The movie industry and the video game industry have attempted to meld on several occasions. None of which have had astronomical critical and commercial success simultaneously. The only one that came close was GoldenEye 007 back on the N64. Since then there have been many pairings of games and movies. Games first, then movie; sometimes movie first then game. Recently the games have come prior to the movies and some say ruin the story for the movies by revealing the endings. However the overall consensus is that movies based on a video game franchise or single iteration become horrible representations of the medium. So why is that?

Lack Of Developer Involvement
Nine times out of ten the developers who own the intellectual property don’t have anything to do with the movies besides selling off the rights to make quick cash. Certain companies however do make the effort to have their properties stay true to their counterparts, like Capcom and their involvement with the  Resident Evil franchise. Some beloved franchises are not so lucky, Metal Gear Solid comes to mind.  David Hayter the voice of Snake and also a professional screenplay writer has written numerous great movies such as Watchmen, X-Men and X2. He wanted to write the script for MGS movie with the supervision of Hideo Kojima (series creator) however things didn’t quite work for him and he was rejected by Sony. He is currently writing and putting into work Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. When developers take a back seat to their properties development in another medium it usually creates half-assed works of crap, or pieces that are loved by some and hated by others. Hitman was a prime example, as barely any story was congruent with the series. Same can be said about the randomness of the two Street Fighter films. Mortal Kombat feels to be the most true to the source material to this day.

Casting Errors
Casting is key to development of a movie based on a video game or based off of anything in an already existing medium that has a face. You begin to see actors who would be right for the part. Often times though studios choose what would broaden their audience and garner more money in the end. On certain ocassions they choose the cast based upon budget, which is sensible but rarely does it ever work out for the best. Overall casting has bee sub-par for game movies. The upcoming Kane And Lynch movie due out in 2011 has great casting of Bruce Willis as Kane, however Lynch will be played by Jamie Foxx. I don’t understand hollywood at times. However, one can argue that Mortal Kombat and Lara Croft has one of the most true to gaming casts.

Rating Issues
Most of the popular games that are brought to movies are M rated titles. As one would assume R rated movies based on games that are yes, aimed at mature audiences but are played and bought by many underage teenagers and children would be a wonderful idea. You want to see the R rated movie based on your favorite game? Than you have to bring a consenting adult. However sometimes it is just cheaper to create a PG-13 title and create an Unrated Blu-Ray or DVD release to appease the fans. The problem with this idea is that most of the hardcore who are into the series/game being portrayed on film are anxious to see it and won’t wait for the home release. Some recent ratings issues have come in lieu of Max Payne (did the story even keep true to the game?), Doom (WTF? Really?), and Hitman as well.

Future Holds Hope
Well, there is plenty for the industry to improve upon when it comes to transferring mediums. Hopefully subsequent titles will be good and Uwe Boll wont make any more movies like Far Cry and Postal. Halo seems to be having the same issues as Metal Gear Solid was having with the change of producers/directors so quick. So I leave you with a list of movies based on games coming out in the near or long future.

• Metal Gear Solid
• Tekken-Later This Year
• King Of Fighters( Says its released in November 2009 but I havent seen it anywhere)
• Resident Evil: Afterlife
• Kane And Lynch
• BloodRayne 3: The Third Reich

Comic-Con is the Vatican of geek culture. Sure as gamers the big one we all wait for is E3, but Comic-Con is much more than just games. It really is a pop culture phenomenon that over the last couple of years has grown to be one of the biggest events we all strive to hear from. It was from hear that Heath Ledger was announced he will be playing the Joker in the latest Batman movie, from here that we heard the Avengers Movie is indeed coming, and from hear I personally got to meet and shake the hand of Davin Tennant, the greatest motha effin Doctor to live!

Is this why I love Comic-Con? To be honest yes and no. You see Comic-Con is great and all but it also is kinda of a retreat for us gaming journalist. Not many games are showcased here at the Con. So it gives us journalist a little break from the usually hectic sprints to announcements or crunching in time to write up a article before our next interview or game hands on.

For those who are also as big as comic book geeks as me. This place is your haven! Everyone here dresses up as there favorite comic book character. It here in the San Diego Convention Center that I saw Darth Vader and Superman go all out in a Battle Royale to the death!

The Convention it’s self is one of the most beautiful centers you will ever see in your journalist travels. Its located right next to the famous San Diego Bay and across the pond you can see the also-famous Coronado Island where celebrities and families alike have fun on the beach (and if your lucky you might spot the Navy SEALS training).One of the mains reason I love this Con however is it is located in my hometown.

