crime against a very good game, but when you then add this looking backwards navel gazing it blows two men being fired out of proportion.

The attitude today on the net is the creative directors were fired and somehow that equates to Activison to painting over the ceiling of the Sisten Chapel. Sorry, but while all this legal wrangling is sad, Activison hasn't really damaged something irreplaceable here. Jason West and Vince Zampella were hardworking folks and compelling leaders by all accounts, but they were not exactly what I would term creative geniuses. They certainly hadn't perfected the FPS shooter genre in terms of pacing, story, or game logic.

The big thing people seem to be confusing is making money and skill. You can be averagely skillful and still be famous and rich. And that seems to be the case here. They were 'as skillful' as their peers, but because they just sold a lot of games that somehow elevated them in some people's eyes to being 'more skillful' then their peers. Being responsible for a successful( while not perfect game) has somehow made them 'irrepalace assest' to a franchise because peopel have a Robin Hood complex about two dude. Yeah, sorry, that still just confuses me. It is like saying Chef Boyardee is a master of Italian cuisine. Selling a lot of something canned for consumption isn't laudable, be that mushy pasta or online game play it is still not something to heap accolades.

Just imagine if West and Zampella had not been fired publicly and very uncivilly. I think when they next game came out most people would have said, "Gee I hope they fix some of the problems in the past two games....those games could have used more polish and been less vapid." Instead, I think when the remaining people at IW putting out then next game will be blamed for not reaching so mythical perfection that not even Jason and Vince ever reached.   read

3:21 PM on 03.09.2010

Look in the mirror and you'll see you are the XBL problem.

Microsoft allowing people to self identify their orientation might prove helpful in the long run, but there is still a lot to be done to really get at the heart of the problems on XBL and even PSN in terms of what people say to each other. Sadly, I think it is easy to see that XBL has a greater problem with offensive language on it service. There are many reasons for that and maybe if the tools to speak in more game more easily were supplied on PSN their problem would be the same. But for better or worse more XB360 have been sold, more people play online with that service and in each box MS provides a headset.

I’ll step on some toes by saying this, but XBOX Live and what is said on it is everyone’s fault who particaptes in the community. On once or on every day, it hardly matter; what si said on it is each members fault shared equally. A community that accepts racist, bigoted and infamitory language shares the blame equally on some level. If some people throw around offensive terms it because so many others accept it in silence.

That may seems like blaming everyone for a few bad apples, but there is no other way a community can work. A community by it very definition is a group that shares some common things. Given XBL members are not based in one locality, then the definition of community is based on other shared elements.. It would be one thing if people said, “Well in this these three or four games, at this time of night, if your in a game called this you might hear such offensive language” because then you could equate it to the ‘skid-row’ of some city. But offensive language that is in every game at any time is a community gone bade from core to skin.

When crude offensive language is that pervasive it cannot a ‘just a few’ bad apples. Its like bullying in a schools, it not the bullies they get you down it everyone else’s lack of backbone to stand up for others. One of the biggest and silliest arguments I have heard about the issue of language is that anonmynity is too blame. Anonymous people are unstoppable. But, you know, it works both way; if you think anonmynity allows idiots to say what they want then why are people not using the same anonymity top stand up for others. Why does the bully feel protected and they people standing around watching people get victimized not use the same protection. Also, everyon has a user name, and everyone has access to tools to report inflamitoiry language. People are no more anonymous on XBL then they are in life. It not the jerks who are anonymous it is the silent cowards who stand by saying nothing to a bully miles away and who fail to report bad behavior from a person who is identified by name on a screen.

There are only three roles to be played on XBL when it comes to what it is and what is said: perpetrators, victims, and bystanders. But let’s call the bystanders by their real name ‘collaborators’. Turning off your headset is just saying, “Sure people are being victimized but my solution is turning my back.”

Turning you back turning off the headset isn’t a solution it is collaboration and consent to what occurs.
Sorry to say it, but XBLs problem isn’t the jerks, racists, and bigots. The problem is everyone else that watches and listens and doesn’t speak up. Each members cowardice is a crime and their silence is there own indictment of their own actions.   read

10:01 AM on 03.09.2010

Broken? At some point it has gotta be you, right?

Have you ever heard some say, "I'm on my fourth @#$%*& PS3, they are the suck! Stupid Sony!"

My question is how do you break three or four PS3s? I mean REALLY how did you break three?

A PS3 breaking once is rare, but it can happen. Just as with any complex device that is made in some factory some will fail, even rubber balls fail to bounce....sometimes. Failures occurs, it is a fact of life. Moreover, when it does happen having a big fat public sulk about it is fine. That is a good healthy reaction to bad juju, in such a case a nice hissy-fit is normal. "Damn my PS3 broke? Anyone else having this issue would say that too.

Then your second PS3 breaks, well then you would look around and say, "Hey folks I just had another PS3 break, and well that just seems weird, right?" Maybe when the second one breaks you might send that e-mail to that forum asking, "Umm dudes what is up?" But at that point, I would likely look around the net and see PS3 breakage is rare and they say, "Wow, this is statistically very let me think about what I am doing." One breaking is normal. Two breaking without my causing it is odd.

However, a common person would also likely not buy another PS3, right?. They'd get the first one fixed or replace it is out of warrantee, but buying another? That seems unlikely. That is unless they knew they broke it or the cause of the breakage was using it roughly or some outside agent like their dog pissing on it. But again they would have some sort of plan in place so that this won't happen again. But lets say its not you fault, so you get it replaced

Now when your 3rd PS3 breaks a normal rational human being would be clued into something going horribly wrong for them. . As it stands now from what we know about PS3 as a console, a PS3 unit failing three times is statistically so unlikely as to make it reaching a fraction starting with a decimal point followed by five or more zeros. Unless the person is breaking it themselves of course.

So let’is review:
- One PS3 breaking is possible, if somewhat aberrant
- Two PS3s breaking unlikely, so something is up that is atypical
- Three PS3s breaking approaches zero statically speaking... you broke it.

However, let’s say the impossible happens, the third PS3 breaks and not only do you think it not your fault it is in fact not outside forces, but the PS3 itself is breaking. Well, at that point why would anyone buy another unit? Replace perhaps? But on some forums you see people saying, I just had to buy a fourth PS3. Sorry, logic alone says, "bull." You buy one, your replace one at your or Sony's cost. But when people say they are on their third or fourth unit they are either full of...feathers or stupid.

I don’t care WHO you are, If you continue to do an action over and over again ending in failure and don’t look for how YOU ARE TO BLAME then you insane. You are out of your mind BONKERS! And if you buy a fourth PS3 and still want to complain I have no time for you. Buying that third or fourth system is an admission of guilt if even subconscious.

That goes of any console you buy, even a damn XB360 at this point doesn't fail that much.

Back to Top

We follow moms on   Facebook  and   Twitter
  Light Theme      Dark Theme
Pssst. Konami Code + Enter!
You may remix stuff our site under creative commons w/@
- Destructoid means family. Living the dream, since 2006 -