Review - Diablo 3

If you had told me that a new Diablo game would be getting a merely so-so score (at least for a Blizzard game) from me, I would have laughed at you. But here I am, 30-40 hours into this mess, and I can't help but think that Blizzard is very quickly becoming a shadow of its former self.

Evil has been reawakened in Sanctuary. The forces of Hell are mounting again, and our good old friend Deckard Cain is back in action - briefly, anyway. A star falls from the sky, setting the game's events in motion - essentially a conspiracy to re-unite the evils from the previous games and resurrect Diablo himself.

It's important to note that I've been a huge fan of Diablo since I was a kid, so I had pretty high expectations for this. Who wouldn't? Nearly every Blizzard game has been a polished, beautiful gem, going all the way back to Warcraft: Orcs & Humans back in the 90s.

But something in the notoriously long development cycle of Diablo 3 went horribly wrong.

I'd like to address everyone's main grievance and the thing that I honestly feel that Blizzard should be ashamed of themselves for - the "always on" DRM. Much like Starcraft II, Blizzard made the decision to only allow players into the game by signing into Battle.net, even if they have no desire to play multiplayer. It was a decision reviled among most gaming forums and the B.net forum itself, which is why it's mind boggling that Blizzard went with a DRM system that was even more restrictive.

Unlike Starcraft II, the singleplayer portion of D3 is handled not unlike a typical multiplayer server. Thing is, given that there are millions of players online at a time and Blizzard's servers are repeatedly taxed, I ran into absolutely absurd amounts of lag and latency issues. Typically, it wouldn't be that big of a deal, but lag in an action RPG like this can be deadly, as enemies swarm around you character, as you swing your sword and deal non-existent damage, only to barely realize in time that nothing is happening, giving you an unknown amount of time before the game catches up to heal or drink a potion. Which, of course, is followed by another lag spike and, likely, a complete disconnection from the game. Meaning you're starting over from a checkpoint.

For Hardcore players, this should have come with the subtitle "Legend of the Broken Keyboards." In Hardcore mode, once you die, you die for good. No revives, no checkpoints, nothing. You're character is gone for good, and it's actually a lot of fun for that reason.

Take the above scenario with the completely unreliable server connection and you can see how situations with mobs of stronger enemies can potentially end up. What's supposed to be fun and challenging turns into cheap deaths and frequent disconnects during important fights and stupid setbacks.

On top of this, Blizzard has completely dumbed down character progression. Part of the appeal of Diablo 1 and 2 was creating character builds with ridiculous combinations of stats and abilities (Poisonmancers, making tanks out of odd classes, etc.) and finding new ways to deal with the ever-changing PVP and co-op metagame.

All of this has been thrown out of the window in favor of a simplified leveling system. Gone are the days of assigning points to your many attributes (it's done automatically). Gone are the days of choosing specific skills from skill trees (you're set on a predetermined path). Hope you don't like using projectile weapons outside of the Demon Hunter class, because, for the most part, you can't use them at all. Enjoy picking up awesome looking weapons and armor and seeing "Barbarian Only" in bold, red letters. (Not that this didn't happen in the original games, but for the most part you could mix and match how the player saw fit.)

Of course to even level up you'll have to deal with the game's horrendous story and terrible narrative that is shoehorned into the gameplay, slowing things down repeatedly with boss introductions, character dialog, and cutscenes with inexcusably dry acting and bad writing. I think the importance here is tone, which is something that the writers for this don't really understand.

In the first two games, the game's rather extensive lore was there for players who wanted it, but for the action junkies who just wanted to slay beasts and demons they could do so without any major interruption. Here, however, you're constantly having to talk with other characters who have nothing interesting, important, or otherwise relevant to say. Characters accompanying you never seem to stop talking. I've lost track of how many times I've heard Leah tell me how she missed travelling and wanted to open an inn, and you know what? Who cares? Seriously, did anyone at Blizzard understand what has made the Diablo series so appealing to so many players is that you weren't bombarded with needless dialogue and terrible, hamfisted attempts at character interaction while taking in a pretty enjoyable story? Who made these decisions?