Now I’ve been all over the world. Seen a whole lot of cities. From Los Angeles to Paris, and I can tell your truthfully none of them came close to San Diego. It may not be the flashiest city like New York or as famous as Los Angeles, or historic as London. But it certainly is the most relaxing and kindest. There is a reason why San Diego is called America’s finest city, and the city transforms into a geeks dream city when Comic-Con comes to town.

So if any of you are going to Comic-Con next week relax chill. Be prepared nerd flu, sweat, a kind of piss smell in the air, and certainly be prepared to meet a lot of characters. I can gaurntee you though you will have the time of your life.

Over recent years it has become apparent that the modern generation of gamers just aren’t interested in World War Two any more. This is shown through the triumphs of games such as Infinity Ward’s Modern Warfare Two and EA’s Battle Field Bad Company Two,compared to the flops like Medal of Honor: Airborne and Treyarch’s Call of Duty: World at War.

There are several possible reasons for this sudden lack of interest in WW2. Like with anything could this particular franchise have been over milked? And if so could the same problem not occur with our interest in modern combat?

The simplest reason I can think of is that WW2 simply isn’t relevant enough to the modern generation of gamers. With conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan to the ever growing and changing world around us, there are so many possible stories to explore WW2 increasingly seems to be a confined and re tolled story. And whilst developers have made 1940’s locations like the French countryside and the Pacific islands seem so real and dangerous, they no longer are. The world has moved on. French towns are no longer filled with barbed wire and shell craters and the Pacific’s skies are no longer filled with the hum of fighter plane engines.

The same cannot be said for the locations of games set in more modern times. For example the first level of MW2, S.S.D.D. An American Army base in the desert of Afghanistan. Helicopters glide across the sky as off duty soldiers play basketball and talk. We are then thrown into combat as the Rangers engage in a skirmish with fighters on the other side of a river. From your position you can see the damage caused by war, walls with bullet holes along them, sky scrapers struggling to stay upright due to the damage inflicted upon them, and all the while the Fierce, bright sun reflects off the windows that surround you. We can lose our selves in such scenes because they are happening as you read this article.

It is the same with many types of games, for example Tom Clancy’s Hawx, a game set in the near future where you take control of a vast array of advanced fighter jets. This game was more well received than Heroes of the Pacific because you are playing through a story you can visualize happening because of what is happening around the globe today.

Sadly no matter how hard you try, you cannot truly lose yourself in a WW2 game, you already know how it will end.

Game companies sensing a sinking ship have also abandoned WW2. Companies such as Treyarch, well known for their C.O.D. Series have announced their next game as C.O.D. Black Ops. A game not only set in more recent times but a game that intends to “change the history” of the story it tells. Another well known company set to keep up with the times is EA. Announcing it’s next Medal of Honor as following the story of a Special Ops soldier in Afghanistan.

Personally I am sad to see the Style go. I have fond memories of the first Medal of Honor games. The views of the battles were breath taking and tanks were never more terrifying .

Have a suggestion for a great WW2 game to play? Or dislike the new craze with modern combat? Leave a comment below.

In October of 2008 I went to my local game retailer to pick up Dead Space on the day of release.  I had been pretty hyped about the game considering the graphic novel that had been released periodically before the release of the game not to mention the film that was to be released slightly after the release of the video game.  Back to the story at hand, I bring the game home and pop it in to my Xbox 360.  I still remember the first time I watched the intro to the game and thinking “okay this isn’t too scary so far”.  I mean it wasn’t like the beginning of the original Silent Hill, I didn’t have knife wielding mutant zombie babies cornering me in an ally.  Then I actually started playing, here I am walking in to a dark corridor no weapon in hand and I have some monster I have never seen before jumping out at me.  I freaked out, paused the game, I was completely frightened.  I played through the first half of the first level of Dead Space and couldn’t take it.  I put the controller down shut off my Xbox and never picked up the game again, until I played Alan Wake.

Alan Wake is a game I have really been looking forward to.  I am a huge fan of Stephen King and I saw this game as a Stephen King novel, just in video game form.  I was rather timid about my purchase though, Dead Space being the last thriller/horror game I played I honestly didn’t know if I could play it.  I was rather conflicted the entire time that I was driving toward my local game retailer.  Alan Wake’s story had me very intrigued I just didn’t know if I had it in me to play through a horror game.  Apparently I did.  While Alan Wake didn’t scare me as much as Dead Space the environments were very reminiscent of any nightmare you might have that included a wooded area.

