The political mudslinging has begun well into the presidential race, and while most gamers out there will be busy playing this years anticipated games, what about the vote you may or may not cast? change has become this year's buzzword for the campaigns on both sides, and while the war in Iraq, the Economy and Immigration seem to top the list of issues, almost nothing has been said about technology, video games or anything of that nature. So what should gamers look at when deciding to choose a candidate?


First let's have a look at Senator Clinton. She's been responsible for the backing of many bills introduced to regulate the sale of violent games to minors, to restrict video game releases due to content and has been known to support Senator Joe Lieberman (the man partly responsible for the Hearings on violent games that led to the ESRB creation). It seems to me personally that senator Clinton is more a fan of censorship than protecting America's youth...during the Hot Coffee GTA scandal Clinton said she doubted the gaming industry could regulate itself and wanted to step in and give control to the federal government, and also wanted to make selling M or AO rated games to minors a federal offense. It's good to protect our youth, but taking these measures is going a bit too far, when information to parents and gamers alike is what could really benefit them.

Senator John McCain has also had some past in video games. At one point he even wanted to label games with warnings just like we do cigarettes...McCain also issued “An Appeal to Hollywood” calling for a “new social compact” that reminds parents of their serious responsibilities in determining the entertainment media in which their children involve themselves. “Our homes are being flooded by a tide of media violence,” said McCain. “As concerns grow over the climate of violence in our culture today, it’s important not only for parents to take a greater role in their children’s lives but also to encourage the industry to be responsible citizens.”

Barack Obama, While addressing students about their future, said he would try to reduce the deficit, improve health care, advance the economy and move away from dependence on fossil fuels. So far, so good. But then, Obama trotted out video games: "The bad news is you're going to have to work harder," Obama told the assembled students, criticizing youth culture as "watching TV, playing video games and avoiding tough classes in school." That's certainly a good message, but blaming all those things on our youth's misfortune is a bit of an insult to the intelligent portion of the gaming community. While that's only one tiny statement, Obama really has no past regarding video games in particular, but that could change if elected...

Recently Joystiq posted an article about Common Sense Media quizzing some of the leading presidential candidates on a variety of media issues, video game violence legislation among them. Here's a quick summary of their views on proposed federal legislation limiting children's access to violent games:

* Senator John Edwards (D - NC): The ESRB and retailers are doing a pretty good job, but the FTC found that 42 percent of children under 17 can still purchase M-rated games, and that's too high. Publishers need to tone down the marketing of violent games to kids. If the industry isn't careful, the government "will need to consider further steps" to keep these games away from children
* Senator Barack Obama (D - IL): Video games should use technology to let parents restrict content [Note to Obama: they already do.] The rating system should be improved to make content information "easier to find and easier to understand. ... but if the industry fails to act, then my administration would." In any case, the government should spend money to study the problem.
* Governor Bill Richardson (D - NM): "I would consider this legislation," but it's really up to the parents. I'll give federal employees paid time off to spend with their kids.
* Fmr. Governor Mitt Romney (R - Mass.): I would enforce current obscenity laws to protect children from "a societal cesspool of filth, pornography, violence, sex, and perversion." I would "go after" retailers that sell violent games.


Obviously I didn't cover ALL of the candidates, and I'm not trying to sway anyone's political opinion one way or the other, I'm just saying that the gaming community should look at the candidates and make our voices heard. What do you think? Comment on this article and let me know what you think of the candidates, or about the future of gaming politics.

It's been a good year for me so far. It's only the third god-damned day of the year and I've been to two LAN parties.....which basically means I lanned, slept and lanned some more. To make things better, as I write this, this night has turned into the fourth day and I'm still gaming.

Through matches of everything from Quake 3 to CoD: United Offensive, I find myself looking back at 2007 and the games it brought me. I beat the hell out of Mass Effect, and Took on 2k Games' 'The Darkness' both of which surprised me. I've never played a Bioware game until Mass effect, now I'm curious what KOTOR can bring to my modest PC gaming life. The Darkness was just plain fun...the game is filled with clever powers, and fun dialogue, plus the best loading screens I've ever seen (the main character just stands in the dark and talks under a spotlight, discussing everything from his first kiss with a hooker to story related banter).

