Rockstar Fights the Law

TeamXbox are reporting that a court injunction to prevent the sale of GTA 4 will be served shortly in the US before the game is even released or completed. The US Attorney Jack Thompson, who is an anti-video game advocate, has threatened to serve the injunction.

Once again the problem is blamed on the game and not the ineptitudes of a system which does not make any attempt to enforce ratings upon underage sales of software and videos. Why don't they put their money where their mouth is and actually come down hard on stores which sell video games to underaged youth. Furthermore, why don't they punish parents who don't fulfill their role as parents by providing their children with these games to play.

Once again it makes me think of the saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I think video games are blamed as the cause of the problem as opposed to society and other factors. It is easy to blame video games.

TeamXbox have reported Thompson as saying, "There is absolutely no chance that GTA IV will be rated anything other than "Mature. So good luck in having your Blank Rome lawyers trying to persuade a court of law that it should be sold to minors, especially in light of the United States Federal Trade Commission's findings that 42% of the time underage kids can buy "Mature-rated" games.”

In Australia we have the problem that there is STILL no R rating category for video games. Mainly because politicians here are completely misinformed and believe that video games are played only by children. Whereas current surveys conducted show the average age of a gamer being between 28 -32.

Rockstar didn't do themselvs any justice with the way they handled the Hot Coffee scandal. Their denial and then admitance to the inclusion of the hot coffee code in San Andreas was a poorly conceived public relations exercise.

Anyway, games don't kill people, people kill people. I am yet to see a video game jump off the shelf and strangle someone to death.

C&C3 Tiberium Wars: Initial Impressions

I would never have said that the Command & Conquer franchise revolutionized the Real Time Strategy genre. I would say that it popularized it. Most of the concepts which the original Command & Conquer had integrated were already floating around in a popular little RTS at the time called Dune. So, why should I not be surprised that the new C&C really offers nothing new?

I have been playing the demo for a couple of hours and I can't say that it has picked me up and shaken me about. I would have to say that RTS games are some of my least favourite game types and, unfortunately it takes a pretty special RTS game to capture my gaming time. The last RTS I spent some time playing was Company of Heroes and I thoroughly enjoyed it. While it was a typical RTS it was well polished and extremely playable. I have had a look at Supreme Commander and am extremely impressed with some of the innovative features in it but I have not spent a lot of time playing it.

Why is C&C3 so drab? Why is it so boring? It feels exactly like the old version. Sequels should have the same feel as the previous generations of game, however, shouldn't they also add something to the franchise. Shouldn't they take it a step in the next direction forward? Shouldn't it incorporate new concepts and ideas so that the franchise doesn't stagnate?

This is what C&C is to me. A stagnant franchise. A game series that EA have not wanted to take any risks with. So it is very much the same old same old. It is like every other EA game that is churned out every 12 months with just a different year placed in the title. Even the cut scenes are crap. Michael Ironside and that sexy chick from Battlestar Galactica put across wooden performances that make you want to press the 'Esc key' as quickly as possible so that you don't have to suffer the torment of their poor performance.

Oh, and the gameplay itself? It is the same old same old. There have been some modifications to the display and some streamlining of the development structure with the use of TABs, however, it is pretty much the same.

If you wanted an RTS to play which may be somewhat challenging and offers some innovative features then buy Supreme Commander. If you want a polished RTS which offers the same but done extremely well then pick up Company of Heroes. If you are a C&C fan boy who is willing to overlook the gameplay just for the sake of the name then buy C&C3.

I'll be uninstalling the excessively large demo now.

Cynical Gamer's Personal Ads: Connecting Gamers with the Games of their Choice

Casual Gamer Seeking Companionship

Are you a casual gamer who is not currently involved in a long term relationship with a game. Are you looking to spice up your gaming life with something that is tailored just for you. A game which meets all of your needs, expectations and more? Do you want to maintain a casual relationship and not get tied down with the pressures and demands of a permanent full time relationship? Well, it looks like Microsoft might just have the answer for you.

Just to clarify if you are not sure if you are a casual gamer or someone who likes to get a bit more serious, or intimate, with your games then Microsoft has a simple definition, "What Is a Casual Game? Casual games are a variety of card, puzzle, word and arcade-style games available on all five of Microsoft Corp.’s game platforms. From PC to mobile platforms, casual games are known for being easy to learn and difficult to master — providing gameplay that gives you a fun, entertaining break whether you’ve got five minutes or five hours." Unfortunately, the notion of casual gamer is not based on how you play or how long you play but what you play. This is an absurd notion. A casual gamer is someone who plays occasionally and it doesn't matter what type of games you play. I would even hazard to guess that a casual gamer could be involved in playing something like World of Warcraft. However, they are not necessarily inolved in a clan or power gaming.

In fact, Microsoft go on to further clarify a casual gamer as ... "If you’ve ever played solitaire on your PC, you’ve played a casual game and might even be considered a “casual gamer.” A casual gamer is anyone — regardless of age, experience or gender — who enjoys taking a break and having a bit of fun with an online, downloadable or networked game." I'll just repeat that in case you missed it a casual gamer is someone who has a "bit of fun with an online, downloadable or networked game." This is a ridiculous misconception of a casual gamer. I would consider myself to be more of a casual gamer at the moment. I am not playing competitively. I play for enjoyment and don't, very often, play online.

Surely a better classification for a casual gamer would be, "someone who plays games occassionally for enjoyment." Not someone who plays online, downloadable or networked games. I dunno. If you want to check out the entire fact sheet by Microsoft on their new target audience the click here (Courtesy of Team Xbox). How can Microsoft get it so wrong??? They have so much money that they can afford to hire (and fire) the best people. Which moron provided them with this definition? Surely, they should be taking a good hard look at that person and their contribution to the company.

As far as I am concerned a personal ad is a far better way to connect casual gamers with casual games. Let's face it, serious gamers are already involved with a game or two and wouldn't need to go in search of some casual gaming fun. A casual gamer is not someone who is necessarily up-to-date with game releases and doesn't want the stress of looking around for a game to connect with. Maybe Microsoft would be better placed providing a personal's section to connect casual gamers with casual games. That way their market can come to them.

When I say casual I don't mean easy, I think the games should play a little hard to get.

Ingame Cliches

Yesterday, I put together a list of words and terminology which I thought was cliched in gaming. Now I will put together a list of concepts and devices which are in game cliches (for example, devices which are used in games which have become cliched).

