What You Know Isn't The Truth And What The Truth Is You Don't Want To Know

• 27Oct 08

  Versus: Gears of War 2 Trailer (Rendezvous) vs. Killzone 2 Trailer (Helghan)

  Gears of War 2 Trailer vs. Killzone 2 Trailer

  Gears of War 2 - Rendezvous

  

  I have a rendezvous with death, at some disputed barricade, it maybe he should take my hand, and lead me to his dark land, and close my eyes, and quench my breath. I have a rendezvous with death, and I to my pledged word I am true; I shall not fail that rendezvous.

  Killzone 2 - Helghan

  

  Helghan, in and out within a month they said, their weapons no match for our military might, moderate to low resistance, enemy morale at an all time low, I guess somebody forgot to tell the Helghast.

  Opinion

  I think these are the best trailers for each game and love the rendezvous speech in Gears of War 2 but love the cinematic for Killzone 2 because of the mystery with in-game graphics (Gears of War 2 has nice graphics too). I also love how they did the Gears of War 2 trailer as well along with the music. I gave Gears of War a rating of 10/10 because the game was so amazing but Killzone 2 is looking good as well. This isn't about game-play just friendly dispute of who has the better advertisement. I don't want to see how one game is more grey than the other when they both have the same theme, lol. What do you think?

  • Posted Oct 27, 2008 9:57 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 25Oct 08

  Game Critics: When to Review

  When is a game eligible to review?

  

  While a go I posted up impressions of what I thought of the game Socom U.S. Navy Seals: Confrontation and also stated that GameSpot along with a couple of other sites I think it's was too early to review. I'll be explaining why I think it is (too early to review) with some games while others it doesn't matter. I'll determine the middle ground of what is right and what is wrong in my opinion. If I had the money to start my own website of course this would be implemented and I would be stealing a vast majority of GameSpot, IGN, 1up, and Meta Critic users. I personally think if I went through the schooling and did the networking I could have the potential to dominate game journalism. That's for another blog so let's get cracking on determining the middle ground for the right time to review a game.

  Informed Critic + Sensitive Critic + Demanding Critic = an accurate review

  

  An informed critic will know the background information for a particular game to have more appreciation for the game itself. Generally speaking the more you know about people the more you can empathize from where they're coming from. Example if you know there are 20 people working on a game and have a limited budget you can see the product for what it is. You don't expect a Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots killer where the sensitive critic / demanding critic come in. Imagine a professional critic reviewing the online portion of the game before release so no one is online, how accurate would that be? Knowing that professionals can get a chance at looking at game's before release and has contact information with companies all around, I generally expect some sort of professionalism with common sense.

  

  There are three types of games off-line, off-line/online, and online only. With off-line games it's pretty obvious as soon as the game is released is the final coding without any variables to think about. With games like Lair, BioShock, and Uncharted: Drake's Fortune if released with glitches it will have to count in the critic review. There are some that will release patches the day of release that can make it iffy because not everyone has an online connection. Given that they released it on release day I would say include the update in the critic review.

  

  Now with off-line/online games there are a couple of things that can be iffy but I'll start with the easy elements first. As with online only games bottlenecks/traffic can happen with the online aspects of these games due to people logging in at once. Developers can release online modes the day of release and this should be included because in order to play online you have to connect to an internet source. When it becomes blurry is when developers promise something to be in the single campaign with an online update day one. This is iffy because what if they promised something for the off-line aspect through an internet connection. Even though you know there is an online it doesn't mean everyone will be playing online. Example would be Grand Theft Auto IV how many players who own the game are playing online?

  

  Online only games consists you having an internet provider, most also require a subscription fee, and sometimes the demand for the game can be unexpected if not prepared. With games like World of Warcraft, Shadowrun, or Socom U.S. Navy Seals: Confrontation can run into server bottlenecks/traffic due to the number of people logging in. Given that it's only a server problem and the original code for the game itself is fine you have to give them (developer(s)) some slack.

  Conclusion of Common Sense

  

  In the end I basically think if the release code for an off-line can be reviewed day one, with off-line/online games as long as it's server problems only critics shouldn't review the game, especially online only games.

  Related Blog(s): Game Critics, Gamers Defined

  • Posted Oct 25, 2008 8:11 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 23Oct 08

  Motion Controls: Does it have a future?

  SIXAXIS is it really needed?