Geometry wars Galaxies kept me busy on the DS when I was on the go, Hellgate:London kept me glued to my computer at home. Guitar Hero III kept me going with it's increased difficulty, while Call of Duty 4 kept me having fun all around. I Finally got a PS3 for Christmas, and Ratchet and Clank Future Tools of destruction blew my mind with how simple, yet huge (read:awesome) the game really is. Rock Band was more of the same, with a shitty guitar packaged with it, so that dissapointed me. Final Fantasy XII had a sequel on the DS, which was fun. Halo 3 finished the fight, which was More fun. Portal...well : Game of the Year...INSANELY fun. I've been very happy with the year in gaming, and it only got better as it came to a close, my only regret is that my PC couldn't run the monster that is Bioshock :(

Now that 2008 is here, I have new games to look forward to. Some have been released, some haven't. I find myself salivating over MGS4, though it's release date push puts a frown on my face. It's probably for the better though. Uncharted: Drake's fortune on the PS3 interests me, and who can forget about Smash Brothers: Brawl on the Wii? Mercenaries 2 is coming, so I can continue to blow things up like a born Pyro, and Crisis Core for the PSP is almost here to keep me busy wherever I go.

I look forward to hearing more about Silent Hill 5, as well as several other Square-Enix Projects (Castrate me, I'm an old-school Square-whore). I wonder about the inevitable sequels for Guitar hero (will they bring anything new to the table the next go-around?). Devil May Cry 4 also looks interesting. With all the things to look forward to, now is the BEST time to be a gamer.

Here's to the new year Mates!
-The Chief

Dear Mr. Ebert,
Recently, there has been a great debate between you and the gaming community over certain comments regarding Video Games and the art medium. While you've taken great strides to defend your position, I truly commend you for the honesty towards your opinion you keep, and for opening the issue to the public and encouraging those who wish to present another side of the argument to do so. While the issue rages on, let me ask you: Exactly what constitutes art itself? It is writing, Music, Painting, Film, Sculpture? Who really knows.
I would also like to address the gaming community in this letter and acknowledge on their behalf that most of the letters sent to you were rash, and probably not very well thought out. But both sides of this argument are biased for obvious reasons. Mr. Ebert, You are biased because you've been around what most would consider 'Real Art' for many years, especially films. The gamers out there furiously sending out letters to you are biased because they aren't out to prove a point, or even present you with another side of the argument, they are just out to prove you wrong. That complicates things doesn't it?
You said in response to Clive Barker's statements about the issue that your idea of what the average video game amounts to is point and shoot and then move on. What about games that have no guns (of which there are many)? I see games Like I do movies...there are lots of Transporter, Die Hard and other shoot-em-ups out there with no plot value in them that only exist for the sheer thrill of blowing stuff up while jumping off a moving van with a beautiful girl yadda, yadda yadda...but every once in awhile, there is a Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan or a Titanic. In a sea of games it's really hard to tell where these games are, but they do have Drama, Emotion and leave an impact on the player. Isn't impact what Art is about?
What makes a painting of Jesus on the cross so interesting, isn't that it's an old painting hanging in a museum, but the idea that it's a depiction of a man sacrificing himself for the people who persecuted him for the good of the world. When you see the painstaking time spent, and attention to detail, and visualize the pain, suffering and emotion of the situation it leaves an impact and gets the cogs turning upstairs. This is a part of "User interaction". If a person walking through a museum doesn't stop to see a painting and interpret its meaning, it's just a canvas with some chemicals splattered on it rotting in a building. If a poet, playwright, actor, director, musician has no audience to interact with, there is no purpose or meaning in a play/movie/song etc. Your primary argument is that games cannot be art because the player chooses the outcome. You asked if Romeo and Juliet was a game that the ending could be manipulated, would it still be as good? In the case of video games the artist behind the game chooses either outcome for the player anyway, so Shakespeare would have written both endings (if he so chose to include multiple/alternate endings, if video games were around in his day). In this regard I think games can still be considered art to a certain extent.
Now I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I'm simply presenting my opinion as you previously did and asking you to take my point of view into consideration. I do think games should be considered an art (Mainly because the medium takes many forms of art into one, from drawing the storyboards, penning the script, sculpting characters and environments in 3D, painting textures and backgrounds, orchestrating/arranging/conducting music for the soundtracks etc...), even if they aren't considered 'High Art'. I really don't think that matters, honestly I don't think the gaming community would care if they were listed right above Finger-painting on the 'Art Scale', just so long as it was acknowledged as art to begin with.
But there are games out there that have stories that have startling imagery, beautiful music, and plot-lines that make players think and feel real emotions, I know this because I have experienced them myself. I'm not going to ask you to rush out and buy a copy of a game I think is worthy of 'Art-Status', I'm just asking you to read between the recent media blitzes behind games that are obviously not the thinking-man's type of experience (Read: Halo 3), but I want you to at least consider the possibility of games as art, even if we haven't reached that point in time, just consider the possibility.