Alan Wake’s story is what really made me continue through it while being completely terrified of my surroundings.  I knew there was something that was going to pop out at me while walking down this path in the woods or through a line of log cabins, but in order to get the next piece of the story I had to get through it, gripping my controller as if it were the last thing I would ever hold on to.  The “episode” structure of Alan Wake was also a huge help.  By the end of every episode I was always trying my hardest to not turn off my console and when I finally reached the end it was always a huge relief, but not once did I stop playing until I had finally gotten to the conclusion of an episode.

On Monday June 7^th I watched the ending credits of Alan Wake.  Shortly after while sitting here trying to wrap my head around the ending of this great game it occurred to me that I had no new games to play, but I did have one that I had never completed.  I am currently at the beginning of chapter 3 in Dead Space and really enjoying myself, playing a chapter at a time.

A satirical look at a world we don’t live in(thankfully)
“Why games journalism?” I get asked this question a lot. Largely by the elderly, my parents and the string of careers advisors I’ve seen but I dismiss them all as being too old, too concerned or frankly too unqualified to judge. About the 50th time I was asked this however it became clear that their question wasn’t really “why games journalism” but more “why games journalism”. Its perfectly acceptable for us it seems to want to spend the rest of our lives(or the more youthful parts of it at least) chasing so called “celebs” around with a camera and writing dreary and uninteresting articles about whose marriage is in trouble or who’s been seen buying what and where. Tabloid journalism. A hot bed of talentless charlatans, unscrupulous scaremongers and intrusive hate-spreaders. To quote Sir Alec Guinness “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy”. So my question is why not games journalism? Because games journalism is such a relatively new form of journalism it doesn’t get the respect it deserves from those outside the industry. I would argue however that its journalism at its purest. Games journos are only interested in the facts, not how they can spin them. To illustrate the point, when was the last time you picked up a copy of OXM to find the headline “Cliff Blezinski in Nazi themed orgy” or “Shigeru Miyamoto adopts small African boy” spattered across the front page. It just doesn’t happen. Far from stalking devs to find out what kind of toothpaste they use, games journos simply care about the product. This does mean however that with the exception of certain so called “rockstar developers” like Sir Cliffington Blezingblazer, formerly known as Dude Huge, formerly formerly known as Cliffy B we don’t really know an awful lot about the men behind the games. Still this is a preferable alternative to opening X360 mag and finding images of Sid Meir and his team stumbling drunk from a club. There are those however who enjoy tabloid journalism, as is evident from the tremendous sales of glossy rags in this country and therefore may be disagreeing with me. Well for their benefit and to serve as a warning to the rest of us I took the liberty of throwing together some examples of what a tabloid games paper would look like. Children under 5 and adults with a weak constitution should avoid reading on.

Terrifying isn’t it? I think we should take a moment to be thankful that we don’t live in this world, to pray to what ever deity we believe in that we never do and to pray that we never have to live through the unimaginable horror of a crotch shot of Peter Molyneux leaving a car… eww.

I’m back, and i’m full of the rage felt only by an ice cream seller in the rain! It’s time to conquer the ultimate question: Is this the end? Let’s spark the fires of controversy during debate week, as I expose the industry.

The Tank of Consumerism.

Unless you’ve been living under a lamp shade, you’ll have noticed our friendly recession. As it persues, obviously the grave of the gaming industry has been dug ever deeper. We seem to be in a direct collision course with a culture shock: we have to adapt to this. In true ‘me’ style, I haven’t bought a game for some time. However, when I go to purchase my lovely games I find holographs, shiny boxes, music tracks, figurines, novels, graphic novels, films, DLC, featurettes, chickens, geese, cereal, flowers, mugs, cupcakes, large pots filled with po-pari -

Yes.

Regardless of your opinion on storyline and thought, we’re becoming ever more pretentious, as consumerism arrives in a large tank to crush gaming as we know it. I appreciate feign attempts at remembering the classics; such as Google’s ‘Pac man’ exhibit, however I really feel gaming is absolutely being crushed. We’re on the brink of pretentious people taking a knife to graphic appreciation. I myself am a great believer in storyline, and use of simplicity. Games such as ‘Lost Planet 2′, in my opinion map a filthy concept to do with, strange beings and no explanation! In comparison, ‘Assassins Creed’ is creating compelling sticky grenades to combat the tank, and doing it incredibly well…as well!