  

  Sixaxis motion controls feel tacked on and annoying, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Las Vegas, GameSpot, by Jason Ocampo. "Features motion-sensing technology to detect natural and intuitive movements for real-time and high precision interactive play, acting as a natural extension of the user's body, by SCEA. "Tilt control's not difficult to do," says Guy Wilday, head of Sega Racing Studio, on the possibility of tilty-pad gameplay being included in their new version of Sega Rally for PS3. "Fundamentally, though, the whole tilt control thing is rubbish. It's no compensation for rumble." Abysmal control and targeting are a constant struggle and crush every aspect of gameplay, from flight to combat, Lair, GameSpot, Kevin VanOrd. SIXAXIS controls are loose and inaccurate, Lair, X-Play (G4), Morgan Webb. Is Sixaxis really that bad or are developers just taking the wrong approach on the relatively new technology? I'll talk about what developers should do, what games it works / don't work in, and what they should explore once perfected.

  

  I'll flat out say the motion technology in the Wii and PlayStation 3 is here to stay because of two reasons. One, they should allow users to adjust the motion control sensitivity, two, test the motion controls enough where it's precise. I think this is key especially with games that force you to use the motion controls and with the Wii using motion control fully with their games. Usually with some Wii games the drawback is that the developer used the motion controls too much. If the developer(s) decide to use the Sixaxis they need to cater to everyone's learning curve. I personally think the vast majority aren't ready for motion controls because they can't handle it. By setting the motion controls sensitivity this can cater to everyone who isn't as advanced as others. This is present pretty much with every first person shooter (FPS) by setting the analog's sensitivity.

  

  With the games that work with motion control for the PlayStation 3 usually have an option where you can control the motion sensitivity. Games like Warhawk where you can choose to use it or not and if you do you can change the sensitivity. I think this is really needed in flight games so with games like Lair it doesn't have the sensitivity levelling. When I play the game for the most part I'm doing fine with the motion controls (targeting is kind of problematic), but everyone is different. With Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 they gave users an option. I think this game needed it but considering that you can over take the motion controls with the analog sticks/buttons most people won't even use it. Uncharted: Drake's Fortune they used it for balancing where controlling the sensitivity isn't needed so most people can get a grasp of. Resistance: Fall of Man also used it in a way were you didn't need the sensitivity levelling because it wasn't about precision. Socom U.S. Navy Seals: Confrontation also uses the motion controls for the PlayStation 3 and I would say it's a hit and miss if you really need the sensitivity controlling option. Motor Storm is the only racing game that I've played were it works plus you can control the sensitivity. For the most part I'm fine with it yet that doesn't mean the next person is.

  

  Getting back to Warhawk I use the Sixaxis for everything but I wouldn't have used it if you couldn't control the sensitivity levels. I changed the default settings from 50% to 30% because obviously it was too sensitive for me. After adjusting the controls it opened my eyes that Sixaxis is here to stay if implemented correctly. Especially with the tank in Warhawk it took some time to get use to because my mentality is to use the right analog stick for movement and that was a challenge. To change my mentality from thinking one way to another is hard because sometimes your own worst enemy is yourself, lol.

  

  I would love to see if the motion controls could work for controlling the camera angles then one of the analogs would be free for something else. This is one thing I learned with Warhawk when using the motion controls you have to sit up straight at all times. If you're lying down or holding the controller where it's leaning sideways it will constantly throw you off. I would also like to see if FPSs can be controlled by the Sixaxis, now that would change a lot in gaming if it could work. I also have a vision of using the Sixaxis of controlling a person's head in FPSs to look around but haven't figured out what would be the reason to. I also thought about it when sniping instead of coming out you can just move your head from the scope to look around. I would love to see this in a racing game or even to the point where you move your head to check the rear view mirrors in a car or some GPS unit in the car, lol. This can add to the immersion if car games used in-car GPSs for their maps instead of having it displayed on the screen at all times. My ideas are a little wonky but I'm the type that likes exploring new things; I can see it now motion controls replacing the analog sticks in the future, lol.

  

  There you have it, having motion control sensitivity options without broken motion controls in games in the future can be really interesting for motion technology. Do you think I'm on to something or I'm way off?