Sincerely,
The Chief

I've been sitting on this topic for awhile now, and I have to point out the extreme stupidity of it. The topic in question? Racist comments about Resident Evil 5. According to some lady on her blog, a white male dressed in military clothing, shooting at an all-black crowd of zombies is teaching people to hate the African-American community....uhh...yeah, and the KKK is just a bunch of cosplayers. I seriously doubt Resident Evil 5 is the least of your worries. Let me break this down for you:

First, why complain now? Why just about African-American zombies? Notice how nobody said a word when the zombies looked white, or in Resident Evil 4, when they spoke Spanish and looked Mexican (and also exploited several stereotypes)...but now that the zombies are black, NOW you speak up...if you ask me that's a racist move altogether. Don't focus on the violence or sex or racism (to other races) in any other medium, no let's focus on the black zombies. That, my friends, is hypocrisy...

Second, the game takes place in Africa and is striving for realism with the new next generation hardware. How many white zombies can you really expect in AFRICA!? Not only that, the game is still early in development and the trailer only shows one or two areas of the game. At some point you KNOW there is going to be an area in the laboratory with PLENTY of zombies of other races for you to kill...but then I guess they'll complain that there aren't enough black scientist zombies which portrays blacks as stupid. After they blasted the game for being racist I would almost expect it.

Third, the game is being made by Asians...it isn't like the main character is Asian and they are making a game about Asian supremacy by making you kill zombies of all the other races. Take a chill pill man...

How about we look at this from the other side of the spectrum? The least we can say, that throughout Capcom's Resident Evil series, zombies have appeared in many different shapes, sizes and colors...that promotes zombie equality doesn't it?

granted I did get that racist vibe the first time I saw the video, but I get that vibe when I watch any Resident Evil Trailer. I think The entire argument is silly, and RE5 looks awesome anyway...

If you've been hiding under a rock for the past 3 days, you'll notice after coming out into the bright sunlight that it is a new world outside...and in the homes of millions of gamers. No, this isn't a Nintendo plug, it is the advent of a new generation in gaming. The demographic for gaming is shifting, and within the next few decades 100% of Americans will play games, or at least have a console of some kind in their homes. What does this have to do with the hardcore gamer? Everything.

The one thing I've noticed about this year's E3 are the events surrounding it in my personal life all parallel that of the gaming market. I attended the World Series of Video games this year, and I was really dissapointed in the mass disorganization that ensued. Naturally, it was a disaster on a massive scale, whoring out gaming to the highest bidder (in the case of WSVG, that would be CBS sports). This mass-marketing to non-gamers through mainstream titles like Gears of War and fight Night Round 3 completely raped the idea of E-sports for me, and it seemed like we were losing control of the market that we built. That's right, WE - The gaming masses - are what build this industry. There are movers and shakers, promoters, publishers, developers and the like but they only make games to cater to our taste, and if it doesn't satisfy the collective hunger for decent software games don't sell.

While the PS2 and X-box held strong the last console generation, the Gamecube seemed left to the dust. 3rd party software wasn't strong, save for a few titles like Resident Evil 4 and Eternal Darkness. Nintendo crafted masterpieces one at a time and many people felt that development times were too long and the console would fall because it was last in the console race. There was even some talk of Nintendo falling the way Sega did after the dreamcast failed. Of course we all know the gamecube had a price drop and ended up doing fairly well, but the uncertainty of the market was evident to the hardcore, and the mainstreaming of games has singled out the hardcore gamer.

When E3 rolled around this year, I wasn't too excited, mainly because of the fact that is was toned down a LOT, but also because I wasn't sure what was going to happen. The PS3 is failing because of its price point, the X360 is a good console but lacks software that interests me and the Wii was completely sold out. All of this compiled with my feelings previously mentioned made me feel awkward. I hadn't sunk my teeth into a good, solid game since the next-gen consoles were released. I was filled with dissapointment.

Since E3 has come and gone, I feel a sudden jolt of excitement. While the statistics were thrown at me, and previews of new games were flashed before my eyes, I felt like I did when I first played Final Fantasy VI...curious about others like myself. Curious to see if others like me existed. Most of all, I felt excited.