Crates, Boxes and Barrells - Crates (now destroyable crates) are the ultimate gaming cliche. They have been around since the original doom and used in nearly every single first person shooter since. You think I am exagerating? Try to think of one FPS which doesn't involve a crate, barrell or box. More often than not these things hide equipment or health for the main character. As far as I was concerned the ultimate over use and final straw in these devices occurred with Half Life 2. The game which was going to be revolutionary over used these devices more than any other game. So what if some of the barrells explode. They are still barrells. Couldn't you have spend five minutes and thought of a more original concept? Obviously, not.

The Single Handed Hero Who Saves the World - Another completely over used plot device which is used in gaming to justify the single player FPS. Every time I start one of these games I think to myself, "Here I go, off to save the world, again." Surely plot based creativity is not so dead in the gaming industry that they cannot come up with a better concept to drive the story? Another which falls along this lines is to save a girl friend or family member. This too falls in th same category.

The Training Level or "boot camp" - This is more for the World War II shooter than anything else, but couldn't they come up with a better concept than boot camp to go through the commands. Even to incorporate it in to the first level as opposed to a crusty old drill sergeant yelling at you telling you what to do while incorporating words like maggot and yellow belly in to the dialogue. Even the latest Call of Duty 3 uses this same sort of device (without the drill sergeant) to guide you through the training. At one time it was common place to start the shooter with a version of boot camp. However, after you've done the same sort of boot camp five different times on five different games they all start to feel the same more or less.

Racing AI - While this may not be a cliche as much as problems with code I am going to include it anyway. I am sick of AI in racing games who continually perform the PIT maneuver on you when you are in front of them (for that matter also for those people who do it on Xbox Live and you know who you are). For those who don't know the PIT maneuver is a procedure developed by police in the US to flick the tail end of a car they are pursuing around to virtually immobilise the car. The most recent racing game I played which involved this was Project Gotham Racing 3 on the Xbox 360. This really irritates me. Surely, they could do something to stop the AI doing it. As for those people who do it online, well, you have no class.

Satanic/Pagan Symbolism in Games - This is another thing which irritates me is the overuse of satanic or pagan symbols in games. It seems that game developers are willing to use what they want from the "dark side" and push it in our faces. Doom is one of the games to blame for this, although it was set in hell. The inverted pentagram and crucifix is one of the most overused symbols in gaming. As far as I am concerned developers could spend five minutes and find something else to represent their dark side. Where are their imaginations?

Health Packs - Square packs which lay on the ground and when picked up restore health. Definitely a gaming cliche. There are some common variants on the theme. Needles are a good one. Where the main character injects themselves with a needle to restore their health (wouldn't want to be a junkie or ex-junkie picking up on the imagery). Every single shooter contains some form of health pack. They are so common I bet most people don't even think about seeing them any more. They are a part of the gaming landscape.

End of Level Baddies - Most games feature this device to signify the end of the game or level. Many people are going to say that this has been a signature move of gaming since its inception. This idea was a rite of passage for the player to feel that they have advanced to a better level of skill by defeating a superior character. While I would have to agree with them in relation to platform games or beatem ups the First Person Shooter does not necessarily require this. Doom 3 was the ultimate end of game baddie let down. The final monster was so easy to beat (once you worked it out) that you could virtually defeat them on the hardest difficulty without loosing any health. So much for making it difficult or even a rite of passage.

Levels - Working your way through one level of a first person shooter at which point the game stops then loads the next level would have to be another gaming cliche. With the development of more open world games surely this device is indicative of the limitations of older hardware and game developers who aren't willing to push the envelope. Sandbox games are here to stay.

Levelling - I think levelling in RPGs has become completely cliched. Nearly every single RPG has some form of levelling. Isn't there a better way to do this that challenges us far more than identifying where we are in the RPG by the numbered level we are at. However, I don't think Bethesda quite hit the mark with Oblivion and the scaled world they created either.

There are heaps of other ingame cliches and I will try to add to this list as time goes on.

EA's End of an ERA

Electronic Arts (EA) is one of the largest and oldest software devlopers and publishers in the world. However, much of EAs gaming franchises over the last five years have not really been about innovative game design as much as it has been to release another Tiger Woods Golf or NHL or NFL addition to their franchise.

In a move which could shake up EA completely their long standing CEO Larry Probst has stepped down. Larry Probst pioneered the concept of creating annual franchises in which to sell their games. Gamers would have to outlay full price for the 2006 version of Tiger Woods Golf which was more an update than a brand new game. This created EA as a power house game developer, but really didn't hold much schtick with the gamers (including this one). EA also brought up some much loved game franchises (such as Command & Conquer and Burnout) and were seen as pushing out inferior versions of these games. However, it could be argued that without EAs financial backing some of these games may not have seen another version.

Whatever your view on EA it will be interesting to see what will happen with a new skipper at the helm. It is reported that John Riccitiello (a former employee of EA) will be taking over . EA have been seen as a large company addicted to the financial success of creating sequels for their games. However, this formula has started to see limited financial returns as gamers have not been willing to pay full price for a game that is seen as being just an upgrade on the previous version. Tiger Woods Golf is a good case in point. As far as I am concerned Tiger Woods 2004 was the best version of this game franchise. Unfortunately EA have not been able to capture the same amount of play ability with successive release of this game. This version was the most playable (as in pick up and play). The current version of the game (2007) is completely unplayable in comparison. The amount of time it takes to master the basic strokes in the current version make it nearly inaccessible. It is even said that it may be virtually impossible to complete a tournament and win it on Xbox 360.

Hopefully, EA will put some of their massive amount of money which they have in the kitty to good use and create some new and original titles which push the boundaries of gaming. Rather than continue to republish the same old/same old which they have built their business model on. Whether you love them or hate them you have to respect the fact that they have been a constant in gaming since the beginning of home gaming. With the risks and financial outlay of current game design and development EA have managed to avoid the pit holes and stay well and truly afloat.

Have you got Worms?

The thought of worms brings back memories of childhood and also some sad images of Ralph Wiggum out of the Simpsons. Worms are definitely something that was more of a concern for your parents when you were a kid than an ailment which might require some attention as an adult. Then you have Ralph Wiggum saying, "And, when the doctor said I didn't have worms any more, that was the happiest day of my life." However, when worms is finally released on Xbox Live I am going to say that I am actually happy to have worms. Xbox Live Arcade is excellent although I think some of the games are a little overpriced. Hopefully the 2D version of worms will be coming to Xbox Live Arcade soon.