  • Posted Oct 23, 2008 12:33 am PT
  • Category: Opinion

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 22Oct 08

  Impressions: Socom U.S. Navy Seals: Confrontation

  Socom U.S. Navy Seals: Confrontation

  

  Well to get started I'm a Socom fan and was playing it in the PlayStation 2 days when Sony was first entering the online world. When buying this game I was hoping for the best unfortunately when first getting into it can be a drag. There is a Socom: U.S. Navy Seals Confrontation Game data installer you have to install then a temporary update to compensate for the issues that has arisen since launch. I encountered a corrupted data before anything could commence. Given that before you even start anything the server news gives you a heads up that the team is working on a patch to fix these problems. Just like with Bioshock with the XBOX 360, PC, and PlayStation 3 all having something at launch giving you a heads up about it so I won't review this game until the update. That's one thing I like about this generation they (developers) can fix something that has problems at launch, hey look at Warhawk now. I consider Warhawk to be one of the best online games for the PlayStation 3 and it had hiccups at launch.

  Nothing isn't even recorded so I have no idea why Game Spot reviewed a game that isn't even working, IGN at least has their head on their shoulders. It's these kinds of actions when I start to think GameSpot is bias to be more specifically I would call them a "confirmation bias." This is a person who searches only information to justify their perception. I'll just let it slide because Bioshock is well known it had problems and look at its score. The funny thing is that BioShock is off-line so if there is anything wrong with it, it's because of the game itself. A good example would be buying a sports car and going to try it out when there is trafic everywhere you go. It will take longer to get to the race track but once you're there it's well worth it. With the game Lair I would say it's a different case than Socom: Confrontations because the controls were broken. Controls can't break because of bottle neck servers, lol or can it?

  PlayStation Blue Tooth Headset

  

  Specs.

  Battery type: Lithium-ion polymer battery

  Voltage: 3.7 VDC

  Capacity: 190mAH

  Operating temperature: 41* F - 95* (5* C- 35*C)

  Headset weight: 0.69 oz (19.5g)

  The official PlayStation 3 blue tooth headset works better than I thought it would. It's easy to use, has a mute button, and your voice comes out crystal clear when chatting. This is bundled in with every retail copy of Socom: Confrontation game. With all those people criticizing PlayStation Network (PSN) about no one having a headset they haven't played Socom: Confrontation before. If anyone is interested in buying a headset for gaming and your cell phone as well buy this headset that will be available I think next month stand alone. Another thing with the headset you can charge it using the Sixaxis charging cord directly to the headset or to the charging base. The part that I like is that you can still use it while it's charging on the charging base. I highly recommend PlayStation 3 users to buy a ('15 feet) charging cable if you want to charge it directly to the blue tooth headset because the one that comes with the PlayStation 3 is too short.

  

  My Experience

  To tell you the truth if you're a Socom fan like me you're going to like this game because it brings enough from the old game while changing the ****a little bit. Overall the game-play is a little slower than its predecessor on the PlayStation 2. The maps are very well designed and are very large with many choke points to get your enemies. The create a character isn't as deep as I would have liked it to be considering everything is focused on ground combat. What I noticed right away is that the sounds in the game are amazing with authentic sounds throughout. Lol, the best part of Socom are the taunts and it wouldn't be a Socom game with the victory dances. After the update is finally live this game will get me off of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. With the release of this game the PlayStation 3 is getting closer to surpassing XBOX Live especially when Sony is advertising their network on the game covers now. In the end once you finally get into a game it's great everything works but the servers/stats. It isn't hard to get into servers but everything is always full and can only hold 256 players per channel (region). All I have left to say is bring on the patch so I can add it to my most played list Slant Six Games.

  Related Blog: Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots

  • Posted Oct 22, 2008 10:33 am PT
  • Category: Games

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 17Oct 08

  PlayStation Network: Five Things To Add

  Five Things to add to the PlayStation Network

  

  I. Expand User Profiles

  

  Sony should add one more section/page to the profiles for users to elaborate on anything they want to share to the public. Something like the biography that the XBOX 360 Gamer Cards have where you're able to write a short paragraph of anything. Sony already adds a section to the user profiles when you look at the players met while playing online. So it would be interesting to have some sort of real bio that PlayStation Network users can have. Lol, I also find it weird that you can't use characteristics to fill the speech bubble. At least make us have one complete sentence or allow us to fill the whole speech bubble. I just want Sony to extend the online profiles with a Sony twist of course, lol.

  II. Expand PlayStation Video Store Regions/Products

  

  So far I have not even experienced the PlayStation Video Store and is only available in a America leaving us Canadians in the dust. I'm not one to purchase motion pictures online but I would surely rent some movies to test out the service. In simple terms expand on the video service beyond America would be nice, lol. It would be nice to have music available through the PlayStation store especially game related music. So far there is only Lair I want more game music even if I have to pay.

