(spoilers ahead for kotor read at your own risk)

So for the PC Gamer club I've recently been playing Fallout, and like most RPG's I'm faced with the good versus evil decision, and as always I play a good character. Somehow I find myself always choosing to be the do-gooder in video games when given a choice. I guess it goes back to the days when I played KOTOR for the first time. I hadn't heard much about the game during launch, but my friend at the time was raving on and on about it. "Dude you gotta play the dark side at least once, the ending is the best!" I remember him saying, so I picked up a copy and went on my way.

It wasn't hard for me to play as an evil character early on, although a bit troubling. I ran through the game blackmailing doctors, telling people to piss off and generally being a douche to everybody I knew. But it got harder and harder as it went along, because as I met each character that joined me, I started feeling more and more of a bond between my jedi and his pixelated companions. It got deathly hard when I met Bastila. She was a bit of a prude, and had her faults, but you could see in her heart (well as much as you can see in a game) that she was internally struggling within herself to do the right thing and stay on the light side, but one push and she could be turned. However, being promised this epic dark side ending, I pushed on, coaxing her further and further into the dark side.

At some point in the middle of the game we become separated and Darth Malak essentially tortures her into the dark side. When you rescue her, she is void of life and full of hate. Her character became an unemotional husk, willing to follow you, darth revan lord of the sith, to the bowels of hell. I was heart broken, yet I pushed on. The darkness grew more and more. I stole 5000 credit dinner plates from starving widows, mind controlled Zaalbar the Wookie into killing his best friend Mission Vao. I basically did things in the game that churned my stomach, all in the name of an epic ending.

Once I raged into the last mission and beat Darth Malak, the ending cutscene began to roll. Horray, I was master of the universe, controlling hordes of unstoppable killing machines from my factories, with my lifeless apprentice at my side. But as undisputed rulers of the universe go, I didn't feel like one. I felt like pure scum.

I started a second play-through immediately. I had to see the lighter side of the universe, to do all things I should have instinctively done the first time around. I kept the secrets of the doctor that was harboring fallen rebels. I helped the underworld denizens find a cure for their horrible mutating plague. I gave to charity when needed, championed for causes of all nature, stood up for the weak and helped the poor. And most of all, I reconciled all my wrong-doings with Bastila.

The positive relationship I had with Bastila is still, to this day one of the most moving gaming experiences I've had to date. By setting an example of doing what's right, I was able to cast away any doubts in her mind that the light side was the right path to take. And I was rewarded for it. After a few adventures together, I got her to open up to the possibility of a relationship, and the first kiss she and my light side jedi shared; a private moment in the cockpit of the Ebon Hawk, away from public. The first time she told him she loved him was more uplifting to me then any relationship between my character and another in a game. I was literally choked up.I felt empowered by her trust in my character. 
 
Bioware did an amazing job in conveying her emotions towards your character. Because of the way they developed the story, wrote the dialogue for Bastilla, and the sitation they placed her in, you knew that it was hard for her to even express any emotion towards your character. Any strong feeling, be it love or hate, was dangerous for a Jedi. So when she finally admits to you and your character she has these strong feelings, it made it all that more special.

My heart sank when she was kidnapped for a second time because I knew what she was going to turn into when I rescued her. But my gamers heart soared when I was able to show her mercy and bring her back to the light side after our confrontation. And the remark she gave about my Jedi being strong for the both of them. It made that experience 1000 times more memorable then ruling 1000000000000000 stars in 100000000000000000000000 galaxies ever would. It was certainly more memorable then the 2-minute soft-core porn scene in Dragon Age with Leliana or Morrigan, or the soft-core porn scene in Mass Effect. Or the clothed soft-porn scene in Mass Effect 2. I mean come on Bioware, grow up. What happened to you guys, you used to make video game relationship magic, now it's just a contest to see who can get closest to hot coffee without going over the line.
 
But I digress.