Xbox Live Arcade has seen some excellent remakes and ports of some classic games, however, it is still a bit lacking for content. It would be good to see some more classic retro games get released, of which, Worms is an all time favourite.

The build up to the release of Worms' release has been drawn out and frustrating. The thing is that as soon as I heard that they were releasing it on arcade I wanted it straight away. Suddenly any sort of wait for this game was going to be too much wait. Unfortunately I am still waiting.

"It's really been a case of the last cycle of production/testing and certification taking much longer than we would have hoped. We know we aren't the only case, but that doesn't ease the frustration" Creative Director of Team 17 Martyn Brown said of the delay in release. "Worms is one of the 'richer' XBLA experiences in that it'll provide hours and hours of repeat play through it's on and offline multiplayer modes. Unfortunately that's meant a hell of a lot of testing and also re-submissions on what we felt were final builds ... We've been working very closely with Microsoft XBLA team on this who are as excited and just as keen to see the game out there and on XBLA but there are procedures to follow before that can be the case." (Quote courtesy of Eurogamer).

I am hoping to introduce my dad to the world of Worms when it gets released on Xbox Live. My old man is a late convert to video games and a die hard Halo fan. Hopefully, I will be able to convince him that having Worms is not all that bad given the right context.

Microsoft have made Wednesday's the day to release a new Xbox Live Arcade game. This concept, from what I have read, has been in response to Nintendo's online retro gaming plans for the Wii. This Wednesday doesn't hail the release of Worms either. It seems I am going to have to wait another week.

Sad or Sweet mate?

I don't know whether to think this is extremely cool or inherently sad. A hard core Halo fan has made himself (it would have to be a him, what woman in her right mind would do this) a replica of the Master Chief's assault rifle. Apparently, he created the design of the rifle with Corel Draw and then had the pieces individually laser cut. He has then had to assemble it and finish the build.

A part of me (probably the nerdy part which likes Star Wars and used to play with Star Wars toys when I was a kid) says that's pretty awesome. And yet another part of me (probably the adult part) says why would anyone in their right mind do something like that? What would you do with it after it is finished? Bring it out at dinner parties. Say to people, "Hey, do you want to see my replica Halo assault rifle?" I am sure those non-gaming adult type of people would be saying, "Sure, that's nice, but why did you make it?" Then in their minds they would be saying, "That is one strange thing to decided to build. Couldn't he have made something which would have solved world hunger?" Then those nerdy gaming friends that he has would be saying, "That is awesome. I want one. I'll pay you $500 to make me one."

I don't know whether I like it or am inherently scared by the fact that someone decided to do it. I am sure that if he decided to sell it, or even others, on Ebay he would make a small fortune. As to whether Bungie and Microsoft are happy with him taking some of their intellectual property and making a profit from it is a whole different law suit. Cool or sad I will let you decide.

PS3 Backwards Compatibility

It is being reported that the PAL version of the PS3 will not ship with the chip which makes it backward compatible. Selected titles will be backward compatible, however, Sony are not yet listing which titles will be. You can check on this linkto see the FAQ which covers the topic. Good luck with that because Sony have a message on there (which is the image reproduced with this blog entry) that says the list won't be updated until the 23rd of March.

Apparently this has been done as a production cost cutting measure. The sad thing is that while this will save money on the production of the console Sony are not prepared to reduce the price of the console to the end user. That means that the RRP will stay exactly the same.

You couldn't say that things were looking all that good at Sony HQ. Hopefully for those people in Australia who purchase a PS3 it is just internet gossip. However, if the rumours are true then things are not shaping up too good for Sony with the PS3 receiving a lot of bad press and poor sales results in the US.

Cynical Gamer's List of Gaming Cliches

I thought I would put together a list of gaming cliches. These are things which have gone from being new, trendy and descriptive to being overused and boring. Some of them are still used by gaming journalists around the world. Others are used by gamers. I will try to update this list as well.

Here is my introductory list. I will add together additions at the bottom of the list.

Killer App - We have had so many killer apps it is not funny. Yet, not one of them has managed to redefine a console or platform on its own. A number of changes and features implemented over a series of time have managed to do this. I guess, this notion of killer app falls in line with my view of evolution. Evolution, by its very definition, is a series of tiny permutations over a number (this may be a couple it may be a thousand) generations. However, Archeologists and Paleantologists, misinterpreted the notion of evolution and began looking for a "missing link" or a single change which redefined a species. I am sorry, but that is not the way evolution works. It is also not the way a killer app works.

Spiritual Successor - I am sick of hearing this term. In fact, I would prefer the use of the more mundane franchise as a means to define a game within or without a particular gaming line from a particular developer. It either is or it isn't a part of a franchise. If it isn't then it has a likeness to a game, but it has nothing to do with any form of spirituality. I don't want to get in to a debate about the afterlife but, as far as I was aware, games were not classified as having any form of soul or spirit. Spiritual Successor is just another way of journalists saying that one game is like another without it contributing to that particular franchise.

Physics - at what point in time are ingame physics just going to be an accepted part of gaming just the way gravity is an accepted part in our lives. The novelty is wearing pretty thin. How about finding the next over promoted feature of a next gen killer app which will redefine gaming and allow you to pawn more noobs.

Next Gen (or next generation) - Everything is the next generation. However, these generations appear to be coming faster and faster. The next generation of graphics cards are the things which bug me the most. ATI and NVIDIA have managed to release a next generation piece of graphics card within 3 months of the previous generation. These times appear to be coming down too. At what point in time are they going to release a graphics card only to have it superceded by the next gen card the following day?

Convergence - Apparently my lounge room is a meeting place for technology. Yet, I am yet to see any piece of technology I own have a meeting in there, let alone converge at that place at any point in time. I am yet to see one piece of kit do everything that I need it to do in the lounge room. So, why do Microsoft and Sony keep crapping on about it. I don't care about it and I don't think anyone else does either. It is just a buzz word that some marketing numpty created to justify Microsoft and Sony paying their advertising companies millions of dollars every year. Personally, I look forward to the day when the technology actually does have a meeting in my lounge room. Maybe, we will be one step closer to the technology rebellion and taking over the entire house.

Photo Realism - What will we strive to achieve once photo realism has become the norm in gaming? What will gaming journalists do when the first game is released that is "Photo realistic"? I think there will be a lot of masturbation and back patting going on at that point in time.