  III. Expand Voice Chat

  

  What I find sometimes a lot of gamers are shy to talk so why not bring back voice masking to the online world again. I always thought that this would be cool in a horror game and you took the voices of the characters in the game. You would only hear your friend through the game speakers not the headset so proximity voice chat would be added. That would be cool to; to be able to mask your voice as the characters you're playing as during co-op. This was taken out of XBOX Live because it was considered to be annoying to most.

  IV. Expand Messaging

  

  It would also be nice to leave voice messages on top of the images that we can send to friends. What would be interesting would be sending video messages. Since Sony is has added features for developers to allow gamers to record game-play to upload to YouTube. It would be nice to use those same videos to send to friends. If possible being able to invite a friend to a game you're in and automatically enter into the lobby without even going through with searching for the lobby yourself. Also I would like to have one on one video chat while playing a game would be cool; obviously I wouldn't be able to talk to anyone but them. It would be cool to have some sort of cross chat with computer applications like MSN or Yahoo without Yellow Dog Linux.

  V. Cross Media Bar (XMB) Access During Movies

  

  It would be nice to access everything on the XMB while a movie is playing or even chatting of some sort. If Sony could have video chat while playing having an option to make the video feed transparent to help with the movie watching.This would also mean to be remained signed in and having the options to turn off notifications if you prefer it. This way you're always connected to your friends if you choose to be. Maybe this way Sony can change the DRM (Digital Rights Management) when purchasing a movie from the PlayStation 3. From what I hear you can only download the movie twice once from the first purchase and another after calling Sony. If you were able to remain signed in then Sony could manage it like Warhawk or Socom U.S. Navy Seals: Confrontation games.

  Conclusion

  There it is some things I want to change I originally had only three reasons then extended to two more reasons. Overall I'm pretty happy with the service so it's hard for me to complain about it and most people complain about the PlayStation 3, it's usually prejudice. Lol, I do make comments here and there just to contradict the opposing articles. The last time I remember doing that was about rumours of Microsoft making a motion sensing controller. I made valid points with a negative attitude just to see how gamers would react. So far no one has ever really brought it up that is interesting to me because that is what you call sensationalism folks. Anyways this is what I think should be added if possible by Sony.

  • Posted Oct 17, 2008 7:06 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 11Oct 08

  Society: North American Cultural (Ethnic Origin) Problems Part: I-I

  Reality vs. Corruption

  

  During the ice age the Aboriginals cross-ed an iced bridge from Asia to Canada where they started to head south downwards to America. Wrong, Aboriginals were here for a long time even before some strange magical iced bridge. Aboriginals are a cross of Indian and Asian because the Europeans thought they were in India. Wrong, Aboriginals have nothing to do with the Asian (race) community nor the Indian (race) community the Europeans just named them that because of poor navigation. Europeans didn't need help of the Aboriginals and are as powerful today because of their dedication. Wrong, the Aboriginals helped the Europeans (explores, traders, trappers) settle in the new land and as Europeans adapted to agriculture livelihood more European immigrants settled. The Aboriginal's way of life wasn't different from the European's and got along nicely. Wrong, the Aboriginal's attitudes way of life differed from the European's, but with the European's superior technology (example: Railroads, guns), larger numbers they used/implied brute force to coincide with the treaty process. The treaty process was the remove the Aboriginals out of the way of the European settlement and so began the Euro-Canadian domination of Aboriginals in Canada. I'll be talking about the issues in the past to present, how things should really be, and tragedy of the corruption's outcome.

  

  Let's start by, the French being challenged by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713 and Conquest on the Plains of Abraham in 1759. Eventually by the time of Confederation there were two social groups (English/French) and was overall being controlled by the British. John Porter's definition of the "Charter group" ignored the existence of Aboriginals in the already resident in the territory, the point of the charter group was in control (immigrant) ethnic groups to make resident in unoccupied territory. The British had higher status and the French had lower status that resulted in enforcing subordinate status/power to the Natives/other ethnic groups. Several features are a result of Canadian's society cause of this. One, the framework of the new society was based on British institutions and traditions even if other ethnic groups didn't appreciate (Native). Two, British allowed francophones (French-Canadians) to keep some control over "Quebec" and with the conflicts of the French/English having different interpretations of ethnic power relationships. This resulted in two official languages due to the fact the French had lower status French became the official second language of Canada. Three, due to the ethnic identities, conflict of loyalties between charter groups it triggered a pattern for other ethnic groups to keep their identity too. The French/British were in conflict it had a greater built-in tolerance for perpetuation of ethnic identities.