The good ending wasn't flashy. There weren't minions to command, starships to pilot, civilizations to crush. But I didn't mind. My jedi received a medal surrounded by the people that he cared about,and that cared about him. And and the end of the day, that was good enough for me.

From that day forward I've been playing good characters in every game that gives me a choice. My philosophy is, in video game worlds (much as in real life) most of the time you are cast into a world that is facing impending doom. Why make it worse?

What do you guys think? Do you tend to play good or evil characters? Am I as big a weenie as I think I am for caring so much about a game relationship? What's the most memorable emotional tie you've had in a game?

After you have finished watching your favorite Home and Garden network television show, and feel it's time for a "new look", before calling in your husband/boyfriend/brother/uncle/father/co-worker/other male figure in your life to help you rearrange the furniture like you saw it on tv, please keep these things in mind:
 
- You are working on borrowed time, labor, and patience.  Keep moving requests down to two or less "shuffles" per session.
 
- If the layout doesn't look good in your head, it's not going to look good in the room.
 
- We thought it looked great before, and we think it looks great the 82nd time you asked us to move it. We will agree with any arrangement as it will quickly end our torment. Please don't ask.
 
- We have no idea what "color flow" means. Refer to above statement.
 
- Do not offer reward sex unless it requires more than minimal participation to enjoy. 
 
Thank you.
 
Signed,
              one dislocated shoulder.

 
Yes. But we are made, not born. Allow me to explain:
 
I've been PC gaming since 92, which makes me ancient. During the weekend, I took a trip down memory lane with the remake version of Monkey Island. Oh Monkey Island, how I loved you so. I remember walking through every scene in the original game, using my imagination to flesh out the game's backgrounds in areas where technology wasn't available to fill in. Before we had truly immersible  game environments, we had pixelated slideshows and our imagination. I remember thinking "maybe this time around I'll find an extra pixel in the pirate boat that will allow me to control it and roam the scurly seas". "Maybe this time I'll find enough grog for Stan to sell me the GOOD boat instead of the crappy 82 Pento boat. Of course it never happened. 
 
But this isn't a blog about  the lack of imagination in today's  games, that's for another day. Back then, the selection of games was extremely limited. We had one or two major development studios per  game genre. Lucasarts and Sierra owned the adventure games, ID was a fledling company, making the worlds first batch of quality FPS with their "Doom" series; they were good times. They were cheap times. There wasn't any real internet back then, so we used to get our gaming previews and announcements through the mail. Lucasarts used to show their upcoming AAA titles like Sam and Max and Day of the Tentacle through classy mini newspapers that came with the purchase of one of their games. If you needed a hint, you would call the 1-900 (yes that's a 9) for more information at $3.75/minute. 
 
When you purchased a game back then, you got your $50 worth. You had to, because that would be one of the very few games out at the time. If you beat the game, you replayed it, again and again. We replayed the games because we loved them. We got to know them intimately. And we did, because they had charm. They had to. Developers had to work hard for your money, not because they were in competition with other studios, but because the quality of games had to be top-notch in order to entertain you for 2 or 3 replays without using the collectible items system or achievement points like today's games. Games were based not on graphics and physics, but superb dialogue, witty situational, out-of-this-world settings and characters that stuck with you long after you completed your playthroughs. If you look at early gaming, it is undeniably similar to the early days of movies; before the "pew pew pew" "BOOM" special effects we have today. Wow I feel old. I'm going to take a break to shake my fist at the clouds. 
 
Flash forward to today and it's an entirely different world. Games have gotten bigger and bolder. The industry has grown and the fanbase alongside it. With the industry, and the fanbase, the number of games has grown exponentially. Games try to appeal to such a  mass market, they've lost their identities. How many times have we played a game labeled "FPS Shooter" which becomes an RPG and driving game somewhere in the middle? This generation hasn't come down with a case of ADD, the industry has made us that way. 
 