LEET - nothing says that I am 12 years old more than LEET. I can't stand hearing someone say, "Pawn some noobs". (notice the english translation of the LEET without giving any precedence to the original untranslated garbage). If you want to hear some gamers crap on on about Pawning some Noobs then just watch the ABC gaming show called "Good Game". The hosts of the show use it every second turn of phrase. I guess their 12 year old viewing audience appreciates it. Yet, it is everywhere and it drives me crazy. LEET is lazy english not another language.

Pawn some noobs - Read above listing for LEET. I just hate this phrase so much I thought I would list it specifically.

Exclusivity - Nothing is exclusive any more. Even those games which are meant to be exclusive are generally only that way for a period of time (check out Only on Xbox/Xbox 360 stickers). There was a time when Grand Theft Auto was exclusive to the playstation. Then it was revealed that it was exclusive for a period of time. Which means that it is not exclusive. Go figure. For more of a rant on this check out my blog post, "My Word Is My Honour Until I Say Another Word".

"Game of The Year" - Every issue of every magazine reviews a game which will be "Game of the Year". Why not leave the nominations until that time of year and use some other phrase to market your reviews with. There have been so many "Games of the Year" which I have personally disagreed with that I no longer give this catchphrase any weight. It means nothing.

Epic Game - Unfortunately there is an excellent software developer named Epic Games and there are a number of game reviewers who review epic games. However, the reveiwers don't generally review software developed by Epic Games they just classify every second title as an Epic. Games, which are Epics, come around every now and then. They are few and far between.

Anyway, that is the start of my rant about Cliches in gaming. Hopefully I'll find some other terms which irritate me and add them to the list.

Ultimate Gamer's Competition

Here's a chance to put that gaming cynic in us all to the test and provide an outlet for that megalomaniac who is hiding inside us. Acclaim games is offering one lucky gamer the chance to develop their own video game with full funding and the promise of ongoing royalties (only if it is any good).

Firstly you have to sign up at the "Top Secret" website. Oh, I am not saying the website is top secret, it is called top secret. Did you think I meant "Top Secret" with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean, know what I mean (is she into photography)? Funny, everyone seems to think that. To access it just click on the link. Sign up and help David Perry the project director develop an MMO they are working on. For the individual who shines through on this project they will be offered the opportunity to develop your own game.

I don't know, sounds like a lot of work, but I am sure that someone who has been longing to get in to the gaming industry may just get their opportunity in this way. If you are up to the challenge then give it a go. You never know your luck.

Cynical Gamer Reviews Crackdown (Xbox 360)

Sometimes, in life, for whatever reason we prostitute ourselves (I don't necessarily mean literally but metaphorically). We may or may not necessarily mean it but we do something we are not proud of for money. Of course, there are some people who literally prostitute themselves for money. It is referred to as the oldest profession, but I think that would make the pimp the oldest profession. That is why I have decided to write the review of Crackdown as though it were a high priced prostitute. Needless to say that I had read prior to starting the game that it was short. So, I decided to play it on the hardest difficulty from the start. Seriously, that is the only reference I will make to hard or hardness in the review.

I have been told that some people visit prostitutes. It does happen. They don't mind paying for five minutes of enjoyment. In this way Crackdown is like a prostitute. But not like some five dollar ho that you find standing on a street corner in St Kilda. Crackdown is a high class prostitute. Someone that you would spend a lot of money to spend a night with because she is beautiful, professional and the best at what she does. Crackdown is beautiful. It would have to be one of the best looking games around. The cell shading works extremely well and provides the game with a point of difference over the grittiness of Gears of War and the reality of Rainbow Six Vegas. The view distance is extreme. You just want to spend time with Crackdown. I guess if you paid for a high class prostitute you would want to spend some time looking at her too saying to yourself, "Well she's mine for the night." But that is really all you will get from Crackdown. A good night's worth of good looking entertainment. Cause what it gets down to is that there is not a whole lot going in the way of investing a significant amount of time in the game, like you would a good relationship, because there just isn't the content there.

Crackdown has all the moves too. It knows where to move in order to give you the right amount of satisfaction at the right time. However, there isn't a whole lot going on there for long term satisfaction. The combat system is well implemented. The mix of physical, firearms and the use of the environment to defeat your foes is well developed. However, the enemy targetting system at close range can be extremely clumsy. The other part of the game which I found extremely frustrating was that enemies would spawn behind you. Not a hundred metres behind you but a couple of metres. More often than not you find yourself respawning after being killed by some nameless henchman who has spawned outside of your line of sight. This made the game extremely frustrating at times.

In a nutshell all you have to do in this game is to take down three gangs. Each gang is located on its own specific part of the map. You can go after any gang in any order. All you have to do to take out the gang is to take out the king pin (or leader). If you kill the sub leaders (not sub king pins) in the gang then you will weaken the leader and make it easier for you to take him down. However, you can go straight for the jugular and take out the leader first if you want. That is basially all there is to the gang. There is no real variety in what to do. Each task or sub leader is basically the same. You might have to solve a puzzle on one of them (and I mean only one of them) and that is the only difference. So, don't get in to a cerebral spasm about it. Just get in there and get the job done. Much like visiting a prostitute really.

The driving in the game is pretty good, however, this was the skill which I developed the least. I couldn't be bothered trying to run people over in cars and some of the racing sub-missions were too frustrating as you mowed down innocent bistanders to get to the next checkpoint and then had the wraith of the police after you as you attempted to finish the race. It would have been good to see some other vehicles implemented in the game. However, the game concept itself is relatively simple. Like keeping your night with the prostitute to the missionary position. It is tried and tested. Just have a look at how the Grand Theft Auto franchise has made its fan base. Driving cars is its bread and butter. This would then be classified as the missionary position. The missionary position works well as a pleasure serving device, but there are definitely a lot more positions out there which can be mastered. Other vehicle types would have been good and every game of this type has cars in it.

I found it frustrating that once you had cleared out an area of its gang then there is nothing more to do there than collecting Orbs and racing cars. Ultimately, leaving the area relatively void. The jumping puzzles are excellent and, for me, the best way of travelling about the city is by jumping and running everywhere. It would have been nice of the developers had left some crime in those gang free areas to fight and keep you wanting to go back there.