My Gaming Clan, Deus Motus, was shafted this year at WSVG and every other tournament we were planning to attend because the major tournaments like CPL and WSVG had dropped Quake 3, our best game, in favor of better looking games that required less skill to attract a new market. After WSVG, Quake 4 professionals stopped playing...Pro gamer "Lost Cauze" got called a sellout for rolling with the shift from Q3 to Q4 and the online servers for the game kicked into full gear and a lot of players (pro gamers included) started playing Quake 3 again just for the love of the game...so much so that I hear a visual patch is coming for Quake 3 to make it 'TV worthy' so they can keep it around...This, coupled with Nintendo's massive sales of the Wii made me realize that nothing is predictable anymore, and it is the gamer that runs the market, not the corporations.

Now that the Wii has sold out Worldwide, publishers are developing custom software for it and gamers are paying attention to it.They are making games FOR US TO PLAY, not just to BUY. Look at the way Sony is handling the PS3 : They crammed as much shit as possible into a system and priced it accordingly thinking that they could ride on the success of the PS2 and the gaming collective gave a resounding "HELL NO" and they had to drop the price....and 500 bones is STILL too much and now they're drowning in failure in the shadow of the Wii (Jack Tretton was so nervous at the press conference...he kind of seemed like a worm on a hook for the entire show).

Why bother writing all this for all of you? Because I'm one of you, and I. AM. EXCITED. The holiday season is truly going to blow us away like no other season before. So many new games, so many new opportunities...I finally feel like the industry is shaping around me, and I've lost the feeling that I can't seem to find a decent game because games are being developed simply to gain capital. This new feeling makes me feel like I've stepped into a new world, I feel young, as if I haven't been playing games for the past 15 years or so.

I wanted to share this feeling with you, and to tell you that the gaming market needs us now more than ever. If you're one of the millions that own a next-gen consoles, you probably already know this, but I say to all of you: Welcome to the new generation of gaming, enjoy your stay. Cheers!

I'm a serious movie-goer, and this summer is really huge in terms of movies...most of the big stuff has passed, but I did get the chance to see a few more movies that I was very pleased with.

Die Hard has been around since the 80's, and Bruce Willis is still kicking ass. Instead of trying to pull the same old crap, they've put a new spin on the plight of John Mclaine. The main story puts Willis against a cyber-terrorist brilliantly played by Timothy Olyphant, who plans on dismantling the system one piece at a time resulting in mass chaos. While the FBI scrambles around to track him, Willis is teamed with a hacker (played by the very funny Justin Long) to get a step ahead of the game. Packed with action scenes and humor, the plot itself is clever, and brings an older Mclaine into the technology age without seeming stupid, and the villain's strategy is very plausible and well executed. The movie keeps you on the edge of your seat and is a welcome comeback for the series. Bruce Willis proves he still has what it takes in the action arena even though he's climbing the age ladder. I give this movie a 5/5 for kicking ass and not holding back....Let's just hope that the next one isn't 'Die Hard 5: Bruce Willis in a casket with an erection"...

Naturally, I wasn't too excited about Transformers. It seemed to me that Hollywood was just running out of ideas and so they chose a popular toy franchise from the 80's to pick at....but, being the special effects buff that I am, i HAD to see it. The movie is decent, and has superb special effects. The theater I saw it in showed the film on a DLP projector, making the film look crystal clear. The movie follows a boy named Sam, who gets his first car that happens to be a robot that can transform shape. He then discovers that his grandfather, an arctic explorer, made a great discovery many years ago that holds the key to the survival of a race of robot-humanoids from another planet (The transformers). The transformers are split into two factions, the Autobots (good guys) and the Decepticons (the bad guys), led by the evil Megatron. While the plot seems really stupid at first glance, it is well executed, and the movie also switches points of view, from the marines out in the desert who first contact the decepticons, to the government and what they are doing to crack the secret behind the robot attacks. The movie is well acted and has some really funny moments to it, and while I don't care much for Michael Bay's movies (Bad boys 2 can suck it), this one is certainly an exception. Well done ol' chap! 4 out of 5.

There are still a few movies I plan on seeing this summer, mainly Sunshine, and i might see the new Resident evil flick this September...we'll see...anyway, I'll be too busy with E3 coming up, you can bet your ass I'll have news posted here.

Also, don't forget to buy a lottery ticket or two, today is 7/7/07 :D