I game on the PC, 360, and PS3. My gaming schedule since the holidays last year looks something like this: I played Dragon Age before spending time with Demon's Souls. Uncharted 2 I was able to wait off because I play it with my brother and our friend when we get together. Right after Demon's Souls, I rushed past Mass Effect 2, but not before replaying Mass Effect 1 to remember the story. After Mass Effect 2 I jumped to Bioshock 2, but didn't finish it because I don't remember what happened two years ago with Bioshock 1. Assassin's Creed 2 came out, and didn't finish that because Battlefield Bad Company 2 and the RUSE beta came out.  Oh wait, Heavy Rain? I've been waiting for that for 3 years....  OMG LOOK AT THOSE CRYSIS 2 SCREENS!!11111  What's that email from Fileplanet ? You're inviting me to the closed BLUR beta?  Steam pops up on my desktop declaring Metro 2033 and Dragon Age Awakenings will be available on Tuestday.  What's that random gaming site #472? Did somebody say God of War 3 was out? Was that before or after FInal Fantasy XIII? A week apart? goddammit.
 
What's the end result? A ridiculous amount of AAA titles that are barely started or half-finished because the next game was super-shiny. Unfortunately that's the way it has to be. There are no love letters to gamers from developers anymore. They've turned into "dear John" letters. Games that cater to a large audience, and if they fail it's not a major loss because the next big game from developer x is coming down the pipeline. Have we developed ADD? No, they're just too many "shinies'"on the ground.

Ah, commander Sheppard I have missed you. 
 
Not as much as the scattered plethora of random female alien ass across the universe. I mean seriously, the guy dies, comes back and gets more women then a gynecologist. Assistant female? Blue female? Human female designed to be perfect? Even a female that can't live outside of her suit for more than 10 minutes without catching an infection is on-board to receive some Sheppard lovin'. Of course romantic interests are nothing new in Bioware games. Gamers have been swapping virtual body fluids in their games for more than a decade. When Bioware ran out of original boy-on-girl girl-on-boy action, they switched it up to guy-on-guy and girl-on-girl. And when that went stale, throw in some elves! Yes, guy-on-elf-guy and girl-on-elf-guy was the latest sexual craze in Dragon Age: Origins.
 
Some people argue "why romance at all?" After all it is a  role-playing game; tits and personal involvement are only getting in the way of saving the universe, kicking ass and taking names.They may be right to some degree; however, developers are always trying to get their players fully engaged in their stories. After all, when you make a 60+ hour commitment to an RPG you want the game to keep you interested, and one of the best ways of doing that is throwing inhumanly-perfect scattered polygonal ass
 around.  The only thing Bioware has shied away from in recent years is the only natural evolution of sex in gaming: threesomes and/or orgies. Bioware games give you choices; they give you all of the choices in the world, sometimes more than how people can handle. So it's hard to think that with all the choices you have in their games, whether it be saving the princess or shooting her in between her spoiled little eyes, we still haven't seen any real promiscuity out of the games' main characters. Why is that? Would they somehow offend more people that way? Is gay being cutting-edge and trendy, while a game in which you can cheat on your partner going too far?
 
But enough of talking about tits. That's not the real reason I admire Commander Sheppard, with his hair-raising motivational speeches and space vagina at every port. Not even close. It's Sheppard's world. The vanilla, cookie-cutter, Dennis the Menace choice system in the worlds  that have plagued Bioware since the beginning fo time.  In Bioware's universe, every action taken by yourself whether it be "good" or "bad" works itself to an outcome that is either good or bad in direct respect to the moral or inmoral choice you've taken. In other words, you're a nice guy to everyone and thing works out. If you're an ass to everyone, things still work out; you just sounded like an asshole in the process. If Bioware is really to step up to the next level of RPG and story-telling, they need to shy away from this system and start taking some chances. The Mass Effect moral choice dialogue wheel has been praised as one of the biggest break-throughs in RPG history. But why? What is it that makes the wheel so revolutionary? The fundamental good/evil choices are still the same: the only thing that has changed is the layout of the options, not the options themselves. In my opinion, the wheel is actually a step backwards: I know every dialogue option on the top is a "good" answer, while every dialogue on the bottom is a "Bad" answer. 
 