I can imagine that Real Time Worlds and Microsoft would be more than happy to further my comparison of Crackdown as a prostitute by offering more content if you are prepared to pay for it. Isn't that the way a prostitute works? You pay her for a period of time in which you are entertained (or satisfied, I guess at the end of it she probably isn't). Then if you would like some more entertainment then you have to pay for some more. That is the way online delivery works. You are entertained for a short period of time and then if you want more you pay for it. Well, that is what will happen with Crackdown. They will release more short term entertainment, but you'll have to pay for it. Then I think of the reasons why people might spend money on prostitutes and all of them are relatively grandiose idealist concepts which avoid the notion that people just do it to get their end away. So, if you want a game that will give you a short amount of pleasure at a premium price then Crackdown is for you. Not the type of game that you would settle down with, but definitely a game that you might pay for to get your end away.

Cynical Gamer Rating
Would you pay to spend a night with Crackdown - 100
Is the game the equivalent of a high priced hot looking prostitute - 100
Would you pay to spend more time with the prostitute later - 0
Overall - 66

Afterword
Don't get me wrong but this game is excellent. Just way too short and with a poorly executed mission structure (well, it is not really even a mission structure). There would have to be a little more to the downloadable content than more shoot this guy and work your way up the gang type structure to get me to pay for more content. In this way this game is like a prostitute. Taking your money for a short time of pleasure. Hopefully there will be better games released this year which have greater depth to them.

TMNT Demo: Initial Impressions

This demo is short. Way too short. How can anyone make a decision about whether to purchase a game based on a five second play test. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles have been around for a while, I wonder whether they have passed their prime. They have undergone a number of incarnations including several different video games. Are people really still interested in this franchise?

TMNT were so popular at one stage that they even created a pen and paper role playing game based on the popular comics.

In the demo you spend most of your time running and jumping over a number of boxes and whatnot on a roof top. Then you get the opportunity to fight some of Shredder's evil henchmen. That's about it. While you only play one turtle you can get the other turtles to help, however, I found that they only seemed to hurt me. Definitely a game you want to play with a control pad. Keyboard is not a very good control system for this game and all that you can basically use in the demo.

Anyway, if you are still 12 and in to TMNT then get the game. I am sure everyone else can find something better to spend their money on.

Gears of War Costs Microsoft

I was just reading something interesting today in a British Xbox 360 magazine (X360 magazine) about how Epic Games shaped a part of the Xbox 360 development which, apparently, cost Microsoft $1 billion.

Prior to the Xbox 360s release Epic showed Microsoft a version of Gears of War running on an Xbox 360 with 256mb of onbard RAM and a version running on an Xbox 360 with 512mb of onboard RAM. Apparently, the 256mb version of the console was extremely choppy. Microsoft, at that point in time, had planned on releasing the Xbox 360 with only 256mb of onboard RAM. However, after seeing the demo running on the 512mb version Microsoft decided immediately to ship the Xbox 360 with 512mb of RAM. A move which cost Microsoft $1 billion dollars.

However, it would not be the cynical gamer if I was not at least a little bit Cynical. Of course, this really hasn't cost Microsoft anything. Because it is the consumer who pays for the product. It is the consumer who eventually foots the bill for all of the Research and Development costs associated with any product. While the company foots the bill while they are developing and initially selling the console they, of course, recoup their costs with the sale of the product. Of course, when consoles are released you hear that a console is not making any money. In the long run it will not have cost Microsoft a cent and probably provided an improvement on the hardware prior to it being released which was lucky for Microsoft. So much for their R & D department.

Interesting to note that the PS3 ships with only 256mb of onboard RAM. Will be interesting to see how much such a small difference in hardware can make to each console in relation to frame rates at high resolution. You should hear gamers go on as soon as a game becomes choppy too. With a PC various excuses can be made because frame rate is generally hardware dependent. However, with a console every game should be relatively smooth.

PS3 is Copping a Beating

Not only is the PS3 copping a beating when it comes to console sales. Recent sales figures released in the US show that the PS3 is the worst performing next gen console for sales. But another industry heavy weight developer has come out and criticized Sony and the PS3. This time it is John Carmack who has joined ranks with Gabe Newell to lay the smack down on Sony. As much as two nerds can possibly lay the smack down on anyone. John is far more diplomatic than Gabe. Gabe just came out and said, "I'd say, even at this late date, they should just cancel it [PS3] and do a 'do over'."

John Carmack is far more civil in his appraisal of the PS3. He says, "I do intend to do a simultaneous release on it. But the honest truth is that Microsoft dev tools are so much better than Sony's ... I suspect they are not going to overwhelmingly crush the marketplace this time, which wasn't clear a year ago. A lot of people were thinking it's going to be a rerun of the last generation, and it's now looking like it might not be. I've been pulling for Microsoft, because I think they've done a better job for development support, and I think they have made somewhat smarter decisions on the platform."

And back to Gabe Newell ... "The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted ... Just say, 'This [the PS3] was a horrible disaster and we're sorry and we're going to stop selling this and stop trying to convince people to develop for it'." Well, tell us what you really think Gabe. So, it is no great surprise that the big announcements have just been made that Half Life 2 (developed by Gabe and his company Valve) in a special box set will be released on the Xbox 360. Let the love-in begin. Just as nerds can lay the smack down so can they brown nose as much as anyone. Is it any surprise that Gabe's comments come with announcement of the Half Life 2 packs on the Xbox 360. Further to this Gabe has announced that the Half Life 2 engine will be available for developers to use as a software development tool for the Xbox 360. There you go. It all kind of fits in to place. Microsoft and Xbox 360 are in and the Sony PS3 is out down at Valve.

Crackdown: Initial Impressions

Crackdown is good fun. I have been playing the demo on and off for the last month and have enjoyed the hour or so that you got with the game. I had been looking forward to the game's official release today as most of my other Xbox 360 games I had pretty much finished. Open world or sandbox games just offer something in their freedom which I find compelling.

The world of Crackdown is not as big as I initially thought it would be. I don't believe the map is as large as Saints Row and is definitely not as large as GTA: San Andreas, but the game is silky smooth with a phenomenal draw distance. After reading a couple of previews for the game I decided to crank the difficulty up to the highest and see how the game panned out. After you get in to the game you will find that it doesn't take long to finish the first gang off. Not only does this mean that you are a third of the way through the game, but it also means there is nothing for you to do in that part of the city besides collecting orbs and racing. There are no baddies left there for you to kill. This is a bit frustrating as all of a sudden a large part of the map is rendered relatively useless. However, jumping from rooftop to rooftop is excellent. The concept of Crackdown is well conceived even if the actual gameplay is a little short.