Even the opening of the game is absolutely weak. Picture this - Cain and Leah are in the ruins of a church near New Tristram, with Cain recounting the war between Heaven and Hell. Leah doubts his words, but as the sky begins to rain fire, Cain looks to the sky, utters that "it" has begun, and a falling star crashes into the church. Cain falls down the hole where it lands, and Leah cries out for him. And then the logo - DIABLO III.

And that's supposed to get the player in the mood to kill hellspawn.Right.

Compare that with the second game. We get to see two main characters interacting with some intense foreshadowing and (potentially) one of them is an angel, which is pretty new to the series. Marius, recounts the story of meeting the Dark Wanderer, the somewhat possessed Warrior from the original game who defeated Diablo and contained his soul within his own body. Marius describes dreams in which he sees someone not unlike the Wanderer surrounded by chaos and dark beings, and is shocked to seem him stumble into a tavern where he is. The Wanderer, seeking shelter from the cold outside, cannot contain the evil within him, and soon the tavern is flooded with hellspawn, skeletons, and demons that pour forth from within him that kill the patrons and set fire to the tavern. Marius follows the wanderer with one final line as he leaves the carnage:

"Why did I follow him? I don't know. Why do things happen as they do in dreams? All I know is that when he beckoned, I had to follow him. From that moment, we traveled together, East. Always to the East."

Getting the difference in tone yet? The second game sets the stage for what you can assume is going to be a grand RPG, spanning many locales and with a story that was at least entertaining, straightforward and decently written.

The actual gameplay itself is polished, to a certain extent. Combat is fast and immensely satisfying (when you can actually hit something) and the characters and monsters are all well-animated, if a little low on detail at times. Blizzard seemed to think that people absolutely loved the status effects that elite enemies had in the first several games, and cranked them up a ridiculous amount.

You haven't lived until you've met a Shielding Molten Vortex elite - they set up a shield for several seconds, pull you in close, and leave behind a trail of lava that drains your health unreasonably fast if you so much as look at it.

Encounters like these are unbelievably frustrating, with small insects that shoot smaller insects at you that deal stupidly high amounts of damage and are just able to get out of your reach as your character chases after them like an idiot (for the record, I played for several acts in each class, and used a Monk as my main). Elite units utilize status effects like knockback and fear, which do more to frustrate and slow down the game than keep the pace up like previous games. Instead of simply, you know, being knocked back, your character can literally fly across the screen in a different direction after a small hit, or just run away on his own for several yards because, hell, he's scared you know?

I understand there was stuff like this in the old games, but its done to such an unreasonable amount it becomes teeth-gnashing in its difficulty at times. The game is otherwise an absolute cakewalk on Normal, though, thanks in part to the shortsighted Auction House.

Yes, auctions. Instead of getting decent loot, it's far easier to simply jump into an auction and get better gear instead. Within the first act or two I already had a ridiculously overpowered sword and armor, and that was just to get a feel of how it worked. By the time I fought Diablo, I barely broke a sweat in any of the game's major bosses and had died a grand total of a single time due to a severe lag spike and subsequent disconnection.

Did I mention you can't access the auction house in-game? You have to exit to the menu to do it. Oh and you receive no in-game notifications if something has sold or if you've been outbid or won an auction.

If this game is trying to be like World of Warcraft, it's succeeding to some extent. D3 eschews the dark, gothic colors of all the previous games and embraces a blurry, colorful look that makes it seem like everyone on the development team never played a Diablo game before. Textures are relatively lifeless, the player models are low-poly, and (just to nit-pick) they no longer even use the same font for weapon and item descriptions as previous games. There is a mod available, DarkD3, which darkens and sharpens the game, and I recommend it to anyone who misses the old look. There's definitely a good looking game, but it's hidden behind a godawful screen filter and overly colorful visuals that just don't make it seem like it jives with the rest of the series.

The story's main "plot twist" is also so hilariously convoluted and stupid I had contemplated getting a refund at that point because, for $60, this game is simply not worth the trouble. It's an experience that is addictive, but for all the wrong reasons. You keep playing and trudging onward, hoping the experience is going to get better, but instead it just keeps throwing interruptions, stupid dialogue, disconnects, latency issues, bad loot, and irritating enemy types into your face. And when all is said and done, the length of the game is insultingly short and devoid of any real sense of accomplishment other than seeing a bunch of numbers increase exponentially.