And that's where overseas, mostly European RPGs tend to shine. I remember one time I was in the middle of playing the Witcher and I was faced with a moral choice: a poor lost little elf had been stealing supplies from the back of the local store. I caught him red-handed, and he stated that he was taking the goods back to his refugee village to feed all of the poor run-away slave elves and their fluffy bunny pets. "Ok," I thought to myself. "Cute elves, check, slavery, check. fluffy bunnies, check." I was playing a "good" character at the time, and so let him go thinking that he would go back to his village and sing songs of the brave hero that allowed their elf brother to bring back delicious treats. Well, it didn't work out that way. Turns out the elf was running some sort of pedophile ring, and he needed the goods to fund it. Did that automatically make me a bad guy for unknowingly funding elf pedobears? If I saw that elf later on in the game, would I kill him knowing this information? Was this information even true, or was it given to me by one of the elve's ex-slavers? I didn't know, and I probably never would. However, I felt refreshed by the experience, because I realized the developers "got it". Moral choices are hard, and they should be. Sometimes you do things with good intentions and they blow up in your face. And sometimes you act like an ass and stumble ass-backwards into luck. The game shook up my moral compass, and made me think twice about helping, or not helping people going forward. This allowed me to play a game that was based on my natural morals and intuitions instead of choosing pre-set values I knew were or were not going to work out. My character also came alive. Unlike commander Sheppard, who has no flaws, no defections, and in turn none of the fundamental traits that make him human, the White Wolf was an imperfect hero in an imperfect world. That alone makes him more human than any other character I've commanded through the worlds of a RPG.

 
Yes, it's another Sony/MS topic. 
 
Yesterday I wrote a rather lengthy blog about how utterly amazed I was that Sony had been able to come out with some stellar titles this year. Anybody that takes the time to read the crap I blog about should know by now my head is always churning, especially when it comes to gaming, and gaming "politics." If you've ever been online surfing through gaming related forum topics, you will always somehow steer head-on into a console wars debate. It doesn't matter if the topic is about the mating rituals of fruit flies. Eventually it will end with plenty of "ZOMG N00BS 360 ROCKS J00 SUX" ot "ZOMG NOOBS PS3 OWNS ALL THEIR GAMES ROCK STFU". Yes, we've been caught up in those. Admit it. 
 
I'm going to get into a bit of history I think everybody knows about, so bear with me. It's going somewhere.
 
 Before the current generation consoles had launched, we had the plethora of news, press releases and interviews with some of the biggest representatives for their prospective companies. Now lets step back a bit and talk about last gen's system. The PS2 dominated the market share, trumping the fledgling Xbox 1 and Gamecube by a ridiculous sales margin. I don't think anybody can deny that last gen, PS was king. Much of their success had to with their exclusive titles - titles only found on playstation. This is where, in my opinion, the problem began. 
 
You see, in life, as in business, you need obstacles. You need competition, otherwise you become arrogant and stale fueled by the belief that your market share and fanbase is so high, nothing can change that.  When the PS2 originally launched, it was leaps and bounds over the original Playstation in terms of technology and features. It sported a DVD drive, an 8MB storage card, and more. The launch price point was also the highest by a console at the time, floating in at $300. The demand for the console was so high that people were paying upwards of $1000 just to get their  hands on one. Sony would then back it's new system with an extensive library of games, many of them high grossing exclusives like Grand Theft Auto, Devil May Cry, Metal Gear Solid 4, and others.
 