  

  The francophones over the years have sustained their ethnic identity through the province of Quebec and is gaining more political power to do so. The Anglophones (English-Canadians) feel that they're part of the Canadian minority linguistic making them feel threatened by the French community. The Quebec government able to make ethnic claims it inspired and Ukrainians in Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, and Alberta eventually obtaining language support in the school systems. This lead to francophones trying the same thing leading to rejection. Inuit in Nunavut have some school instruction, as well as broadcasting in their native tongue. The one important effect was the segregation seen in the urban areas.

  It's important because 94% of all immigrants who arrived in the '90s located in census metropolitan areas, and 73% chose Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal. The least segregated was the Western/Northern Europeans, Central/Eastern Europeans with Italians somewhat segregated, and the Asians/Blacks to be the most segregated. As you can see there is segregation between different Caucasian groups, to the different races like Asian/Black that is still present today. With many movements to make immigrants to feel like home away from home is deriving from the importance of the Aboriginal's culture.

  

  Immigration can be looked at in waves and I will assure you this was not random, but intended by the government still to this day. First wave, the British Isles, European (White/Caucasian); second wave, Asian, Middle Easterns, and South/Central America; third wave, by races other than white followed by Native People, French, British, and Europeans. This all happened because the government wanted to express the policy concerning suitability of the migration group. This lead to favouritism (Elitism) from towards British people and North European countries to come over settle in Canada. In 1967 a point system introduced to evaluate the merits of potential immigrants. Eventually lead to discrimination so a new Immigration Act introduced in 1978.

  Immigration Streams 1956-60:

  Europe: 57.2%

  United Kingdom: 28.3%

  United States: 6.9%

  Asia: 2.6%

  Oceania: 1.7%

  South & Central America: 1.3%

  Africa: 1.0%

  Caribbean: 0.9%

  Immigration Streams 1998-2002:

  Asia: 51.47%

  Europe and the United Kingdom: 19.1%

  African and the Middle East: 18.7%

  South & Central America: 8.0%

  United States: 2.6%

  Source: Statistics Canada Catalogue 91-527 and Citizenship & Immigration Canada, Facts and Figures 1998 and 2002: Immigration Overview.

  

  I will stop here for the past, but this will eventually lead to Canada having no cultural identity since it's catering to immigrants ethnicities. Don't get me wrong keeping your ethnic identity is fine, but changing the Nationalities' ethnic origin to me is wrong. This should get you to think about what North America is and what kind of identity is being represented? Why Canadians and Americans are allies, yet the people in power for each country is just settlement disputes. Almost to the point where War is caused by immigration differences between Caucasian vs. Caucasian (Canada) and Caucasian vs. World (America).

  Mental Note: If wrong feel free to correct me.

  Related Blog: Ethnicity

  • Posted Oct 11, 2008 4:07 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 7Oct 08

  Explanation: Gamers Defined

  Reasons for my Choices

  

  Casual Gamer: A permissive person who plays at irregular / infrequent intervals.

  • Neutral Gamer: A type of person who really enjoys the time playing.

  • Impulsive Gamer: A type of person who just plays seeing it as second nature.

  With the "Casual Gamer" I wanted it to be a definition of how they somehow happen to play games by chance instead of choice or is unconcerned with video games altogether. I also used my experience with another medium and how tolerant I am towards it. I don't go looking for the medium, but it comes by me I'll watch if everyone is doing it.

  

  Hardcore Gamer: A Person who knows the basics of the industry, is an informed gamer, generally challenges themselves/sets goals, knows what they want, and strives to get it, is what centrally drives them to games.

  • Cyber Athlete/Professional (Pro) Gamer: Is a type of person who plays games for money almost to the point where it's like a career or looking for money by playing video games.

  • Retro Gamer: Is a type of person who enjoys playing/collecting vintage games and can't live without the backward-compatibility/emulators on platforms.

  • Import Gamer: Is a type of person who loves playing games that aren't from their region even if it's in a different language.

  • Elite Gamer: Is a type of person who knows a lot about their particular platform, thinks it's the best no matter what, and would rather be caught dead instead of playing games on the rival platform(s).