You will find that the skill progression or development actually does require a fair bit of gameplay. The demo didn't really do this part of the game justice with its accelerated levelling. The driving skill is the area which I have developed the least and don't really have much of an interest in pushing my character. It is not as much fun to run someone over as it is to pick up a car and squash them with it. Or, jump high in to the air and target an enemy with your grenade launcher and destroy them before you land on the ground.

At this point in time though the game seems a little shallow. Surely, that can't be all there is to the game. 100 bucks for six or seven hours of entertainment seems a little bit stiff to me. Why couldn't they have made the mission structure a bit better. A bit deeper. A little bit more involved than what it is. At the moment I have this awesome environment with a character who is like a superhero with absolutely nothing to do besides destroy three gangs. The funny thing is that if I am skillfull enough I can just go to the kingpin of each gang and kill them first up without doing any of the "sub" missions. How can the developers have thought for an instant that the short gameplay of the main missions would satisfy anyone. Especially when you consider how involved the story line is in GTA San Andreas. Crackdown is nothing more than a pimple on the face of GTA San Andreas when comparing the story of the two games.

The easiest way to give you an idea of what the game is like would be to compare Crackdown (which I have probably played for a good four hours or so) with Saint's Row. Saint's Row has a whole lot more to do in the game. With it's three main gangs to overcome in the story part of the game as well as all of the activities as well and a larger area to explore. Crackdown has the three gangs to take down plus some driving and agility activities as well as orbs to collect. The graphics in Crackdown are excellent, but they are also very good with Saint's Row. They are almost comparable. There have been times that I have been playing Crackdown and been locked on to a target gang member. I'll move in to melee their arse and they just disappear. As though they were never there in the first place. If you are a power gamer you are going to get through Crackdown a whole lot quicker than Saints Row (which I have played for more than 20 hours and still haven't finished all of the main missions). Also, I bought Saint's Row second hand from EB (still a rip off) but a lot more entertainment for my buck when comparing it to Crackdown.

Having said all of this the game is still great fun. Hopefully they will utilize Xbox Live and provide some more content for the game otherwise it won't have much of a life beyond its opening weekend.

Cause the Game is Set in Another Postcode It's Not Cheating

Gears of War and Rainbow Six Vegas are two games which have, quite possibly, the best graphics of any game I have played. The frustrating thing is that they both have excellent game play as well. They are not just another version of Half Life 2, the prettiest thing on the block but with not much under the hood. They are smart, witty, and, more importantly, fun games to play. Gears of War is, stylistically one of the best games I have ever seen. The gothic nature of the world which Epic have created and the flowing story complement each other with an action packed adventure. Rainbow Six Vegas really couldn't do any wrong after Lockdown. Lockdown was one of the worst, on rails, shooters ever made and a complete disappointment to the franchise. Unfortunately, Ubisoft had decided to move Rainbow Six away from what it was (a sim-type one hit shooter) and turn it into an arcade type shooter. Gone was the strategy from the game. While some of these things have not returned to Vegas the game is much better than Lockdown. With a squad of two others Vegas requires that you think on your feet while you play. Using your squad becomes an important means in which to get through a level (especially on the hardest difficulty).

Both of these games have also done something else for me. They have let me play a linear shooter and actually enjoy the process. They are both relatively challenging, but also completely entertaining at the same time. Something which I felt a lot of linear shooters had managed to loose somewhere along the line in the last five years. It seemed that games were a compromise in some respects. You either had good graphics and a cliched story or a good story and bad graphics. Now we are starting to see a good mix.

Finally, when you manage to find a good game you want to spend as much time with it as possible. Sometimes we even manage to do this at the expense of real people or loved ones. However, it is a ten or twenty hour fling which, at the end, sees us all return back for a reality check. The excitement and action cannot last forever. Like all things we cannot remain immersed in someone else's reality without eventually having to return to our own. But that's what it is. A good game is like having an affair. You live life in a different way with a heightened sense of reality for a short period of time and then return back to reality and appreciate the things which you do have.

There are only a few games that have actually done this to me. Placed me in another world which managed to seperate me from reality. System Shock was probably the first narrative based game which did this. These are the games which you can't stand to be parted from. You want to devour them until they are finished. To explore and soak up every gory detail. The oringal Half Life would be another which did this. This is where gaming has changed from its original console/arcade beginnings. Games were originally a form of entertainment which were not immersive but just fun for a period of time. Then as technology developed narrative became an important part of games and helped to change the way games were played.

This is the mark of any form of good fiction. If it has the ability to literally take you to another time and place to the point where you are so absorbed in that fictitious world as to be ignorant to the goings on of the outside world. This is the very nature of escapism. It is the reason why so many people involve themselves in some form of fiction on a daily basis. However, it is only temporary and, at some stage, we have to face the reality of our own existence.

The next game to be released which will test this theory will be Bioshock. Hopefully it will manage to maintain the pace set by Vegas and Gears of War while creating a completely immersive and stylistic world in which to live for ten hours or so.

My Word Is My Honour, Until I Say Another Word

There used to be a time when honour and chivalry were two closely related modes of thought. Where the notion that my word is my bond would be enough for people to conduct business deals with only a handshake. However, times have changed and even if you have something in writing it may not necessarily be an iron clad contract, but more a guide or a statement of how things are at the time but they may very well change in the future.

“Only on Xbox” doesn't necessarily mean “only on xbox” or exclusive to Xbox as some misguided people were lead to believe by Microsoft. “Only on Xbox” means only on Xbox at the moment, but that may change in the future if we think we can milk a few more dollars out of it. Gears of War, to use a cliché which is not even slightly overused in the gaming industry, the killer app for Xbox 360 looks like it will inevitably head to a PC near you in the future. As reported by ign.com “Rein (Epic's Vice President) told TeamXbox that Epic would "eventually" bring Gears to PC ... "It's inevitable," Rein said, "but it's just not there today." "

This is not the first time that Microsoft have thrown an “only on Xbox” badge on a game only to later release it on another format. Anyone remember that quaint little shooter called Halo?

So what does “Only on Xbox/Xbox 360" really mean? Well, I think the label should read "only on Xbox at this time, however, it might later appear on another format where we can, in fact, make more money". That would clearly explain the position Microsoft has on exclusivity and isn't too long that it wouldn't fit on a box. That way they are not breaking their word by claiming something and then later making themselves a liar. As far as I am concerned, my integrity is more important than anything else. Maybe Microsoft have a different slant on the world.

