You remember playing it.

You remember beating it.

You remember loving it.

When I think back to my younger days and my experiences with computer machinery, they were limited to a once-per-week encounter with the "computer lady" at school. She had a name, but we never cared to learn it as she never tried to learn ours. The only thing that drove our interactions with her was her ability to make treasure mountain appear on the screen. As a result, she was a great person.

Treasure Mountain put us in the gum shoes of a cartoony character wearing an oversized coat and hat, making his face completely barricaded to my virgin eyes. I'm sure it was a conscious design choice on their part, but for me I always assumed he had a scary face so we could never see it until we were older. I'm a product of violent video gaming, sue me. In any case, the evil scientist man would always swoop in at the beginning of the game and take all of your possessions. In order to get them back, you must traverse the mountain in three levels, each one having a different level of math and science questions for my 8 year old mind to conquer. At the end, you foiled the scientist's scheme and was allowed to get away with 1 of your possessions. If you wanted them all, you had to rinse and repeat the entire process. Again, I could never understand why the character couldn't simply grab them all, but I guess it is impossible to hold a hammer, umbrella, and slice of cake all at once...Though I haven't tried that yet.

Perhaps it was the good fun, or the academic integrity of the game, or maybe the fact that I was easily amused by colorful objects, but that game has continued to stand out as a testiment to my interest in gaming, and how video games can assume a function other than entertainment. They can teach us lessons far beyond normal conventional storytelling, and in some cases can explain subjects better than those shitty teachers we all occasionally have (Mrs. Castro for High school Spanish was the closest I came to screaming to insulting a teacher). Our world has come a long way in 14 years, but we will always remember our roots, however oddly shaped they may be.

At the request of my instructor, my classmates and I must take a small detour from the virtual worlds and discuss an older model of fun and rambunctious antics of the days of yore. Long before the series of tubes (internet) and 12-button controllers ruled the way kids and adults alike had fun, there was a slew of creative imagination games known as parlor games. I think it would be safe to assume that most of us have taken part in these games at least once or twice in our lifetimes, something akin to a live version of Clue. Whether it was a "who dunnit?" genre or the more popular "role playing family feud" style of games, all of them required no computer, internet, or machinery of any kind. Just a pen, paper, and your imagination... a set of cherry red high heels if you were a female.

Being a gamer since I could form words, I have little knowledge on the subject, but in my discussions with a fellow classmate and roommate, I came across one game that, if enough people were to comitt to, would be absolutely insane and more fun than you could shake a stick at.

For lack of a better word, let us call this game "zombies". A group of people (let us use 20 as the sample this time around) would wear a red armband on their shoulder if you were a zombie, and a red headband if you were survivor. As the game starts, there are 2 zombies and the rest are survivors. You play the game on a large area, using both buildings and open areas (a campus is the PERFECT method for insane activity) and the purpose for the zombies is to catch the survivors. They can run as fast as they want, and the suriviors have merely 2 ways of halting their advance:
     1.Hit them with balled up socks (stuns for 5 seconds)
     2.Hit them with nerf assorted darts (stuns for 10 seconds)

Now, on a one-to-one basis, it sounds easy. But when the survivors dwindle in number, and the infection rates skyrockets, you can start to see the frantic fun begin to take form. If memory serves, this game was played at Baylor university in Waco Texas, and it got so out of hand that the Dean of Students had to mandatorially stop the game because it was disturbing studying for the final exam.

I am all for disturbing anything and everything on Trinity University with zombies. But, having said that, there must be parameters. to the game. Here are a few:

     1. You cannot attack anyone during class, especially if they are IN a class
     2. You cannot play at night, or attack someone in their room or while they're sleeping
     3. You must NEVER cheat, lie, or disguise your arm/headband at any time

It's amazing how such a simple game can inhibit such total madness on a larger scale, but then again that's what actual zombies do so well. If nothing else, it can be a great simulation for people to learn how to survive when the zombie apocolypse actually happens.

When you're knee-deep in the body parts of super-mutants and assisting the people of Capital Wasteland, you tend to forget your academic duties. Suffice to say, Fallout 3 has taken a large portion of my attention and free time, which has begun to  have certain repercussions on my already mounting academic career. As such, this is my first attempt to move myself back on-track and begin hacking away at my already mounting scholarly affairs.

In terms of the looming research project, I have made appropriate contacts and have started the process of interviewing and collecting textual data. In short, things are going well, but for those who do not know what my research project is aiming at cracking, I will try to detail it as much as possible, while spelling out the most precise research question I am trying to answer.

In terms of virtual worlds, anonymity is king. People are able to get away with being the darker (or lighter, depending on the player) side that usual society would not normally allow them to accomplish. While the commonplace nerd receives the cold-shoulder in the school hallway, they are the ones leading dozens--if not hundreds--of people into battle on the virtual front. But moving beyond that, people are allowed to explore avenues of self identity that they normally would never discuss in reality. Within this, there has been great studies exploring gender-bending in a virtual world context.