Let’s Make Some Money.

If anyone’s still reading, read on! GTA4 on it’s own is worth over $500million, which says something about complementary goods! Although I believe this game’s DLCs and additions were brought out with great sincerity to GTA as a franchise, other games are silly billies! Gears of War has sold out to the max, selling rights to image use, and ensuring even bearded nuns in Calypso’s House of Plenty have seen their CONCEPT ART. In fact, all of you, personally email me and tell me if you’ve seen their concept art without chasing it: Social Experiments FTW!

On a serious note, this is for debate. I understand entirely that many people reading this will disagree with what i’m saying completely. We need to remember that debating will ensure we continue to get awesome games! However, as you’ll see as I continue, I also think that we’re becoming obsessed critics of games. Let’s read every bit of material around the game, and clear out ambiguoity completely! We buy Assassins Creed for the lovely mystery, as we try to predict what’s to come up. We buy Call of Duty just so we can scour around for clues about the next game. We bought those Kinder Eggs as kids because we had no idea what toy we’d get! Let’s get back to our roots!

Ask the nOObs!

Are you kidding? Wrapping your wounds with Pac Man?!

To prove my point, I decided to ask an ambitious game designer, hoping to go into gaming for a career, to see what he thought about the new culture of gaming:

As a game designer, do you think people are buying games for the game itself, or for the culture?

“What an hopeful question, not! As a smaller game designer, I can’t really comment on the massive franchises and culture that other game companies have experienced. However, I did do a bit of work experience with one such company, and found the halls draped with complementary goods. I was actually really annoyed at the lack of graphics and remembrance of the actual game play. I mean, there was like, no evidence of the technological advancements made, and the impression they had on gaming.”

The Evidence, Before the Court…

See? I have supporters! The growing band of Saving Private Ryan bridge smashes to stop the tank is actually massing on particular games. No I don’t mean the poxy protesters outside ‘Dante’s Inferno’ HQ, I mean the guys and gals’ reading this thinking ‘I want Mayonnaise AND Cheese! I want the Game AND the Novel!’

Come on world, lets come to a rounded compromise. Let’s collect wine bottles with the Bomberman logo imprinted on them, but let’s also play the games we were born to.

And that my friends, is my contribution, to Debate Week.

To some non-gamers and ignorant members of the public Videogames are something that are to be avoided, not because they are too complex to be understandable but more because of the social stigma they have. To many the first image they have of a hardcore gamer is a spotty teenager sat alone in a room, lit only by the glow from their TV set or computer monitor, whereas we all clearly know that cant be further from the truth.

Luckily this image has started to deteriorate in more recent times with many people realising the merits of Videogames and just how intelligent and sociable gamers are; and here is what many people don’t realise, playing games has and always will be an entirely sociable experience, even if its an entirely single player game, those key moments where something epic happens you want to tell and inform everyone and those moments bring people together to socialise about what moments they found. This social experience has been happening since the dawn of videogaming and still occurs today, even after huge advances in communications technology people still get together on Forums or in person and discuss their individual experiences with each other; however even if the birth of the internet has brought discussion points and topics together, has it done the same for actual gameplay or has it just pushed gamers into playing multiplayer entirely online?

Online multiplayer has been a part of videogaming for years now, having first been popularised by many RTS and early MMO games on the PC; however on consoles online play has had a much shakier start, only really taking off in 2002 with Xbox Live on the original Xbox, although the Sega Dreamcast did have some success with its online market and the hugely played Phantasy Star Online series. Before Xbox Live’s success multiplayer gaming happened in hugely social situations, a standard session usually meant you and three mates sat around a TV, or huddled over a mess of Gameboy Link Cables, with snacks and drinks playing for hours, comparing scores and having a great laugh Alternatively if you’ve always been primarily a PC gamer it was about organising a huge LAN session and having a mess of trailing wires and throwing banter across the room at your mate who couldn’t take the beating you just handed them. The N64 set the norm for many consoles by allowing for 4 players simultaneously, without having to buy multi-taps or system linking consoles, this flowed onto the Sega Dreamcast too and the Xbox and with the Xbox you could have 16 players playing together in a room if you felt like linking up the consoles. Nintendo had started a generation where multiplayer slowly took the bigger role in Videogames, many games started to feature a Co-Op mode of play to change the pace from competitive play to fun community play too. Online play was clearly the next step in the evolution of multiplayer.