Console Vs Computer

Let's face it, whether it be a console or a PC, these machines are just Gaming Delivery Devices (GDDs). While the nature of the two are different. The console is a targetted GDD provided as a lounge room based entertainment centre piece. The computer is a multifunctioning GDD. Allowing the user to perform other functions besides gaming. Namely forwarding porn via email to acquaintances and anyone on their mailing list, forwarding chain letters via email, using MSN as a means to avoid talking to people on the phone or in person, typing up documents, and looking up porn on the internet. I think you'll find that when people are at work the computer also functions in a similar manner to at home with the previously mentioned list. However, for many so-called gaming purists the PC is the ultimate GDD.

However, traditionally the console was the device which brought gaming to lounge rooms and the home. The Atari 2600 was the first console which I can recall in Australia and the first which I owned. For someone who was too young to travel to arcades it was my first experience with video games. While there were some games floating around for computers (I can recall Load Runner on the Macintosh) many of the major gaming releases at the time were on the console. After the Atari came the Commodore 64. A computer which was designed specifically as a GDD and the first real division we see in the console Vs computer gaming war. The Commodore 64 and later the Commodore Amiga were probably the two best GDDs ever created. The Commodore 64 saw a massive boost in gaming and the establishment of the home gaming industry. It also saw the beginnings of a divide between console and computer. However, I would argue that the Commodore 64 was little more than a console with a keyboard. Essentially, you still used cartridges or cassettes to load the games. You plugged in a joystick to play the games and, if you were lucky enough, you had a floppy disc drive to play the games. However, the Commodore 64 was not like computers of today. It was not upgradable. It was a glorified console.

It was really in the early 90s that the home PC became the GDD which has shaped games of today. The thing about consoles is that they don't age well. They are stuck in a time warp based around the date of their creation. They will not be able to improve on the performance from which they were built. Certainly the programmers will get better at coding the machines, but the technology in them cannot change. Where as PCs are upgradable. With this upgradability also creates a divide for gamers related to performance. Not all PCs are equal and some are definitely more equal than others. This also created a divide in gamers. There are the so-called gaming purists, the ones who would sell their own mother to have enough money to upgrade their PCs with the latest devices in order to play the games with the best frame rate and the highest resolution. All others fell into the broad category of casual gamers. Casual gamers may even own a PC and a console. Whereas the gaming "elite" specifically focussed their attention on spending money on their PCs and refining their skills with a mouse and keyboard.

PCs have definitely been able to cater for a broader spectrum of games across a number of different genres. PCs have also allowed far more diversity with independent gaming developers. Consoles have not been Real Time Strategy friendly devices. Controllers are much more difficult to streamline for such games. And the most important factor is that consoles are seen as being a GDD catering specifically for casual gamers and not the hard core.

One of the reasons for this is based around the controller. It is seen as a slower input device. It is more difficult to run backwards, shoot and aim as opposed to the mouse and keyboard. Whereas the mouse and keyboard is seen as being the fundamental tool kit for the hard core gamer. This can be seen be the sheer number of mouses available in the market now. The ridiculous nature of mouse mats (glass, teflon coated, inflatable friends of the hard core gamer guaranteed to keep them from feeling lonely on a 24 hour coffee and Red Bull fueled gaming session). All of these emerging niche markets have been created by the so-called "hard core" gamers who literally lust for some form of domination over their online rivals.

Microsoft are attempting to bridge that divide somewhat. They want the Xbox 360 to be able to compete with PC gamers online. This has many PC Gamers laughing in the face of their somewhat retarded controller cousins. Knowing that they are going to have the edge when it comes to a face-to-face show down online. Yelling, "I'm going to pawn those console noobs," into the void of their empty rooms or over teamspeak to their PC weilding mates.

What does it matter unless you are a professional gamer? What does it matter whether you get your thrills running a console or a PC?

The reason why I have considered these things is because I was lucky enough to become the owner of an Xbox 360 before Christmas. I have enjoyed playing it so much that I haven't played anything new on the PC since. It has been an opportunity for me to, once again, explore my gaming roots which began with a console. While I have thoroughly enjoyed playing Gears of War I have also spent many hours on Xbox Live Arcade playing Geometry Wars and Billiards. For me the consoles simplify the gaming process. I don't worry about my email. I don't worry about who's online I just put the DVD in the console and play.

I must be getting soft in my old age because it seems that the Xbox 360 may be here to stay and any PC upgrades I had planned will be put on hold. This doesn't mean that I won't be playing PC Games but if their is a console version of the same game I will probably lean towards getting the console game. No more screaming, die noobs for me. I will probably be the noob at the other end of a console controller.

Why have I been so critical of Stalker?

I have been extremely critical of the development of Stalker in the last couple of years. Now that the game is scheduled for release I must say that I am looking forward to playing it, but feel that the developer may have made a few mistakes along the way. The reason why I have been critical of its development is due to the fact that I have been following its development for close to four or even five years. I had even, at times, been extremely excited by the prospect of Stalker's release. It was one of those games which appeared to make an attempt to break the shooter mold somewhat. It was promised to be a large open world or sandbox game in which the player could possibly not even win. There was the prospect of attempting to complete the game only to find that another AI controlled Stalker had beaten you to the task. This concept would have to be considered somewhat unique to gaming. However, it was not meant to be. The publisher of the game have managed to sink their fingers in to the game and have assisted in making the game a more traditional shooter.

Stalker was originally billed as a survival shooter. That is the game developer placed you in the world of Stalker and you had to survive. More importantly, you had to learn how to survive in this unique world. It wasn't just a matter of using your existing set of FPS skills to do the job you would have to learn a new skill set in order to live in that world. What other game could offer this type of experience? A mix of FPS, roleplay, hunting and survival all rolled in to one. However, it was deemed not practical. It seemed that this started to happen after the game picked up a publisher. A publisher who was willing to put money in to the project.

As far as I am concerned the developers have been a little too forthcoming with information with regards to the game. They have let the gaming community know too much and then, when they have been unable to deliver, have had to change the concept of the game in order to match the reality of their ability. Or, has it been that the publisher has decided that a unique approach to the gameplay was too risky a proposition to guarantee a substantial return on their investment.

The developer was more than happy to appease the gaming community with many different prerelease videos featuring ingame tidbits. Many of them overlayed actual video footage of Chernobyl and the surrounding areas and then faded nicely in to the ingame reality. The shadows and lighting were definitely cutting edge, at the time. As the snowball of Stalker grew, with the claims from the developer and the gaming community getting behind its release the cracks began to show.