But scholars and game researchers already know this. And as a young student hoping to break into the gaming industry, I want to take it a step further. So I began to ask myself "what about context? How does the context of gender bending impact the action itself, if at all?" From here I quickly concluded that guild studies would be a great avenue to explore. By combining the two, I can identify the array of reactions guild members have on other guilded friends that happen to gender-bend by playing characters of the opposite sex, or perhaps playing a character and persona that is very different from their real self identity. From my expansive memories of World of Warcraft, I certainly recall several members that were of female gender within the game. But, when these characters hopped onto ventrilo (a well known voice internet service), they were in fact men of older age. I doubt I was the only one who felt the initial shock, but it must be said that there was in fact a shock to realize these people--some of which I had known for the better part of months to be a woman--were very different.

That shock is what I want to study. The reaction that people feel, that people respond to and sometimes even change their judgement of other people on, is what I want to study. Guilds are groups of people that normally work together for several weeks, if not months of their virtual world experience, meaning their foundations of friendships with other members last much longer than those who casually group together. This scenario provides the perfect formula for studying gender-bending and its reactions on other players in the virtual society.

In essence, my question is this: "How and why do guilded members respond to fellow guilded members that perform gender-bending?"

     The MMO reserarching saga continues! Now that I have selected an appropriate area of research, and have the means of doing said research, we must turn the looking glass inwards and take a mental check-up of sorts. Laziness can be detrimental to my grade on the whole project, but it holds no candlelight to the trauma of pre-existing bias in MMO research.

     This may be one of the only times my exp as a MMO player will hinder me instead of helping. I know what I like, and for the longest time I have let common sense be my greatest guide through the Eversong Woods areas or the Plane of Fear dungeons. Unfortunately, that common sense can be my greatest danger as I must let the data come from my participants, not myself. No matter my opinion, interest, or disagreements, the players will be the ones to guide my conclusions, not the other way around.

     So how can this be done? My sub conscious can't be turned off as any hallway light can be; it must be suspended, which in all honesty is easier said than done. But like any other hopeful researcher, I do have some ideas. Let's see if they can help move my character through the hazy world of ethics and research and come out on the other side unscathed.

1.)     Identify your personal pitfalls--Though this can be tricky to do, it may be the most helpful thing in one's research, as it can make you aware of how and when your bias will try to sneak up on you. Ask your friends, teachers, or even relatives to tell you what they think some of your habits when it comes to giving your opinion. Do you always try to insert it into any conversation? Do you speak up at all? Do you have trouble at formulating your opinion to others? By figuring out what you can start doing to improve yourself, the same improvement will show in your research and your writing. The less room for error, the less error there will be.

2.)     Bring a Friend!--Proofreading is your friend. Other people can--and will--see things your eyes cannot. That's because you are around yourself the most, so most of the tiny errors you make in your writing may not be caught by you. But your friend sure will! Having a friend to proofread your findings will allow them the chance to point out any potential biases you unwittingly placed into your analysis. By finding them early, you have plenty of time to rewrite, refresh, and refine it into a much more precise research paper.

3.)     Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy--This is a no brainer, but I guarantee every researcher will tangle with this once in their careers. As custom to any ethical research, honesty is the only way to get the best results. Whether that means answering a controversial question, leaving a guild due to uncomfortable emotions, or scratching the entire project halfway through, the only way you can be assured your work will be good is to be honest with your participants and yourself. There will be times when it can be hard to face that truth, but it will help you and other researchers in the long run.

     These are merely a few possible solutions, as my classmates will undoubtedly come up with several better ideas. Once they have been consolidated into a single list, I think I will have a much clearer idea on how to make sure I'm dotting all of my i's and crossing all of my t's.

     Well wouldn't ya know it, other people bloggin' about virtual worlds!

     After a rousing adventure of using citation machine to fix my erroneous works cited page on an unspecified-yet-terrible history paper, I took a break by perusing the widely popular website, Terra Nova. It seems that dozens of other potential ad-junk MMO researchers enjoy posting their own list of musings or initial findings on the ever-growing species of MMO games and virtual worlds. Since I will be embarking into similar territory on my own in the coming weeks (for more info, see recent posts below!), my professor thought it best if I took an electronic poke around a few articles and see what other people have been writing about.
     Easier said than done. There's easily hundreds, if not thousands of postings on this site--some with findings, and others without. Regardless of their timeliness or condition, I found a few that tickled me in that special way that only a good old-fashioned MMORPG can.

First Up: Did we Ignore the Rise of the Personal World?-- Lisa Galarneau, April 25, 2008

     Ms. Galarneau's post is a poignant, yet striking look at the juxtaposition of Will Wright's creation The Sims and how it still failed even though it was a solid attempt of establishing a social arena designed for players to share community fantasies. She discusses her unfailing love for Mr. Wright (and rightly so, his latest adventure Spore is a fantastic journey into one's personal clash between evolution and playful creativity) and how Virtual Worlds should do more to cement the link between players and their shared ideas. Nice work Lisa!
     Although I agree with her insinuations on players' desires to play out certain fantasies or unrealistic expectations in a guiltless frame, I would say I do not think it resonates well with the context of MMORPGs, save a few conditions of course. Yes, players like to put themselves in unbelievably buff bodies or large-bosomed models that can dual-wield daggers as well as seasoned strippers using bostaves, but social fantasies? It is difficult for me to imagine that people playing WoW are doing so merely to find a date or play cybersex with a cute night-elf. 
     In my opinion, I believe there exists a line in virtual worlds that polarizes the online community: There are the fantasy MMOs designed to be a full-on video game experience, complete with monsters, level increasing, and "phat lewts"; and there are the easy-going, social-centric MMOs whose primary objective is to encourage players to interact and create dynamic experiences on a more personal level. Although SecondLife and World of Warcraft both technically MMOs, most people would say they are like apples and oranges. Nonetheles, I like her thoughts.