Online play brought so much potential to gaming, its brought the world into your living room, forged friendships and kept friendships strong when someone moves away and its also created an online community spirit that wasn’t present before, a community where people can share tips and tricks and just have good fun with strangers, in no way was online multiplayer a mis-step in how we all play games. Online may have created new worlds and ways in which to play games, some of which would be impossible to play with mates on the same machine (such as Red Dead Redemptions online multiplayer free-play mode), and provided many with a new challenges against new opponents but online has also thrust many into a world of cheats and hackers, although very well moderated thanks to Xbox Live’s checker and Valves Anti Cheat (VAC) system, and also into a vicious and downright nasty group of players who give gamers a bad name with their insults and foul mouths. Although this is highly amusing the majority of the time, and as many people say ‘if you cant cope with it don’t play those servers’ but at the end of the day it should be an enjoyable experience online for all.

The major change that online play has brought to gaming, and the crux of this article, is the evolution of offline multiplayer. Offline multiplayer has now almost completely disappeared from modern games and consoles, early games on next generation consoles would only allow those with installed profiles to play offline, and even now both the PS3 and 360 support 4 player yet so few games offer 4 player offline play, even the very recent Lost Planet 2 which boasts 4 player co-op and massive team games, still only allows 2 people per console, the same gripe that befell the Gears of War multiplayer. Next Gen is all about moving forward and integrating the experience but it seems to have forgotten a fundamental part of its evolution, completely removing the joy of sitting around with some mates in a room playing games all evening, instead wanting you to play online with your mates whilst sat alone in your room to receive full enjoyment from the game.

Online gaming was a revolution and it still is a completely integral part of many games, would Call of Duty 4 or even Modern Warfare 2 have sold as well as it did if it wasn’t for its online play mode. Online gaming has opened the creative doors and minds of players, just look at Little Big Planet or Mod Nation Racers, but with a few exceptions many games have just neglected offline multiplayer fun. Lets hope that the next generation of games consoles goes back and redraws the offline multiplayer fun, and doesn’t make it casual gimmicky fun for the whole family like Nintendo have managed to create, rather successfully, with the Wii; nothing really beats sitting around with mates, snacks and drinks and kicking their ass just to see their reaction.

Call of Duty is one of, if not the biggest FPS franchise of recent times. With games selling in their millions, online multiplayer dominating the Xbox Live and PSN charts and YouTube videos of every known play-style available, the franchise is somewhat successful. However, with two leading developers alternating year on year, there are questions on which is the better of the two. So, rather than compare on a game to game basis, lets compare on a segment of the game and work our way from there.

Story

We’ll start off with an easy to resolve section, the narrative. Infinity Ward are the masters of creating compelling stories that keep us hooked. Remember ‘All Ghillied Up’. Level design masterpiece at its best. What about ‘No Fighting In The War Room’, ‘War Pig’, ‘Death From Above’, ‘Heat’… all levels that thrust us into the heart of the battle with our battle cry piercing through the enemies brains. Well, maybe not, but you get the idea. On the otherhand, can you remember a mission name from Treyarch’s last outing, World at War? It’s not that the Treyarch storytelling ability is lost, but that being based on real events, we don’t have the same attachment, knowing how it will turn out and what happened. I mean, with Call of Duty 4 and Modern Warfare 2, did you ever foresee Gaz and Ghost being murdered in either? No, because good story telling never reveals itself to you until the maximum point of emotional penetration. And no, that was not a euphemism.

Winner: Infinity Ward

Characters

Again, another easy win for the boys at Infinity Ward. Whilst Sergeant Reznov and Corporal Roebuck were two fond characters in World At War, it’s the likes of Captain Price and Soap MacTavish whom we remember and would listen intently to any word they uttered. It’s because of these characters that Infinity Ward aced the ‘Story’ section also. Just to prove my point, outside of the two aforementioned WaW characters, can you name any others? And no, Nazi #1 doesn’t count. How about characters from the Modern Warfare series? Gaz, Griggs, Kamarov, Ghost and the rest. Ramirez, go design a memorable character, WITHOUT YOUR IMAGINATION!