Checking in at the developers Stalker website became a daily pilgrimage. I had a number of gaming websites which I would check out for gaming news regularly and Stalker became one of them. It must be difficult for developers to maintain a website for a game in development. Giving the gaming public enough information to whet their appetite while not giving away too much in the way of ideas which haven't fully been implemented. Here was possibly one of their mistakes. They gave the gaming public too much information. Release dates and game details were thrown about carelessly. It was like giving candy to children. The more information we received the more we wanted. They also ran a story competition which was tainted in some way (I didn't get all of the details on it) and had to be changed or scrapped. The promise was that the stories would be incorporated in to the game. Then all of a sudden the information flow died. Time went on and people were beginning to believe that Stalker was in trouble. One of the official statements from the developer was that the engine was starting to show the signs of aging and had to be redeveloped for newer hardware. Considering the quality of the ingame videos which were being released this statement was difficult to believe. Then at the beginning of last year was the large scale sacking of a lot of staff involved in the game. This for many people signified the death of the game itself. The official story was that there was some required culling based on where the game was at and these staff were no longer needed. However, others looked more deeply between the lines and believed that Stalker was the next Duke Nukem Forever.

What is the use of making mistakes if you don't learn from them? I hope that the developers have learned a lot from what they have gone through making Stalker. Obviously the information which you release to the public can create the life and death of a game. People are more than happy to take a little bit of information and make it real. Make it their own. For me, I am happy to admit, that Stalker was shaping up to be a game which was prepared to break the gaming mold. Unfortunately, it seems that the game has not ended up that way. In some way we get attached to these ideas and they shape the basis of the game in our minds.

I hope that Stalker is an excellent shooter. I will be buying the limited edition version and throwing my hard earned dollars back at the developer. This game will definitely be getting a Cynical Gamer review, as to what form it takes, we'll just have to wait until the game comes out to find out.

To Vista or not to Vista, that is the Question

Who has upgraded to Vista? I should rephrase that. Who, in their right mind, has upgraded to Vista? Microsoft have a track record with new operating systems (much like some game developers) they release their products in a somewhat unfinished state. How can I quantify this statement when the operating system itself does run, well it runs, but it still does not have complete driver support. While driver support may not be the responsibility of the creator of the operating system to supply it is necessary for users to have complete driver support to run peripherals and integral parts of their computer. Some manufacturers are saying that driver support for some peripherals for Vista will be another six months away. How can that be? Vista is apparently finished yet it may not run all of the hardware associated with your computer.

As another point of interest it appears that one of Microsofts own devices (the Zune) still is not Vista compatible. So, one of Microsofts very own products is not yet supported by Vista. “There's not enough drivers out there. Peripherals manufacturers are not all up to speed with Vista, so be careful what you buy,” Anthony Rodio said (Chief Marketing Officer at Supportsoft a partner who provides helpdesk support for Windows Vista).

This leads me to my main point of contention. Windows is Microsoft's primary product. Since Steve Ballmer suggested that the financial forecasts for 2008 were overly aggressive Microsoft's share price fell 2.7%. While this is not a large hit on the overall price it is apparently the biggest decline in the Dow Jones industrial age.

What would happen if Microsoft went belly up? No more windows support and no real alternative operating systems. While I know you are saying, hang on, I could switch over to Linux. Have you actually tried to run games on Linux? You have to have a degree in computer programming to get a game up and running. While Linux may be an alternative operating system it is not made for mainstream consumption. I spent quite some time last year attempting to get Quake 4 up and running on Linux and I did not have much success. The best result I could get was for the game to load only to crash my system and then for Linux to decide that it did not want to reboot any more. While we may be critical of Microsoft and their arrogance with regards to their hold over the IT industry, unfortunately, we live in a world with no alternatives. Microsoft have a relative monopoly over the OS market for non-Apple based PCs. For gamers, there really is no viable alternative to Windows for gaming. What would happen if Microsoft were to go out of business with no competitor able to offer a working alternative for gamers? Could this possibly destabilize the industry because their is no clear alternative. While you may say, well nothing could stop Microsoft, I am sure the Romans said the same thing about the Roman empire too.

There are many people who would like nothing more than to see Microsoft go belly up. The frightening thing is that there is no alternative. There is no suitable competition who could take Microsoft's place. Without a viable alternative there are no other options. The complete irony of the notion which we place in our free market economy which is meant to promote choice has actually created a situation where there is no other choice.

The other thing which has frustrated me is Microsoft's use of Vista and DirectX 10 to force gamers to upgrade their operating system. Releases such as Halo 2 on PC will only be able to be played on Vista. This is nothing more than corporate blackmail. Furthermore the recommended version of Vista for gamers is, of course, the most expensive version. As though gamers are made of money.

What do I actually think of Vista? Having used the Beta last year I must say that I was not overly impressed. Visually the OS looks excellent, however, I felt that it ran like a dog. The system in which I was running the OS was a 64 bit AMD 3400 with 2 gig of DDR RAM and a GeForce 7900GS. My system more than meets the recommended settings yet I still felt that it ran slow. As far as I am concerned a new operating system should run better than the old one. I couldn't say that about Vista. I also work in the IT industry and I can't imagine that businesses would be rushing out to upgrade to Vista. I believe that most businesses are going to have to upgrade some part of their hardware in order to run Vista (more than likely it will be RAM). Most work stations currently run quite comfortably on 256mb of DDR RAM. Vista will force them to upgrade to 512mb. These upgrades will be at a huge expense to some large businesses and with the possibility of huge compatibility frustrations for small businesses.

Anyway, To Vista or not to Vista, that is the question. I would have to say that I am extremely happy with how stable XP is that I won't be upgrading to Vista for quite some time. XP is finally a stable and, somewhat, secure operating system. It has just taken Microsoft a number of years to get it to that point. Vista is like a game that has been released unfinished. The publishers are desperately trying to patch a product which should have been released without the need of requiring patches to finish it. This appears to be the mentality of publishers/developers at the moment. It is a "She'll be right, mate" attitude that not even Australians would be happy with.

No Hax Gaming Network

I am happy to say that we have another supporter of The Cynical Gamer. The No Hax Gaming Network is another supporter of this blog.

Please feel free to check out their website. They support hax free tournaments and teams. An excellent idea considering the prevalence of hacks and cheats around in gaming at the moment.

Click on the link above. You will find gaming news and forums. They are also going to run articles from the Cynical Gamer as well.

If you are a website or gaming network which is looking for support then send me an email. I am more than happy to consider co-operative sponsorship of other gaming websites.

Cheers

The Cynical Gamer