Second: Do Virtual Worlds Ever Fail?-- Timothy Burke, July 28th, 2008

     One might think I am drawn to postings about failures...I wonder what that says about me as a person...MOVING ON, Mr. Burke's post is a a great article that dives into multiple MMORPGs and strives to answer the question, "Do Virtual Worlds ever actually fail?"...hmmm, an interesting inquiary. He continues by looking at the question from the commercial, design, and financial perspectives, but ultimately comes to the conclusion that every MMORPG is a matter of debate and opinion. While one MMO can be successful in terms of game design and dynamics, it can tank in terms of money and fanbase, or vice versa. It is difficult, if not impossible, to compare MMOs to one another because the myriad of conflicting factors just make it too hard to say which one is better or not. Sure, World of Warcraft is now the benchmark for MMO success, but to many MMO gamers out there, it disappoints greatly in the gaming satisfaction--It's too damn EASY. The MMO community, as a rough whole, understands and agrees that WoW does not challenge the gamer in a way that War Hammer: Age of Reckoning, Vanguard, or EverQuest did. As one gamer in Vanguard noted in the general channel, "You can play WoW on autopilot, and that's no fun for those looking for a real video-game".
     On the whole, I think Burke is right. Age of Conan is relatively decent, allbeit another attempt at cloning WoW in hopes of replicating the financial success, and let's face it LOTRO is just as guilty, but that by no means makes them failures. Their fanbase isn't a strong, their game mechanics aren't as streamlined, and they don't please all types of gamers (casual, hardcore, pvp, etc), but are they supposed to? Who's to say? If the game succeeds at what they designers want them to do, then in some sense it can be considered a job-well done...even if the players think it's a shithole.

"...it can be concluded that gender swapping appears to have an effect on video game stimulation. No previous research has highlighted such findings, and this study provides the foundations for further research in the area of gender swapping. Further research could perhaps examine how gender swapping may affect guild membership when members of the guild discover that a member is not who he or she claims to be"      
         
      --Zaheer Hussain, from published study Gender Swapping and Socializing in Cyberspace: An Exploratory Study

 Sounds like a job well suited for me to poke around on.

At first glance, this particular subject may not seem like much, but somehow I feel as though there might be something to a study of this nature. Granted, it would take a fairly large share of interviewing from social, pvp, raid, and role-playing guilds to collaborate on, but as Hussain notes, the research already done simply begs for this subject to be magnified and further analyzed.
     Now in my years I have only had experience in social and raiding guilds, but progressing through pvp guilds is not a big step from what I am used to; it's the role-playing factor that stimulates me in a wierd way. I have only briefly witnessed and experienced the world of imaginary immersion, but it was more than enough for me to understand that those players are in a much deeper mindset than most casual players. When I was heavily involved in a raiding guild for World of Warcraft, I remembered that of the 7 active priest players, 3 of them were female avatars with female names. It was a gentle surprise to me when I installed a voice headset system that these 3 females were in fact dudes with fairly deep voices. The raids still went on as normal, but it took a while to get used to Shnaz's feminine body belt out a testosterone infused vocal set.


      In any case, I have perused the guild list on the more immediate MMO on my table, and I think I have found three worth taking a deeper look at (at least for now) I have not attemtped to contact them or looked for a website under their banner, so this guildlist may change frequently over the course of the next few weeks. Without further ado, my three choices are in descendind order:

1.) Fabled -- HUGE (1300 members)

2.) Ascension -- Large (110 members)

3.)  Trinity -- Medium (40 members)

     The website is not very helpful in finding out which guilds are still active and which ones aren't. As a result, the best chance of getting acclimated with a guild would be to look toward the larger size guilds. Moreover, my research behooves my intrepid spirit to find as many willing interviewees as possible. I will be boldly going where no researcher has gone before (at least not officially, or in terms of being published... I'm only a student after all). So, let's get in there and start questioning genders!!

     You are an ACHIEVER. Congradulations!