Winner: Infinity Ward

Co-op

Modern Warfare 1 lacked any whatsoever! MW2 at least allowed us to play a series of exhilarating mini-missions with a friend, but was still a major letdown. With little to no replayability and no matchmaking, we were stuck playing the same things with the same bunch of friends. World at War not only had an almost fully co-op campaign for upto 4 people, complete with death cards as a way to mix up the gameplay, but also the greatest, albeit somewhat unintentional, co-op gamemode in Nazi Zombies. As little more than a reward for completing the campaign, this wave defense game has received more accolades than the games multiplayer due to the addicting nature of slaughtering zombies using all manner of utensils of war. I think Treyarch just planted a Bouncing Betty in Infinity Ward’s ass as this one is unchallenged.

Winner: Treyarch

Multiplayer: General

As much as the fanboys flamed Treyarch when World at War was released, their arguments tended to state that the game wasn’t ‘CoD4′. Well no shit sherlock, but the game took all of the successful elements of CoD4 (Perks, game modes and attachments) but into a different era. It felt the same, but felt completely different at the same time, just like the transition from CoD4 to MW2. But, as successful as Treyarch were, it was largely due to the fantastic work Infinity Ward made on Call of Duty 4 that was the reason behind it. Still widely acknowledged as the best FPS of our time, CoD4 still feels fresh and fair, something that cannot be said for its big brother, eh MW2!

Winner: Infinity Ward

Multiplayer: Functionality

Whilst I knew that Infinity Ward was going to win the multiplayer bout, I opted to split this category into two as this latter section is where Treyarch shine and is why I thought World at War was the most polished of all the Call of Duty games. The skeleton is what Treyarch used of CoD4, but World at War has a beautiful skin all thanks to the developer. Squads were the first big improvement, allowing you to see which of your party were where on the mini map, could back-out as a group and allocate tasks (albeit simply) to your squad. Simple but effective method of adding at least some teamwork to your collaboration of Rambo-wannabes. Secondly, the most ridiculous thing that Infinity Ward failed to add to Modern Warfare 2 was extensive leaderboards. Treyarch literally allowed each separate game mode in Waw to have its own leaderboards and then their website had stats and leaderboards of everything from what challenges you’d completed, what weapons you’d got the most kills with and how many, most zombie kills and so much more!

Winner: Treyarch

Post-game Support

Now, Infinity Ward don’t seem to have much luck post-support. With CoD4, they released just one map pack. MW2 has had an abundance of glitches, some of which are fixed, a lot of which aren’t. However, we’ve had one DLC already, with another on the way! All of this whilst over 30 employees have joined the mass exodus from the studio, so I guess we can’t be too hard on the remaining few who are trying to get by as their senior advisers and colleagues have jumped ship. Treyarch provided 3 good, fair priced, solid map packs, as well as a free map for all gamers. As well, many more of the important issues were resolved, with few if any still remaining. It’s a triumph for Treyarch, albeit in a bout against a disabled opponent.

Winner: Treyarch

The Future

Modern Warfare 2 was a great game. A flawed masterpiece, but a masterpiece nonetheless. However, it was still a large stepdown from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Since Treyarch released the mixed bag that was CoD3, they’ve gone from strength to strength, with World At War being a brilliant game, and Black Ops looking even to step up on the modern time podium. With many staff leaving Infinity Ward, Modern Warfare 3’s future looks hazy and with the original team dispersed, do we really have anything to look forward to? For this, you have to agree that the ball is firmly in Treyarch’s court and anticipation for Black Ops is growing. Time will tell, but I have a feeling we may have the new leading CoD developer in our sights this November.

Winner: Treyarch

Conclusion

Infinity Ward are able to give birth to the most beautiful creation the FPS genre has seen, but you can still see and get weirded out by the amniotic fluid. Treyarch takes a towel, wipes it off and produces a similar but better sight. Okay, the analogy may not be great, but it’s more refreshing than ‘polished turd’ right? Either way, what Treyarch have lacked in innovation before, preferring to use the best of their predecessor, they more than make up for in community involvement. And, Black Ops looks set to explore Treyarch’s creative freedom like no other game before. But, like the chicken and the egg, you cannot have one without the other, so whilst Treyarch wins our little debate, both play a pivotal role in making sure the CoD franchise is full of crappy perks, unbalanced weapons and whiny arsed 12 year olds. Hey, wait a minute…

THE MYTH OF VIDEO GAMING AND VIOLENCE

Video games are played by children all over the world.  Some of these games can be viewed as being over violent and are blamed for the rising aggression levels in young people.  There are numerous studies which will appear to show this link but as a society are we always looking for someone or something to blame?  Does blaming video games get parents off the hook?