When Microsoft threw their hats into the gaming ring, they were treated as a joke. The initial thought was that it was going to fail tremendously. Microsoft had no prior experience with video game consoles. Initial criticism of the system was faily high. The box was large and clunky, the controllers were really unfairly compared to the Playstation's second perfected Dual Shock controller. "i'm not playing on a system that's going to BSOD int the middle of my games", people said. Although Microsoft
did not have the pedigree to backup it's legitimacy in the gaming world, years of catering to the masses through products like Windows and other software the giant produces, gave them the knowledge to understand what the people want, and deliver to them. Their first priority was gaining a hold of the online market. First, the realized Sony had all but completely ignored it. Second, it was luring in PC gamers  mainly comprised of 18-25 year old males, the perfect demographic for sales. Why were FPS games like Quake so popular at the time? Two things: online competition and violence. The blockbuster sales numbers of Grand Theft Auto 3 also confirmed that gamers wanted violence. The paradigm that gaming consoles were children's toys was taking a dramatic shift.  Microsoft realized this and went to work. First, they focused on creating and perfecting Xbox Live, which would  end up being the best online console service to date. They really got a leg up on this, as many PS2 games were not offering online services, and to get online you would have to purchase a $100 adapter. The Xbox, on the other hand, had an Ethernet adapter built in to every box, making it more attractive for people to get online and play. All of this wasn't nearly enough to trump the Playstation's chokehold on the industry, but Microsoft was able to get a bit of footing for the rough climb ahead.
 
We fast forward to this generation. It's very interesting from a business standpoint, because you can clearly see the differences between East and West business practices throughout the console wars. Still on a high from the PS2, Sony was extremely confident in the PS3 continuing to dominate in the industry. Long standing CEO of Sony Ken Kutagari boldly stated,  "I want for consumers to think to themselves 'I will work more hours to buy one'. We want people to feel that they want it, irrespective of anything else." This statement really defines the Eastern business model when it comes to goods. To be fair, I'm almost certain this comment was lost in translation, both figuratively and culturally. The Japanese take pride in working overtime to support themselves and their families. So the comment wasn't as.... cocky as it came out to be in the US. However, it's not what you say, it's what people hear. Comments from a company telling their customers to work overtime so they can afford their product just doesn't fly. But they might have pulled it off, if they had launched the console on time. 
 
Unfortunately for them, the 360 had arrived on the scene. 
 
The 360 was the first console on the market to produce high definition gaming in a time where people were just beginning to purchase HD sets at home. The launch price was reasonable - $299 for core, $399 for premium. The functionality of the 360, sleek menus, and a variety of launch titles, ranging from Madden to FPS like Perfect Dark allowed them to dictate how the next-gen (now current gen) is going to be run.
 
People got impatient. The graphical leap from SD to HD had been one of the biggest technology jumps in gaming, and everybody wanted to be a part of it. By the time Sony came around, it was greeted with lukewarm reception, mainly because it wasn't brand new gaming technology. They attempted to justify a $600 purchase to gamers who already had a HD system. The 360 had already dropped price point by the time the PS3 launched, and had many more games than the PS3's starting line-up. But this wasn't the real issue. Not even close. Sony, with all it's gaming pedigree, had never come across a rival Western company that produced consoles. 
 
Microsoft, whether you love them or hate them, are good at one thing: making money. If you go back and watch earlier E3 press conferences, you will notice something very interesting. Sony would hold a one-hour conference in which they would show small glimpses of the work-in-progress exclusives they had been working on. Microsoft, on the other hand? They talked about the major PlayStation exclusive franchises they were bringing to the 360. Steve Balmer, CEO of Microsoft's XBOX division at the time, posted up a  a most wanted: dead or alive list on his personal blog. "Final Fantasy. Devil May Cry. Grand Theft Auto. Three down, one to go." The last game? Metal Gear Solid 4, which escaped Microsoft at the time. Eventually they would work out a deal with Kojima for the upcoming MGS games.
 