  • Fanatic (Fan-Base) Gamer: Is a type of person who can be a follower in numbers/sales (National Purchase Diary), games (franchises, series), genres (Real-Time Strategy, First Person Shooter), developer(s)/person(s), products (toys, special controllers, special canned beverages), and overall have an intense liking, occasionally has an overwhelming obsession.

  Mental Note: There might be other types of hardcore/casual gamers.

  

  What I'm going to talk about here are "Elite Gamers" and "Fanatic Gamers" to show you why I made them significantly different. I did mention why in the original, but I'm hoping this can make people understand better. Fan, is a devotee of a pop star, sport, or hobby. Fanatic, a person who is excessively enthusiastic about something. Elite, most powerful, rich, or gifted members of a group; a belief that society should be governed by a small group of superior people. I gave this definition because I wanted to show that being a fanatic doesn't necessarily mean you have negative qualities. Being a fanatic just means you are an ardent supporter of something. In the gaming community for some reason sees being a "fanatic" means you possess negative qualities.

  

  A good example would be in a rugby game you'll have some players you genuinely get hyped up for a game, while others love the sport they just don't show it as openly. A movie in 2005 was about a diehard Red Sox fan with a girlfriend in "Fever Pitch" starring Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon. A lot of people will say a fanatic will go beyond the social norms. Then you have to ask yourself, what is the social norm and who defines it? Is talking in slang deriving from the "social norm" is being gothic deriving from the "social norm?" To me this varies on person to person even down to profession, age, or intelligence can determine that "social norm."Someone with a Ph.D (Doctor of Philosophy) can talk very different from a teenager or someone who's married with kid(s) compared to someone who single with no kid(s).

  

  Without being too sidetracked there will be something we all get obsessed over with and I think being a hardcore gamer would require some form of fanaticism. Considering the title "hardcore gamer" should imply that you have some kind of intense liking, would it make sense if you moderately like video games still being called hardcore? In the movie "Fever Pitch" a fanatic doesn't necessarily mean you're ready to fight someone who is a fanatic of something opposite in the medium you're interested in. You can easily say anyone who dresses up as a video game character derives from the social norm, one, they're grown adults two, it isn't Halloween. At the same time wouldn't that be the social norm in that particular place or industry? At the same time some people can cross the line even for gamers (COD4 Psycho) on YouTube than there are the gamers who boost/smack talk/taunt that isn't crossing the line, hey what are achievements / trophies for?

  

  It's obvious of why I would connect what is a fanatic in the gaming industry to "elitism" and just twisted it a little. Instead of being upper **** they just think they're upper **** based on the platform they choose, think it should dominate, and will never touch the rivals' platform.

  In the end it will depend on what you consider the "social norm" and creating new definitions to fit those particular criteria. As each generation grows up we're as a society is becoming more acceptable to different types of people. Women are being seen as human beings and taking care of a child can be the equivalent to two full-time jobs, while society understands war can make men develop psychological side effects. Eventually I think the "social norm" will be defined by a psychologist and not by society itself.

  Related blog: Gamers Defined

  • Posted Oct 7, 2008 1:24 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 3Oct 08

  Society: Gamers Defined

  Defining a Gamer

  

  Game - amusement or pastime; contest for amusement; single period of play in a contest; an activity distinct from work with rules, challenges, and interactivity; scheme or trick; animals or birds hunted for sport or food; their flesh. -v gamble. -adj brave; willing. Gamely adv gaming gambling. Gamekeeper, person employed to breed game and prevent poaching. Gamesmanship, art of winning by cunning practices without actually cheating. Gamer - ? There is no formative definition of a gamer let alone what is a casual to hardcore gamer until now. Well I'll be trying to define it, while at the same time categorizing/defining gamers. Whether they're athletes or not will be for another time, but for now I'll tell you the categories and what/why I go into a specific category.

  

  Since many words come from other words it'll be natural that I use pre-existing words to define words in the gaming community. What I find with people who try to define what is casual and hardcore they don't break it down into sub-categories. Let's start with the title "Casual Gamer" is just a permissive person who plays at irregular / infrequent intervals. I would say there are two types of casual gamers the one (Neutral Gamer) that really enjoys the time playing and the other (Impulsive Gamer) who just goes with the flow seeing it as second nature. Now going to the hardcore gamers where I think many people should really use sub-categories since there are so many different levels.