Like Cain, I really do hope you've stayed a while and listened, because this game isn't worth the time, the energy, or the money at this point. Wait until the price drops and the lag and loot issues are ironed out. Otherwise this can be added to Stacraft II as the list of Blizzard disappointments that unfortunately continues to grow.

Rating: 6/10

1-participation point
5-average
10-perfect

American Pure Whey is bad and should feel bad

Note added 8-29-2012: This article contains formatting based on the old template, apologies if it looks strange now.

In the world of protein supplements, not all brands are created equal. They can vary by minerals, protein content, even by somewhat dangerous chemicals that unfortunately make their way into mixtures.

As someone who has been looking to get back into playing hockey and putting on a few good pounds in the process, I spent several weeks researching brands and prices. I had used protein supplements in high school to a fair amount of success, and I was looking to build in that following college.

I came across a recommended brand by the name of American Pure Whey, a decently priced and apparently very good tasting product offering a good amount of protein at an affordable cost.

Or so we thought.

I must admit, I have terrible luck with this sort of thing. In no less than 24 hours after purchasing their chocolate protein, I spotted a thread on a certain bodybuilder forum that alleged that all is not as it seems with APW. In fact, they're allegedly outright lying about their products.

I'll let SomethingAwful take a crack at it:

Recently in the Pills, Powders, and Protein Megathread (http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=3470330), forums poster Zugzwang posted results of a test between reference quality protein, ON whey, and APW (American Pure Whey, known for being ridiculously cheap). The results showed that APW contained negligible protein contents compared to ON and reference. 

There may also be a problem with APW lot numbers: everyone seems to have lot 4389. This could indicate fake lot numbers.

Tests show that APW clearly has less protein content than other brands. In a response on their website they posted a CoA that they say confirms that their protein is legitimate.

Debates continued on several prominent websites, including numerous body building websites, SomethingAwful, and Reddit.

Things start to take a turn for the worst as more users begin posting their own tests with APW's supplements against other brands:

Well I was giving the company the benefit of the doubt, hoping Zug's assay had some unknown interference that altered results. I took a sample of my Cinnamon Bun and Peanut Butter and Chocolate into work to run a different protein test, and my test seemed to confirm Zug's results. About 12% protein in each sample, well below 79% that should be present (26g out of 33g claimed on label).


This test was done using our Leco. This is a combustion method that measures nitrogen content and is very common in the food industry. The good news, the nitrogen content was very low, so the odds of there being melamine contamination is low since that is a nitrogen containing compound. The bad news, the protein claim appears to be way off.

Other tests begin to shed some light on the contents of APW's "protein."

Tossing my APW, did this first for fun/science.

10g each APW cinnamon bun whey isolate, ON delicious strawberry whey

with 20ml cool water

after microwaving for 30 seconds 

Strawberry ON formed a glob of protein popover

APW did nothing, bubbled over its glass but didn't coagulate

Other users join in on the science, and begin doing tests of their own:

You've inspired me. I went ahead and performed an experiment of my own: 
Application of Heat to Dry Protein Powders: A Preliminary Investigation.
For my "control" protein powder, I have selected Optimum Nutrition's Double Rich Chocolate.

I put 4 scoops into a saucepan, and put the heat on high:
The powder begins to toast:

After about 4 minutes, the powder begins to burn:
The result

:
Taste Report:
Tastes vaguely like protein powder, but mostly just that burned carbon-y taste. Very coarse, dry, gritty texture.


For our "unknown" protein powder, I have selected American Pure Whey's Cinnamon Bun

.
I put 4 scoops into a saucepan, and put the heat on high:
The powder begins to clump

:
The powder continues to clump and begins to burn:
The Result

:
Taste Report:
This was rock hard in consistency by the time it cooled. I took a bite, and it was very crunchy/difficult to eat. It tasted very similar to the powder by itself, albeit with a slight burnt flavor.