Microsoft doesn't care about exclusives. Why should they? Microsoft's aggressive business plan was so well thought out, and executed, it's scarry to imagine what goes on behind closed doors. Instead of focusing time, money, and effort into producing a game in-house, they go to efforts to hinder the competition by imposing certain rules and restrictions on their games. At first, Microsoft banned all multi-dvd games on their system. They said it couldn't be done. This was an obvious attempt to squash the PS3's bluray advantage. They later rethought this policy and now allow multi-dvd games, but the developers have to pay a fee for each additional DVD. Secondly, 360 games must have some sort of online functionality, no matter how big or small. But the third and final thing, and in my opinion, the thing that keeps Sony down, is the SDK (software developer kit) Microsoft gives to the developers. John Carmack,  founder of ID, has gone on record saying that developing games on the 360 is easier than on a PC. For those that don't  know, ID has been developing PC titles since Doom. Bold statement. The level of support and ease of usability for the developers to make games for the 360 is really what has helped it become the success it is today. Carmack went on to make another excellent point about the 360 and the PS3. He states that given an infinite amount of time, PS3 games would look and run much better than the 360. But because developers are on a schedule, they just don't have the time to polish games on the PS3's SDK. That's why, for some games, the 360 version is the better choice.
 
Sony realizes this. Technically, it could have played dirty ball as well, and I'm sure there's things going on in the background we're aware of. They're  no choir boys. But they chose to instead re-evaluate their business. Sony pushed very hard to make it known their console, with blu-ray support, built in hard drive, HDMI, and other features was a future-proof console. Once MS nerfed that with restrictions, Sony did the only thing it could: turned to exclusives. 2009 was a great year for PS3 exclusives. I ranted about them in an earlier blog. They also lowered their price point to a reasonable $300. But will it be enough? Uncharted 2 might be the best game no one played, staying in the top seller's list for a very short time (whoever decided to release the same month as MW2 is nuts). Demon's Souls is a niche game, and not for everyone. Infamous did moderately well at the box office, but not enough to raise attention.
 
"but Dr3, isn't the quality of games the only thing that matters at the end of the day?" Unfortunately, no. To the consumers it absolutely matters. To a board of investors that doesn't know what the hell Modern Warfare 2 is, but know it's selling like crack out in the streets, that's all that matters. Am I saying Sony will go bankrupt? No. The PlayStation is their best selling product. if it dies Sony dies. What I am saying is that excellent games like Uncharted 2 might not see a sequel. It's not encouraging when a game's sequel sells less copies than it's original, no matter how good it is.
 
Won't you adopt a PS3 today?
 
This seems like a lot of Playstation bashing and Microsoft praise, which wasn't my intention. I really wanted to talk about what I thought the state of the console wars between MS and Sony stand, how they're going, and where they're heading.

 First off, I'm not a Sony fanboy. 
 
Lets go ahead and get that out of the way. I owned a PS2 at launch, then purchased an XBOX about a year after it came out. I purchased a 360 at launch, and enjoyed it more than I have any other console. You see, I'm a heavy PC gamer. I have been since the early 90's, and probably will be for a long, long time. So for you people out there on the nets that just needs to label everybody something for the sake of their mental capacity, I would be a PC snob. 
 
The story of how I purchased a PS3 is rather funny, but common. After the purchase of the Xbox 360 at launch, which came out to over $500 with accessories, and then a subsequent purchase of another 360 after the first one died, I had enough of the console when the second one died in September or October. It had been give or take 3 years since the PS3 launched, and I was damned if I was going to give Microsoft any more of my money.
 
The PS3 slim had just launched at this point, so I hopped on ebay and purchased a used 40gb PS3 in excellent condition from one of their online power sellers for roughly $150. I was extremely impressed with the PS3 when I plugged it in. The amount of advanced options in the PS3's dashboard was impressive. I'm one of those types of people that love extra features. Even though I won't use half of them, I still like knowing they're around. It's probably the PC gamer side of me. You could really tell that Sony is going out of their way to market the PS3 not only as a gaming system, but a complete entertainment solution for people that don't want to invest time and money into a HTPC. 
 