  

  As for the main category the "Hardcore Gamer" is someone who knows the basics of the industry, is an informed gamer, generally challenges themselves/sets goals, knows what they want, and strives to get it; is what centrally drives them to games. I've been searching the internet for what people thought and will put other types of gamers under the hardcore category. First up will be the cyber-athlete/professional (pro) gamer, is the type of person who plays games for money almost to the point it's like a career, or is looking for money by playing video games. Retro gamer, is a person who enjoys playing/collecting vintage games and can't live without the backwards compatibilities on consoles/emulators. Import gamer, is a person who loves playing games that aren't from their region even if it's a different language than theirs.

  Elite gamer, is a person who knows a lot about their particular platform, thinks it's the best no matter what, and would rather be caught dead instead of playing games on the rival platform(s). Fanatic gamer (Fan-base), is a person who can be a follower of the numbers/sales, games (franchises, series), genres (Real Time Strategy, First Person Shooter), developer(s)/person(s), products (toys, special controllers, special canned beverages) and overall has an intense liking, occasionally has an overwhelming obsession. This term is altered in the gaming community for some odd reason, but I personally think it (Fan-boy/girl) should be called "Elitism" not "Fanatics'." I believe being a fanatic draws gamers together like Trekkers /Trekkies at Star Trek conventions.

  

  As you can see being a hardcore gamer isn't defined by how much you play, but your incentive to play. With all hardcore gamers they're well informed about the gaming industry otherwise they wouldn't be able to import games knowing the names of the games they want, or even knowing how to play/purchase games from previous generations. Remember now this isn't a surgical operation where you have to meet certain criteria to be called hardcore; example playing a single game for at least 6-12 hours straight. You can also be more than one if you think you just don't fall into one type of hardcore gamer, but at least gives you an idea of where I'm heading with this.

  

  What type of gamer am I? Well I'm the hardcore fanatic gamer and people will most likely strongly dissagree with my definition or think I'm really arrogant. Well I'm proud to be a fanatic, but I wouldn't say I'm authoritative. At the same time I do try to set new standards to open people's minds. Technically speaking you can create a Neutral "Hardcore" Gamer category if you really want to be categorized, where you don't really do anything special. For the most part most gamers are "Fanatic Gamers" if you really think about it. I'm more of a hardcore - fanatic I play games to beat them, have fun, and go online. You can call me a fanatic gamer because I'm a fan of Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo Series with many more on the list. You can also go by genre and say I play a lot of third peson shooters, racing games, and first person shooters.

  I'm also well informed about games in the sense that I know what's coming out, what the game's features are, and have account(s) on gaming sites for updates. What I think makes me a hardcore gamer is that I strive for the challenge, yet that challenge varies from person to person. I usually play games no lower than Normal, but usually play on the hardest difficulty settings. Another hardcore gamer might want to beat a game under a certain time or collecting achievements/trophies in their games. A casual gamer wouldn't be interested in getting too involved in the game. Hence, the lack of depth in with games that is labelled as casual, pickup and plays mechanics.

  I find that when a journalist or user tries to define what is a casual gamer to a hardcore gamer they list criteria, not characteristics. A combination of qualities distinguishing an individual should be the definition. Just like in real life I'm not so much a sports fanatic so I'm a casual sports person. Yes, believe it or not I don't enjoy watching too many sports besides fighting or unless I'm watching myself play sports, lol. Then you'll have you sports fanatics where they check the stats of their teams to heart, collect the cards, or even jerseys of their favourite team/player. For the fact I'm even doing this shows how serious I am on the topic that will automatically ****fy me as a hardcore gamer because of how much depth I have on the topic.

  As you can see a casual gamer plays games in irregular / infrequent intervals, hardcore gamers have priorities, and why I should be called a hardcore gamer.

  Mental Note: There might be other types of hardcore gamers, but wanted to make this short as possible, if you can call it that?

  Related Blog(s): Gamer Critics, Gamer Fanatics

  • Posted Oct 3, 2008 8:53 pm PT
  • Category: Opinion

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 29Sep 08

  Technology: Chimera (Science)

  Chimeras can have the answers?

  

  Unlike the video game Resistance: Fall of Man that show creatures called "Chimera" in the real world a chimera is an organism with genes from two different species; chimp/human, or goat/sheep. The question for you readers does this "Eclyse" ****fy as a chimera? Unlike the game Resistance: Fall of Man where human and alien DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) to make their enemies, what about human and chimpanzee? Why would someone even consider this kind of research, are they trying to recreate cave species all over again? Well it has to do with stem cell research where a couple of doctors are questioning, what makes you human? The funny thing is that biotechnology companies have patent on certain procedures like cloning. At the same time you can't own a patent that has some kind of human involved in other words would mean slavery. I'm talking about of course embryonic stem (ES) cells research.