     ...Thank you for telling me something I have already known, but I guess now I have quantifiable data to justify my desire to conquer and achieve.
     It isn't all that surprising to me that Bartle recognizes me as an achiever (one who looks to the reward factor of most tasks, driven to accomplish regardless of scope or size of the task), but I do have a few reservations about his quiz. On the whole, it was a fairly efficient survey that pidgeonholes you into the correct category, but I must confess there were times when I was not happy with the severely limited amount of responses. When I am presented with the situation "you meet a player. What would you think about doing first?", I would like an answer that falls somewhere in between "slay him" and "let him appreciate your knowledge of the game". Ultimately, the results said I was dominantly reward-driven (over 100% on the meter-thingy they have below the pie chart thingy) with physical and competitive just above the positive line (25 and 15% respectively). On the contrary, my thoughtful, exploratory and social were all below the line ( negative 34, 46 and 15 respectively). After reviewing it all, I noticed that the top 3 recommended games for achievers are WoW, EQ, and FF11... Glad to know I'm playing the right games.
     But as I said, this wasn't surprising to us veterans who spend an ample amount of time thinking about games when they're not playing it. My first MMO EverQuest revealed to me my desire to have equipment and items that people could only dream of getting (If you know what I am referring to when I say SoulFire or Fiery Avenger, you get the gold star for the day!). Later on, WoW taught me the means by which I could best achieve those items (40 man raids will always be the best. Period). I had an insatiable desire to work, to achieve, to conquer, to brandish, and to brag. And boy am I good at it.
     There is something I would like to point out, however. Since my EQ days, I have always been a healer class, be it cleric or priest or shaman or whatever. And I have been happy with that for years. Although it might be interesting to switch spectrums for a day and be the meaty tank on the front lines watching all the action (I was fine at the back; my computer couldn't handle all the particle effects anyways), I have always gotten the most pleasure out of restoring, not destroying. So why then, am I still considered a Killer/Achiever? Sure I like raiding and Team PvP like a lot of other people, but am I still categorized as a killer even though I am not doing the killing? After all, I'm only helping my friends kill you so I can get that arena staff with +60 intellect and +5% chance to crit on healing, so I'm not the one to blame am I? Ultimately it comes down to a means to an end, which I think is the answer to why a lot of negative interactions occur between players in MMOs everyday: Nothing personal, it's just a means to an end. After all, when you have the opportunity to get a weapon that no one else has, how far would you be willing to go to get it?

hmm... that might be a fitting question for this quiz...
  

not exactly MMO material, but for the gaming inclined, I encourage you to read and post any comments or opinions you might have. Enjoy

     "You see what the problem with Hollywood is--they make shit. Unbelievable, unremarkable, shit.
     Now I'm not some grungy wannabe filmmaker that's searching for existentialism through a haze of bong smoke or something. No it's easy to pick apart bad acting and short sighting directing in a purely moronic series of words determined as prose. No i'm talking about the lack or realism. Realism. Not a pervasive element in today's modern cinematic vision. Take Dog Day Afternoon for example... Arguably Pachino's finest work, short of Scarface or Godfather Part 1 of course. Masterpiece of directing, easily LaMett's best. His cinematography, acting, screenplay, all top notch BUT... he didn't push the envelope. What if, in Dog Day, Sunny wanted to get away with it--REALLY wanted to get away with it. What if, now here's the tricky part, what if he started killing hostages right away...No mercy, no quarter--meet our demands, or the pretty blonde in the bellbottoms gets it in the back of the head BOOM SPLAT. What still no bus? C'mon. How many innocent victims splattered across the window would it take, to have the city reverse it's policy on negotiating with terrorists? And this is 1976, there is no CNN, no CNBC, there's no Internet!
     Now fastforward to today, present time, same situation: How quickly would the modern media make a frenzy out of this? In a matter of hours it would be the biggest story from Boston to Budapest.
     10 people die. 20, 30, relentless, Bam Bim, one after the other. All caught in high definition, computer enhanced, color corrected... you could practically taste the brain matter. All for what a Bus, a Plane.. a couple million dollars that's federally insured.... I don't think so... it's just a thought. I mean it's not within the realm of conventional cinema... but what if...?"
                                                           --monologue spoken by John Travolta, beginning scene of Swordfish

     When I first heard this speech, it was in the context of watching a decent action movie in the realm of a ragged hacker who wants nothing more than to be reunited with his daughter. Not exactly a precise view on the gaming industry as it is today, but allow me to elaborate.
     It was not until my high school years that I began to look beyond the games I played and into the origin of where they came from. Designers, Publishers, conglomerates looking to make a buck or million--In an industry that is about 40 years old or so, I believe we are coming to a wall that goes beyond the games or the people that make them. After hearing this same piece of writing for the dozenth time, I started to think on my own interests and how the industry I have come to know and love may be cresting on a philosophical barrier that no one will know how to surmount. As more and more developers come up with titles that claim to delve into real emotion and important issues in the real world, I see more and more people afraid to take the step into an edgier--dare I say real--territory. No one wants the title of being the first group to try and "push the envelope" yet they all unanimously agree that some company needs to do it. In recent years, as technology continues to amaze my already sizzled mind, I find myself more frequently disappointed by heavily anticipated titles, some of which are made for the sole purpose of profiling a new gaming technology meant to "push the envelope". Though I am inclined to give designers the respect for trying something new, I am ultimately left asking myself  "how did this go wrong?"
    Take Bioshock as a recent example; 2007's game of the year. Solid storytelling, excellent dialogue and character weaving, graphics, AI, all grade A material... but it didn't push the envelope. For a game that underlined the idea of morality and making grave choices, I was really at a loss. You either saved the little girls, or you sacrificed them. Now, in Bioshock, what if choosing to sacrifice the child wasn't the only option? And here's the tricky part: What if you had an array of decisions that spanned human choice? What if you could kill them in any way you wanted? What if the "Adam" they had in their bodies didn't even matter to the protagonist? What would you do to those children if you really had no limit?
    That, in my opinion, is what the morality of Bioshock should have been. That is what it could have been if it PUSHED THE ENVELOPE.
     But the fault does not entirely fall on the game itself, but the designers and publishers that back them up. For the sake of my argument, let's take a look at the big three: Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft. Each of them a major contributor to the modern video game in their own way, but not without a personal weakness that sets them apart from the crowd.