Even with all this, I ignored the PS3. The initial excitement was over, and Dragon Age for the PC had come out, so I left the PS3 in the back of my  mind. About three weeks ago, I noticed that the PS3 was literally collecting a thick layer of dust. However, I also noticed that many gaming sites were giving the nod to a lot of PS3 exclusives when it came to awards. So, after much deliberation, I decided to pick up some PS3 games: Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted 2, Demon's Souls, Infamous, Heavenly Sword, God of War Collection, Killzone 2, and Folklore. I figured that would give me a good idea of what the PS3 had to offer.
 
I had absolutely no idea how good these games are.
 
The first game I pulled out was Infamous. I enjoyed it moderately, thought it was great, but not  mind-blowing. Infamous borrowed gameplay mechanics from games such as Assassin's Creed, Star Wars Unleashed, Crackdown, and many other third person action games, and wove it into a very tight package. The controls were responsive, the action was great, but the biggest selling point for me where the shard system. I've never been one to mess around with collectible items. To me, the collectible item system like the 200 pigeons in GTA 4 or the ridiculous amount of random collectible stuff like flags and perch points in AC1 are just fillers for when game developers realize the game is too short and need some incentive to extend the game. In Infamous, this system was handled perfectly. First off, they TELL you where the shards are, saving you the headache of trying to follow a map you printed out online to get every bit of collectibles. Knowing where they are, however, doesn't mean it's not a challenge to maneuver to them. The second thing was the fact that they gave it meaning. Collecting shards raises your mana pool, for lack of a better term. I found myself really enjoying hunting down the shards, and even the satellites that give you a bit of background into the story. It was really a first for me, in those respects.
 
After I finished Infamous, I hopped on to Demon's Souls. My initial thoughts? I hated it. Absolutely hated it. It's as tough, brutal, and unforgiving as people say it is. After and hour of dying and  restarting in the first world, I put it to the side. "Damn Japanese and their masochist games!" I thought to myself. 
 
I cracked open Uncharted 2. There's not much I can say that hasn't already been said about the game. I have to admit I haven't gotten far into the game, but I was amazed by what I saw. The presentation, voice acting, combat, action, and story progression set new standards for gaming. And the graphics, oh the graphics. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm a PC enthusiast. One of the main reasons I love gaming on the PC so much is because I can get the clearest, sharpest, highest resolution game with 16xAA/AF, and other perks such as mods, and gimmicks like Physx (which is pretty sweet in Batman and Mirror's Edge). Regardless, in my personal opinion, in my 20 years of PC gaming I honestly believe Uncharted 2 has the best graphics of any game to date, including the Crysis series. That is a bold, bold statement, but I stand behind it all the way. What Naughty Dog has done so well is attention to detail. Walking through the snow is breath-taking in Uncharted 2. The levels are cluttered with items that give the game an unprecedented level of realism. The characters are proportionally realistic and the environment effects such as Drake getting wet when he enters water, really bring the game to life. Of course, it's not without it's faults. They went overboard on the eyes reflecting light, which gives the otherwise  beautiful Claire character weird bug eyes. I really don't know how that got through, but it's there. Also, since 720p is really 1280x720 resolution, I was really starting to miss 16xAA, and especially AF when looking at depth-of-field situations. But those are minor gripes.
 
I stopped playing Uncharted 2, mainly because I wanted to really savor the game, and also because it was the weekend and I wanted something I could beat in a day, or a day and a half. So I cracked open Heavenly Sword and took a stab at it.
 
Now I realize Heavenly Sword wasn't 2009, the game is about two years old. It received some mixed reviews when it came out, but I found it cheap on Ebay and wasn't disappointed. This was the first title where the PS3 didn't have many games, and you can notice it. The framerate dropped to the point  of skipping frames at time, the combat was simplistic, and it really overused the sixaxis to the point that you could tell the developers were really trying hard to promote it. But there's one sole reason I brought this old game up: the presentation. The characters in Heavenly Sword were fantastic. The dialogue was intriguing, with each character delivering their lines with such authenticity I felt I was watching an Eastern version of 300. There game is only 5 hours long, but the depth of the characters and the way they interact with each other during the cutscenes is spectacular. It's a shame there is no sequel in the works. If they had ample time to polish the game, tighten a few things, and extend it, it would be a classic sequel. 
 