  

  Definitions of humans would be based on the individual, philosophers have varied widely in their definitions of what is human, ranging from Descartes' definition of a human as a "thinking being" to Aristotle's "political animal." For a theologian, a human being's defining characteristic may be that it has a special relationship to God or to others. Some sociologists have defined the human being as an economic animal or as a creature of a particular social context. A biologist may define human beings as all individuals descended from an original ancestral human population. Then there were cases of feral children where a child has been kept in isolation to a certain point that they can't speak. Psychologist would say a human is a person with empathy, ability to communicate, and to learn. Some movies have questioned this with the original called "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" in 1956. The whole premise of the movie is to have a perfect world kind of what Hitler wanted, but to be perfect was to be almost not human. They would show no empathy, emotions, almost like robots just doing their duty nothing else.

  

  I'll stop here because I just want to focus on the idea of creating something with other species to find cures. Some scientists / students say it's ok as long as you do everything before a baby is created, while non-science majors will most likely say it's unethical especially the Christianity Faith. It's an interesting topic that can make people turn just knowing what's in movies can come to life.

  

  I now leave you with the human-bear-pig chimera that was created by scientists at Linden Labs in San Francisco, California. This eventually lead to pluripotent stem cells (iPS) by treated it with a retroviral induction.

  "This is quite an accomplishment for which I have great confidence will lead to continued advances in human-animal chimera production," says Dr. Eli Vance, chief science officer of Linden Labs. "We soon hope to commercialize this technology and realize our continued vision by which any human may realize a physical chimera life****"

  I thought this was interesting to talk about since it's the topic in my school right now and I'm very interested in it. I'm leaning more to psychology than sciences like my sister (biochemist) because I find the mind more fascinating.

  Hint: Look at the date on the human-bear-pig.

  • Posted Sep 29, 2008 6:50 pm PT
  • Category: Technology

  • Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 20Sep 08

  Society: Game Critics

  The Performances of the Critics

  

  The video game industry is very similar to a theatrical performance, to the built up, right down to the performances of the audience. The Prologue is like the elements that are proceeding to the play is like a developer introducing a new game to the mass public. The play itself is to entertain the audience in turn is the real performance and is very similar to video games. Developers make games to generate a good performance out of the audience. Once the game is in the mass public's eyes it doesn't end there. Just like theatre the play begins in the minds of the creator(s) and ends in the repository minds / memories of the gamers'. As any theatre teacher will say, "The stage is just the focal point where the transmission takes place in the form of communication known as theatrical performance." Like in theatre some games remain in our minds for days, months, or years to come. It's when we ask ourselves did this game changed, moved, or disappointed me. Did the developers just do their jobs to fit the criteria of a game to just call it a day, or did they try their best to immerse you into the experience. Is the game as fun as Halo, as epic as Metal Gear Solid, or as exciting as God of War? I'll be talking about the different types of critics, what I think critics should consider, and my whole opinion of the world of critics today.

  

  In any industry there is professional criticism and there is amateur criticism. The differences between these two critics is that one specializes in journalism while the other seen as a pastime than a profession. The professionals will be in newspapers, editors on gaming sites, and are scholars of some sort. They went through the education to get where they're now otherwise you're considered an amateur. I did not take journalism so therefore I'm an amateur like many other gamers on this site. At the same time you can be a professional critic, but not an informed gamer. I don't mean that you have to spend hours upon hours playing video games, but at least have a sense of how the industry works.

  

  When going into a game I think critics should consider being observant, informed, sensitive, demanding, and articulate. Being observant is having an opened mind and is going into the game as if it's a clean slate for the developer. It'll be one thing going into a game just to say to yourself I have to sit through this garbage, you'll be surprised of the results. Being an informed critic is more on the professional side of things for the fact that not everyone will buy every single game available.

  How many amateurs played every single PlayStation 2 game so that they can compare it to others? Being a sensitive critic is questing, not self-satisfied; kind, not self-absorbed; and overall understands we all need helping hands in this never-ending adventure of development. Being a demanding critic is holding the developers to its highest standards in other words don't expect a 20 person crew to create a Killzone 2 / Halo 3 killer. Lastly an articulate critic is to express one's thoughts with precision, clarity, and grace. Simply saying "I hate this" or "I love this" is j