NINTENDO
     Nintendo has been around for almost as long as most gamers can remember. In a sense, they were the ones that coined the phrase 'video game protagonist' right out of the gate: Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Donkey Kong, it's worth noting all the flagship characters we see today from big N all come from a simpler, more 8-bit era. Of course, it can also be said that they are not unlike the artsy child of a set of triplets. No matter where games were headed, their instinct told them to challenge conventional logic and authority and do what they wanted. Sony and Sega moving to CDs? they stick with cartridges... Microsoft and Sony start delving into DVD technology? They back the mini-disc. Despite business trends and market knowledge, they chose a different road for better or worse. Interestingly, it was not the technological decisions that hurt them the most, but their perspective on 3rd-party involvement. As much as I love Nintendo, they treated any outside creativity with a bitter contempt seemingly because they didn't think of that idea first. Sure the Nintendo had its moments of flair (Goldeneye, Blast Corps, Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie), but aside the rare diamond in the rough the Nintendo 64 had a lot of shovel-ware. That trend only continued with the GameCube as well, save the occasional solid first party title from Nintendo themselves (Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, Metroid, anyone else starting to see a pattern?). We didn't really see any real innovation until Capcom stepped in and blew everyone away with two amazing titles in a row (Viewtiful Joe and Resident Evil 4)
     So what has Nintendo done to atone for all of this abundance of shitty games? Well, that remains to be agreed upon. Their latest innovation, the Nintendo Wii, has really opened everyone's eyes--not just the gaming population, but the non-gamers too. Within 2 years of its debut, the Wii has obliterated the floodgate of the casual gamer market. Consequently, Nintendo is heralded as the king of gaming once again as they make literally billions more than any other company simply because they tapped a market that no one else thought was worth the time or effort. 
     Was it a smart move? From the mind of a marketing or business major, it was a stroke a genius. In the wake of Nintendo's success we watch as Sony, Microsoft, and multiple 3rd party developers struggle to replicate that success by designing easier, more rewarding games that stimulate the rich and single/married guy or rich and single/married girl who swore would never play video games. But what about the traditional, or what many now refer to as the "hardcore" gamer? Was this move friendly to all gamers, or just a nod to a more financially lucrative demographic? Perhaps the best way to answer that question is by looking at what they have done with their new toy.
     I purchased my Wii on it's launch day nearly two years ago, and currently I have purchased 8 titles. Unfortunately, only one of them is a non-Nintendo title (even worse, it's a rehash of a recent game: Resident Evil 4 for the Wii. It was just that good). Currently, there are over 200 titles for the Wii, and most of them are what many players and GameStop employees call "Wii Trash"--titles that are extremely simple to make, took less than 6 months to develop, and are usually a movie or action toy tie-in that outside companies wanted to have in order to maximize their opportunity for profit. It is sad to see this pattern continue primarily because I feel, like many other gamers possibly do, that the Wii is the first major breakthrough in changing the way we play video games. No longer tied to the controller or flashy graphics, the gamer is forced to use real-time motion sensing and depth perception to excel in their video games.
    Having said that, I have yet to see Nintendo PUSH THE ENVELOPE. They have made the first step, but it's not enough. Just as they started to stumble onto something truly revolutionary for the gaming industry, they reconsidered their stance and started exploring the money-making idea. As a gamer, It's not a feeling of outright betrayal, but subtle mistreatment. If you disagree with me, I think it is worth noting this past year's E3 business summit. Instead of unveling big name titles as Miyamoto promised, Reggie Fils-Aime went on for over an hour about how much money the company was making in the casual gaming market, and how they plan to expand even further into that territory. That's nice to hear Reggie, but that's not the Nintendo I have come to know and respect. Sure it's innovative from an invenstor's point of view, but your real fan base--the ones saving their allowances for weeks on end--are not investors, but real gamers wanting real games.
     In short, stop giving me Wii crap, and please remind me of why I fell in love with Nintendo to begin with. Show me the new Zelda, or the new Kid Icarus, or Conduit, or Sadness, or Eternal Darkness 2. You made be believe it once, please make me believe it again.

