It's a sure sign you have no life and you're a glutton for getting PO'd like Croyt's Anger videos. An example still in progress:

http://www.talkxbox.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14335

Pretty easy to tell which idiot I am (hint: the avatar/emblem).

Discuss if you must.

Just about any gamer who's in the know of anything is looking forward to Modern Warfare 2, the latest in Activision's popular Call of Duty franchise. The game is due for release tomorrow but certain GameStop stores have started selling the game before the street date. Regardless of how this might affect the relationship between the two companies, what's almost guaranteed is that this will be the hot selling game for the year.

With the high anticipation and sales likely to follow suit, most who've been following the game have likely seen a leaked video from late October. For those who haven't, the video shows the player with about five other terrorists taking part in the killing of unarmed civilians at an airport in-game. The video was been posted on several websites though subsequently removed shortly after. Needless to say, the video has drawn quite a bit of outrage with its content and the supposed reminiscence of the Mumbai killings in India last year. Now I'm here to talk to you about the video and my thoughts on it.

When I first started watching the video a few days after it was first leaked, I actually stopped watching about halfway through. While I've never been a squeamish individual (Blood Diamond, Schindler's List, Rambo, the Saw series-all films I've managed to comfortably watch), something about seeing that video for the first time just struck me. The unfolding massacre which you take part in during this mission felt so wrong to me. Looking back, I think the key reason it struck me so much is that instead of seeing other characters kill or commit horrific actions, you're the one doing so instead. People running, screaming, crawling on the ground after being shot only to be coldly killed-it all contributed to me not wanting to continue. As I closed the video, I said to myself "that's too much; it shouldn't be in the game, it's unnecessary."

Now that I've mustered seeing the video twice in its entirety, I'm looking back at my strong reaction in a rather confused way. But that's for a different discussion.

The point I'm trying to get at, however, comes from the conflict of my feelings and statement with my previous thoughts towards killing in videogames. Games, namely shooters such as the sadistic Postal and the always controversial Grand Theft Auto games, have often come under fire for causing individuals (usually teenagers) to commit violence acts, such as the Columbine and even Virginia Tech shootings. Among the outspoken individuals is attorney Jack Thompson, who's often first on the scene for targeting games as the catalyst for people to commit these crimes. Videogames are essentially becoming targets like heavy metal from the 80's, 90's and even today (eg. the Judas Priest trial of 1990).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64zcYCB3fA&feature=player_embedded

Let's compare: the above video of random killing in Saints Row 2…

In just about every instance where a videogame has been targeted for driving someone towards violent acts, I've come to the defense of the games. I even wind up defending games at home whenever my mother sees me taking part in the killing of either AI bots offline or other human players during online matches. Oftentimes, my arguments are that the killings are just of fake characters in the game, little to nothing more than detailed and colored pixels or polygons for the sake of entertainment. Sure, this might seem to be a form of fun that can seem outrageous, but then again what's half the reason people see horror or action films such as Rambo? And truth be told, I have always and completely felt this way; the idea of a game pushing someone over the edge just sounds ludicrous to me. Similar can be said for the content in these games. Dead Rising, Call of Duty, Saint Row or any other game which has you killing people I find the content to be fitting and not in the least bit unnecessary.

So why is it that this eight minute video during which you take part in the massacre of innocent civilians (much like the freedom you're given in Grand Theft Auto) seemed to disturb me? Ultimately, I think it has to do with the circumstances. With games such as Grand Theft Auto or Saints Row, you can go ahead and kill whoever you want; the choice is really just spontaneous behavior on the count of the player. This level in Modern Warfare 2, however, essentially tells you to assist in a large, terrorist homicide mission with either a sadistic, domineering motive or no sane reason at all. The choice of free killing in Saints Row will almost always come out of the desire to just screw around (for lack of a better term) and have fun. Conversely, the murdering from this airport level feels more like a shooting gallery that bluntly has you kill. It's this that I'm having a tough time deciding why someone would legitimately want to do since Activision have said that this mission is completely optional and not representative of the overall gameplay experience.

But this is no different from the other games I've defended, right? After all, they're just detailed polygons and pixels made into a fictitious game. It would seem that this inclusion of a level is starting to make me question my previous thoughts. In the long run, the civilians you kill in this game are the same as any other AI bot in-essence; all that's changed are how they're designed. This is similar to how society has tried to decide if all humans are in fact the same or equal. Just look at blacks and slaves from the earlier years of America. The people might look different, but they're still people. Yet it isn't just the AI characters but the player, which brings back how I'm puzzled someone would want to do this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaM8OjH-i_0&feature=player_embedded

To the terrorist killings in Modern Warfare 2.

My only guess for why players would take up this mission if it does turn out to be optional is simply for the sake of curiosity. I'll probably pick the game up after release and play through this level simply to see what a replication of terrorism is like. However, once I've done that for my first playthrough I'll likely have a tough time saying to myself, "I want to play the airport mission and kill those civilians."

Developer Infinity Ward's reason(s) to include this level in the game is still puzzling to me and in all honesty, I'm not entirely sure what to think of it. On one hand, I think the level is ultimately senseless and that we could have easily done without it. Yet if I say that I think it should absolutely be taken out for the content then this essentially contradicts my previously firm beliefs in defending videogames. With all of this in mind, I'm not sure if I'd rather see this section of the game taken out or not. It seems to test how I've decided to defend games such as Grand Theft Auto which I do think is good since I begin to question what I think and try to weigh things in a different manner. As of now, however, my final verdict is still undecided.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this level as well, so if you have anything to say about it please share it in a professional matter. Thank you.

Re-posted from: WordPress-MGM Center

After my oh so lovely response to Microsoft, I think it's safe to say I'm left having to look elsewhere for portable media. Unfortunately, my capacity demands are more than many players hold and, based on the direction my tastes will be heading, the minimum requirements are looking to be larger before long. What makes this especially frustrating is that I've only found two to three devices that can meet this, one of which I refuse to go for (hint: look in previous rant). In other words, it's between these two:

iPod Classic (160 GB)

iTouch (64 GB)

Given the storage and price, it's pretty safe to say that I'm stuck going for an iPod. However, my current college semester hasn't exactly left me open to many hours of work (two nights a week translating to just over $100 per week which, after car and gas payments, only leaves me $100 to currently spare). Needless to say, I'm hoping to get money to give an iPod a shot since every person I know personally who have owned an iPod have had little to no issues (only one has and it was a year before he got an issue). So I'm now setting my personal gripes with the iPod (small screen, dull looks, the click/touch wheel and unintesting menus) and aiming to buy one. Though I'm trying to get some money for it ($250) about the only way I could possibly get that is by selling my PS3 (which I barely use) and everything I have with it. However, since it's one of the many discontinued models and I own stuff that I haven't bothered to check prices for, coming to a fair amount of dollars to pay is tough.

So my question is essentially how much should I charge for my PS3 products (or how much you'd be willing to pay)? Here's what I have and am trying to sell:

PS3 System (80 GB, nearly 2 years old, haven't had any issues, one of the last generation of PS3's that's backward compatible, providing the power and A/V cables obviously)

Two Sixaxis Controllers (giving my only USB cable to charge them)

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune

Resistance: Fall of Man

Metal Gear Solid 4 Collector's Edition

DBZ Budokai 2 & 3

Metal Gear Solid 3

NFS Underground

NFS Hot Pursuit 2

Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3

Right now I was thinking offering it all for about $300 ($200 for the system, $35 for MGS4, $15 for Uncharted, $10 for Resistance, $25 for all the PS2 games-or $5 each and $20 for the extra controller), but you tell me what you think would be a good, ideal price for it all?