So after finishing Heavenly Sword, I thought long and hard if I should go back to Demon's Souls again. I decided that I should at least get through the first world before I gave it my final verdict. So, like Adam West (better known as the fat Batman in the 60's) always says... "to the batcave!" The second time around I made a conservative effort to get through without dying. I raised my shield before going into a room. I read players notes left behind and wrote some of my own. I got through the first level and achieved my first soul, and after that, was when the game really opened up for me. I am now officially hooked. The depth of character creation is misleading at first. You run through the first few hours thinking it's bland, but once you get an idea of what's going on, the character creation is limitless. When I die in the game, I rarely felt that I was cheated: most of the time I was careless and stopped focus on the game. The bosses are bigger than life, and a blast to beat. 
 
The only major nagging gripe I had with the game was the MP system. I understand the system. I understand WHY they made it the way they have. In keeping with the context of the story, you are alone. The world is harsh, unforgiving. Many heroes have come seeking demons and they're all trapped in the Nexus. The game is a single-player experience, first and foremost. The PVP/PVE/Co-Op system is wonderfully done. The only thing is I wish they allowed for better communication between players. You can run co-op with your friends, but  it's not a system that's supported by the game. In fact, they make sure you can't verbally communicate with each other by disabling the voice chat function while playing. It makes sense in a contextual way. For people to co-op, one must be a ghost. You can't talk to ghosts. However, they really need some sort of way to communicate with your fellow players when you're in co-op. I play a mage, weak in defense and vitality, but high on total destruction. I summon a player, who more than likely is a tank, specked out with shields and heavy armor. I have no way of telling him that I will weaken the creatures while he defends and then he makes the final kill. Instead, they charge onwards blindly drawing more demons than they can handle, die, and gives me a low score for not properly supporting. There needs to be some sort of communication that allows you to tell the player what your strategy is, outside of useless emotes and typing messages on the PSN.
 
Regardless, the PS3 really blew me away with it's exclusive titles. I really didn't think they would be THAT good. Sony still has a lot of issues they need to solve, mainly the sluggish online features and the dashboard that takes a while to respond at times, but the quality of their exclusives are some of the best games right now.  As a pure gaming platform, the 360 has all but perfected their console for mass market use. The dashboard is extremely responsive, XBL works as intended (for $50 a year it better), you can install all the games on the HD, cutting down on laser wear-and-tear, messaging is a breeze. But when it comes down to it, the quality of games is what counts, and in the end Sony delivers with a bang.

Disclaimer: I know I'm more than a week late with these thoughts, so bare with me.  
 

 
Lately I've been trying to get into an MMO. 
 
 don't know why. I'm really anti-subscription. They really wear you out in the monetary department. After all, 12 x $15.00 is $180 a year. That's a lot money considering you're playing the same game over and over. I try to stay away from MMO's like WoW, Warhammer Online, and other games that are heavily character based. Do I realy care if you got + whatever loot? Probably not. However, while browsing through fileplanet I couldn't help but come across a 100% free-to-play MMO called "Face of Mankind." It seemed pretty interesting, so I gave it a try.
 
 The MMO is pretty bad. There's a lot of fundamentally flawed issues within the game that makes me think that the developers went out of their way to make it more complicated than it has to be. But for some reason, I'm hooked. I can't stop playing - I find myself playing even at work.  
 

 
 
So I'm browsing Kotatu during work. Yeh, it's been that kind of day.
 
On the main  page, above the  headers, there's a story detailing the antics of the number 4 ranking woman worldwide in gamerscore. " Achievement Chore: (obviously a wordplay on whore) She Plays For Gamerscore, whether it's fun or not." Now I understand why there are gamerscores. The original intent of the score was to be able to track your achievements in the game you were playing, and compare them with  the achievements of  your friends. The thing is, somehow, along the way, this basic idea got perverted, and gamerscore has now exploded into it's own niche sub-genre of gaming.