SONY
     Everyone needs technology. We use it, we crave it, we love it. And Sony knows it like the back of their hand. Ever since the beginning, Sony has used their roots in entertainment to bring us the forefront of technological innovation. The PS1 was the major pusher of CD tech just as the PS2 was for the DVD. And now, the PS3 is doing the same for the Blu-Ray format. Now, I enjoy the comfort of familiar territory like anyone else, but even I know when it is time for change. Honestly, I do not want a PS4 any more than I want a Xbox 720. Moore's Law has all but started to fail now as micro-processors are unable to reduce anymore in size due to heat failure and subsequent meltdown. Even the PS3 is more or less a product of parallel processing, which is nothing new to the computer science world. the CELL processor--the brain of the PS3--is basically like wiring 6 PS2s together and telling each one to handle a different aspect of a video game. Sure it gives designers 6 times the room to do amazing shit with hi-def graphics or real-time battlefield control that simulates actual war-like atmospheres (Call of Duty 4 was a pretty good example, despite the imaginary storyline), but it isn't revolutionary. It isn't PUSHING THE ENVELOPE.
    Following a pattern is not pushing the envelope; it is only re-doing what you already know to be successful. I cannot fault Sony (or any other company) for doing it--After all, businesses are out to make money--but if you are going to committ to the gaming industry, especially now, then you need to committ 100% and start showing us something that really boggles the spirit, mind, and body. Better AI, sharper graphics, and tighter controls aren't enough: I'm talking about real innovation, real change. What if you took the Power of the PS3 and combined it with the possibilities of the Wii? What if you had a game like Resident Evil,  only this time the AI knew how to anticipate your moves, combine efforts, and scheme against you? All the while your every muscle movement and controller twitch was registered in your reticule as Chris Redfield's hand quivered with adrenaline and fear as you point the wii-mote at your next zombie victim...Now that would really be something wouldn't it?
     It seems to me that Sony does not look at gaming for the sake of games, but for the sake of entertainment. This is not an epiphany for anyone, I understand that. But what I mean is that even when they spend over 100 million dollars for a title like Killzone 2, they aren't doing it for the hardcore gamer, but for the showcase of entertainment in general. Look at this way: If you do anything with entertainment, like turn on a TV, get on the internet, play a game, or even listen to music... If Sony has some part in helping you accomplish that, then they have succeeded. I have never felt that Sony is in the gaming industry for me, they're the most guilty when it comes to being a business man. They want my money, and they will spend as much of their own capital to get it. Every iteration of the Playstation took a huge hit in their savings the first 2-3 years, but each of them went on to make the conglomerate a disgusting amount of money, moreso than any other company in the industry. What is sad is that I don't see that changing anytime soon. I believe that Sony's greatest sin is their lack of attention to what they COULD be doing. As I said, a PS3/Wii combo could do some truly amazing things, but why go that route when everyone is comfortable with another Playstation that makes brain matter more gruesome and artificial intelligence all the more human?

MICROSOFT    
     Though it can be argued that Microsoft is almost the same as Sony with their hands deeply involved with almost all types of technology, they are the most faithful when it comes to gaming, which also makes them the most guilty of sitting there and being comfortable with the norm. Hey, if they're making solid titles, why bother taking risks? Microsoft Vista was a big enough blunder, why try again?
     So they lost the HD war--it's not the first time Microsoft has lost a tech war, and I guarantee it won't be the last. What they do get right, what they seem to thrive on more than Sony or Nintendo, is in the PR department. Not only do they seem to get the best 3rd-party developers to make some excellent titles for their console, but they can even seduce other companies away from Sony-exclusive rights so they can cash in on the royalties (Devil May Cry 4 by Capcom was a good example, and an even bigger shocker is Final Fantasy 13 by Square Enix, a franchise which has been Sony exclusive for a little over 10 years now). Bravo Microsoft, bravo.
     But what have they done for the gaming community besides offer us good games? Xbox Live was a pretty good addition for the gamers that were so confident in their fragging skills that they wanted to prove it to the rest of the world, but this is no innovation in gaming; it was merely a transition of existing PC customs over to a console format. We have all played PC games online before, Xbox Live just streamlines all the benefits of the internet into one nice package: smooth connection and lag free games (most of the time), user-friendly interface, and easy-to-communicate friend system to keep in touch with fellow fraggers... In essence, a more reliable form of AOL. Thank God.
     When I see the 360, I see two different consoles: I see a traditional console that continues to produce good, long lasting games with good replay value, and a missed opportunity to take their control on the PC market and PUSH THE ENVELOPE. the 360 was the first console of the next gen market to offer a HDD in which one could download extra content to add to already existing games. This practice has led to a massive influx of new flashy shit to bring home, such as downloadable HD movies, or favorite TV shows, or small independent games that most people have never heard of. Sure it works, and it may be helping bankrupt Blockbuster or taking money away from Netflix, but as a gamer I'm not seeing the benefit.
    