The positive effects of video games can be overlooked.  Arguments that support video gaming involve what the games do to encourage developmental growth. Video games can teach problem solving as players persevere and try to find alternative ways to succeed in the game. Gamers are motivated to continue to improve their skills and are constantly striving to perfect techniques. Gamers make rational choices and must accept the consequences of their actions.  With the introduction of on-line multi player by Microsoft’s Xbox and Sony’s Playstation teamwork and cooperation are skills that can be developed.  This can help young people to interact with people in everyday situations.  It doesn’t mean that they are planning to gun everyone down if they don’t get what they want!  Another common argument is that gaming encourages eye-hand coordination.  This could also been seen as being a positive thing.  The gamer would have quicker reactions in certain situations, driving for example.  It could also be helpful in certain jobs.

Video games are closely monitored by the Government and have PEGI ratings.  These are much the same as film ratings.  Not everyone who watches 18 rated violent films will feel the urge to copy the film.  If you play a golfing game it doesn’t mean that you are going to become a golfer. I feel that some people may have aggressive personalities and that the game could maybe trigger that.  I can understand why some parents would be concerned over certain games such as Hitman, Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.  But, are these any more shocking than Tom and Jerry blowing each other up, or Homer Simpson strangling Bart?  A young person should already have been taught right from wrong by their parents.

There have been recent studies using MRI scan to show the arousal levels in players’ brains.  Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine (2006) say that brain scans of kids who played a violent video game showed an increase in emotional arousal – and a corresponding decrease of activity in brain areas involved in self-control, inhibition and attention.  This was a small study and should it be generalised to the whole population of gamers?  There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding the research and maybe some long term studies have to be carried out.  The gaming companies could fund this research with the vast profits they make!

In my opinion after gaming for almost 7 years I have to disagree that games bring out violence in people due to the fact that I am not a violent person or are any of the other gamers that I know. I believe that people who play contact sports such as football and rugby are more violent that gamers.   I admit that losing a game can lead to frustration towards the game but not towards other people.  This frustration can be relieved by analysing where I went wrong in the game.

Until more reliable and long term studies are carried out I have to disagree that video games encourage violence and aggression.  Jonathan Freedman of the University of Toronto maintains that “the scientific evidence simply does not show that watching violence either produces violence in people, or desensitizes them to it.”  Furthermore, Huesmann and Bacharach conclude, “Family attitudes and social class are stronger determinants of attitudes toward aggression”

POLL

References

Websites:

Violence in Video Games: The Pros and Cons of Video Gaming http://internationalaffairs.suite101.com/article.cfm/violence-in-video-games#ixzz0nqhn2GTd

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

http://www.medicine.indiana.edu/news_releases/viewRelease.php4?art=593

Today the Halo developer Bungie announced that they are signing a decade long deal with Activision Blizzard, in this decade long deal the publishing giant will help Bungie launch there next big franchise (Halo MMO?).

Bungie president Harold Ryan stated, ” We chose to partner with Activision on our next IP because of their global reach, multi-platform experience and marketing expertise, From working together over the past nine months on this agreement, it is clear that Activision supports our commitment to giving our fans the best possible gaming experiences.”

Does that mean will see Halo on the PS3 or, god-forbid, the Wii. Most likely not, but there are many rumors going around right now. That due to Activision Blizzard’s enormous success when it comes to the MMO market (Success: meaning 12 million subscribers on World of Warcraft) that Bungie has decided to team up with them so they will have a stronger team when developing the still “speculated” Halo MMO.

Right now though Bungie is working on Halo: Reach which to me looks like it is going to be the very last Halo game we will ever see.

The contract lets Bungie stay an independent studio with there own independent intellectual properties. The only thing that changes is that Activision now owns the right to publish there games for the next 10 years.

“Bungie has developed some of the most compelling and successful games, multiplayer experiences and thriving fan communities, and this alliance underscores our long-standing commitment to foster the industry’s best creative talent,” stated Activision Blizzard’s own Thomas Tippl, “Our unprecedented partnership with Bungie will enable us to broaden our pipeline of exciting new games as we continue to strengthen our industry position and pursue long-term growth opportunities.” Well everyone you can now expect to be able to play the Halo theme song in the next  seven Guitar Heroes! How do you feel about that? Please discuss in our comment section. I would like to know what other people think of this new partnership.