FINAL THOUGHTS
      I may be reiterating my main point so much that I'm beating a dead horse, but I feel it's important to see how each major company is not doing their part in moving the industry forward, which is why I feel that the gaming industry is about to hit a wall. However, each major company is hitting a different location of the same barrier. While Nintendo is busy swimming in the ocean of green they have accumulated, they have neglected the possibly monumental first step they made towards a remarkable achievement on how games are played. On the contrary, Sony has continued to stay the course of repeating history because they have it down to a simple science, but at the same time ignoring the limitless possibilities they have with the technology they have at their disposal. Finally, Microsoft remains the most faithful to the traditional gaming market, yet they have not begun to question where the future of gaming will be. 
      As I stated earlier, I don't want to see a PS4, or an Xbox 720, or a Nintendo Wii-ner (couldn't resist). Like millions of other gamers out there, I know part of me wants to remain on familiar ground and continue to talk about future sequels of known franchises and awesome graphics engines, but a larger part of my mind is asking for more. I want the true next step in gaming, and I don't think it's far away. Maybe it's only a few years off, maybe the technology I want is just being thought up as I write this, but for now I fear that video games (and the designers that make them) will soon come to a screeching halt in terms of creativity and game-mechanic manipulation. If the worst happens, and the Big three are forced to fumble around for months on end wondering where they should venture next, I'll start to wonder if my beloved gaming industry will recover. I know that technology will never cease to evolve, but that does not mean it can't pause for decades on end.

     The gaming industry has never shown more promise than right now. To Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and to any designer or publisher that may read this in the future, I ask you: PUSH THE ENVELOPE.

Wrong. Period.

Perhaps it is simply my knee-jerk reaction on this one, but in my opinion gold farming is, for lack of a better word, the DEVIL. I can understand the many many facets of it all, and how even a virtual economy is capable of giving millions of people around the world an actual paying job... but then aren't we missing the point entirely?

Gaming is, and has always been, the antithesis of what people label a "job". Yet some people, calling themselves entrepeneurs of the MMO land, feel it is their personal destiny to turn a fun-filled hobby into a lucrative money making opportunity. In their eyes, it is God's work of that partiular MMO in which players across the globe are giving a chance to get a leg up in the world and gain that little extra inch of compensation over the honest, genuine player. Thanks Mr. Money bags, you certaainly are helping the world one character at a time.

What is worse, the virtual economies of the games themselves find ways to compensate for the influx of artificial money in their world. Instead of finding a solution to counteract bot programs and money-making exploits, they safeguard the server so that players learn to live with it. I'm sorry, but if you claim that character auctioning is wrong, I would say gold farming is not too far off. Gold farming has been around since the days of everquest, or worse even ultima online or Diablo II... 12 years and there is still no solution? Do I see the impossible, or a necessary evil?

By now, one can easily discern that I am very opposed to the act of gold farming, or even the purchase of said gold. My father has confessed to being a known gold purchaser from a satan worshipping website known as wowgold.com, and Lord knows he has heard just about every insult I could throw at him. He sides with the people in that he believes purchasing the gold is somehow helping our starving economy and saving one small asian kid at a time. I feel differently, but in the end it is his decision, not mine.

Is it helping the economy? Last time I hecked the gold farming industry is making about 500 million a year. Not bad for a virtual hobby... but it pails vastly when compared the the likes of MMO sales themselves, or even more so when compared to the fact that Nintendo makes 1.6 MILLION dollars per employee... I bet every gold farmer would dream of seeing that kind of income their way. In short, I simply see it as gold farming is only a short term soluition to the hardcore players of any MMO... Like trying to operate using a rusty sword instead of a scalpel. Sure you could get the job done quicker and in less time, but you are paying no heed to the discipline one acquires from the game at all. And that, in my most honest opinion, is the true problem of gold farming.

You (and the occasional interested reader) might be needing a few auxillary websites to help along with all of the nerd talk and Vanguard referencing I'll be doing for the next while. Without further ado, here are some links that might help one brush up on their lack of gaming prowess or MMO "l33t sp3@k"

www.gamefaqs.com  "This place is a good starting point for anyone interested in any game. Lot of reviews, tips, FAQs, and advice on just about any game you could ever think of"

www.gamespot.com  "This is an excellent source of news and press release bulletins on the gaming industry. Anything from interviews to previews to videos and screenshots, gamespot covers just about anything and everything that's happening in the gaming world"

www.ign.com  "A collection website, IGN is a internet mecca for entertainment. It's more popularly used for movies, but has a huge section devoted to gaming, and they break it down by console instead of game genre. Helps for those looking for a particular review of a multi-console game or just wants to look at PC games."

www.vanguard.com "A no-brainer here. All the vanguard you could ever ask for"

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/  "This place is fantastic. Nick Yee got his degree from Stanford University, and his website is completely dedicated to the academic study of MMO's. These studies span almost all MMOs ever made, and span all kinds of subject material on multiple facets of MMO's. Some great material here."

http://terranova.blogs.com/ "This website is a really good sister site to the daedulus project. it is constantly updated with studies being conducted by professional (and some casual) game researchers. A little easier to read also, no so much academic jargon to get through."

I will continue to update this as we go along, but this should be a good starting point for anyone intrigued enough to start feeling around. Hope you like, Be seein ya around...

     This morning we took our first dive into Vanguard, which for me is now my 4th experience with these multi-faceted MMO beasts. Having started with EQ then moving to FFXI and WoW, I have seen a wide array of customization techniques meant to one up the competition, but Vanguard takes it to the extreme in a way that doesn't exactly agree with me. If you are going to consider yourself a fantasy MMO, then it might behoove you to find SOME bit of difference from the tried and true skins and profiles from old success stories. I know half of the team from EQ worked on this MMO also, but must you really copy every little detail?

     The world itself ran rather smoothly, and has cut a niche nicely between EQ and WoW. The interface options, macro bar, and minimap are all right out of WoW's interface, which isn't to say that's a bad thing (they are the MMO kings, so I suppose the monkey-see-monkey-do idea comes to mind). Quests work pretty much the same, grouping is relatively pain free, and all the familiar tweaks and twinges of MMO addiction were starting to come back. Having said that, I came away relatively unimpressed.

     Now I cannot say without smirking that I consider myself a seasoned MMO player. If you started--hell, let alone survived-- with EverQuest as your first MMO, then you can pretty much work with anything else. It was a massive achievement for its time, and paved the way for all MMo's to come, but looking back EQ could be an excellent torture tool to rid MMO addicts of their habits. One did not play for fun; you played to avoid the fear of dying and having to get your corpse back. But if I could go back in time and tell my 12 year old self anything about MMO gaming, it would simply be to not take it so seriously. I spent many drops of precious tears over those few years that, looking at what I play now, were all wasted over nothing. The penalties in today's MMOs are so underwhelming it almost makes you consider making it more challenging by dying in extravagant ways so you can brag to the rest of your guild.

     Nonetheless, Vangaurd still succeeds at doing what the developers wanted it to do, which is to function and to serve its customer base with a new world, new loot, new bosses, and new meaningless grind bullshit that we all get suckered into doing, and that's what making a good MMO is all about right?

     Now that we are on the cusp of entering the massive virtual landscape that is Vanguard, we must now put on our critical glasses and begin questioning the world we will come to know over the next 4 months. All players--new and old--will ultimately ask themselves the same question: What do I do?

     Well let's first start with the character. Although there are more classes and races than EQ or WoW, I have learned fom past experience that the simplest combination is usually the best, especially if I will be trying to do research on people. I will be entering the world a cleric of either elvish or maybe even goblin origin, I haven't fully decided yet. Grouping is something I am very accustomed to, and I believe will be my best area of study.

     But that isn't to say there are other things that peek my interest. For example. in EQ there is zone called east commons where, on every server, this place became the zone to buy, sell, trade, and barter from other players. No matter if you were on a RP, PvP, or PvE server, this place was the stomping ground for getting the best gear in the game. In WoW, there is a zone called the Barrens that, from a designers standpoint, is fantastic because it lasts nearly 10 levels for the players that roam the lands. However, no matte what server you were on, the chat logs in the Barrens become nothing more than a sewer in which every player had some disastrous insult or quip to every other player. How does this happen?

     And moreover, is there such a place in Vanguard? Is there a zone that, no matter the different mesh of players or servers, always ends up becoming a stereotyped zone that is doomed to be a marketplace, a $#!thole, or simply an unused zone that gets absolutely no attention at all? I think there is something here that can shed light on the interesting dynamics between players and virtual worlds, and how people still desire a familiar ground in which they can share with other players.

     Of course that's just my opinion, I could be very wrong.

It started with the basics: Mario, Zelda, Galaga, a little bit of Pac-Man every now and then. Street Fighter II was a pretty big part of my life back then, but it was quickly shoved aside by Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, and Final Fantasy III.

Now look where we are--Fable II, Bioshock, World of Warcraft... the part of the game where the player imparted his ir her imagination has been replaced with a million + polygon counts, self sufficient zone boundaries and on-going stories that never stay the same even after the 20th time through.

Games, like myself, have come a long way. Beyond the boundaries of childish fads and becoming a multi-BILLION dollar industry, we have only just now begun to see Liv Tyler and Carrie Underwood appear on commercial spots for the Nintendo DS. And to think, Humphrey Bogart was doing the same for cigerrettes in the 1920s. If my life has taught me anything, it is that games are here to stay, and they're only going to get bigger.

But even for someone as diehard of a fan as I am, even I will confess to the evolution of my personal desire for games. For most of my life I believed gaming was nothing more than a release of stress and a personal guarantee to my parents that I wasn't going out and getting drunk/stoned/blitzed/etc. My college years have bore the best of fruits as Communication Professors continue to encourage my mesh of academia and video games in hopes of creating a career or product that will better serve mankind as well as my own life. Simple...right?

This journal, like those of my classmates, will document my experience in yet another virtual world known as Vanguard: Saga of Heroes. Although I have once before taken a critical eye to some of my favorite video games, this will be the first time that I will be graded for it, and as such I feel the pressure is already beginning to build. What do I study, who do I ask, where do I go? Although the purpose of this class is simply to gain a better understanding of the relationship between virtual worlds and the people playing them, this class is more of a personal benchmark for the rest of my life. I have always believed I can play, study, analyze, and deconstruct games and reveal their meaty ideological insides, but now is the time to actually shut up and do it. Games mean more to me than just a simple pastime or hourly retreat; they are a way of life. And now is my chance to show that.