Conclusion:
All I can say is that one of these things is not like the other. I think APW has at least some amount of simple sugar, such as sucrose or fructose, considering the way it behaved under heat. I was almost able to caramelize it.


In Summary:

 

Needless to say, I'm definitely regretting my purchase, although I'm not nearly as angry as other users who have purchased over 30 lbs. of this suspect product.

Here's where things go from outrage to borderline hilarity:

Yes. Both labels are the same. The label on my chocolate protein that arrived in the mail? Same as above. The company apparently wasn't able to create new labels at all.

Users on SomethingAwful and Reddit are posting similar stories with matching labels.

I had a feeling this was too good to be true, as APW tasted entirely too delicious for its own good. Users are canceling orders left and right, and it appears that word is spreading around about the product. 

Looks like it's back to ON for me. Big shout out to SomethingAwful for the pics and info in this post.

Afternoon Roundup: RIP Flyers 2011-2012

-Officials say alcohol may have been factor in drowning death of a Montgomery County man.

-Lewd gesture leads to two-on-one fight between an officer, a Conroe man and a juvenile.

RIP Flyers 2011-2012


Well that was ugly.

Whatever momentum the Flyers could have capitalized on coming out of their series with the Penguins had all but evaporated before they even set foot on the ice against the Devils, who ended Philly's season last night with forechecking that steamrolled the depleted Flyers defense corps.

You could almost hear the groans in the Wachovia Center as Bryzgalov let in one of the most embarrassingly bad goals seen in years. While attempting to send the puck back to Timonen, Bryz tried the shoot the puck past David Clarkson and ended up hitting him inside, and the puck simply bounced back into the net.

I'm not one to scapegoat Bryzgalov, as losing this series was essentially everyone's fault. The defense was shaky, the forwards were inept, and Laviolette was completely outcoached (again). But for someone who's touted as an "elite goaltender" by the club and other hockey writers, Philadelphia will need better and more consistent play given his steep price tag and "humongous big" contract length.

Don't get me wrong, Bryz is definitely capable of making good saves, but the problem is the inconsistency. A guy who's making $10 million to be an elite goaltender shouldn't be having the sort of ups and downs seen in the regular season (and the playoffs, for that matter) and if he's going to be like this then I have to ask: Why are we paying him this much?

I also reject the notion that Brodeur was somehow not a factor in this series. Yes, he's getting old, and yes he looked shaky at times, but the numbers don't lie. It's true that Marty faced a much lower number of shots than Bryz did, but with mistakes like Clarkson's goal sticking out, it's hard to argue which goalie ended up being the stronger one in this series.

There may be a bandwagon of haters on Bryz, but I don't think he necessarily deserves it. Nor do I think his title as an "elite goaltender" absolves him of responsibility for being so inconsistent at times.

Needless to say, it's been a wild ride, especially given it all happened following the most exciting (and possibly most tragic) NHL offseasons in recent memory. For all of the positives that came out of this season, there are some question marks hanging over my head:

-Will Jagr return?

One of the last people I'd ever expect to see in a Flyers jersey turned out to be a valuable asset to the team throughout the regular season. Plenty of leadership experience, but also plenty of class out on the ice and in the locker room. He's spoken several times about his love for the team and has apparently enjoyed his time in Philadelphia, but Jagr was rather quiet in the post-season, and the case can be made he was beginning to show his age as the regular season came to a close.

Signing him would be tricky, as the biggest changes need to come on the blue line (more on that below). If he could be inked on a contract that wouldn't take up too much cap space, it wouldn't hurt to resign him. For the best interests of the team's future, and not to mention holding on to our rookie corps, it might be best to let him walk.

Still, I'd rather not have to go up against a guy like Jagr on another team.

-Who goes?

I'm a little perplexed as to why Jakub Voracek hasn't been offered a bigger contract yet. In all seriousness, Voracek is one of those guys that should have been signed to at least a few years of an extension the moment he arrived from Columbus. Matt Read has also stepped into his role as a defensive forward with, dare I say, flying colors? Schenn has also stepped up.

Matt Carle and James van Riemsdyk, however, I'm not too sure about. Carle has been good, and I stand up for his play a lot more than other fans it seems, but his mistakes stick out far more than his good play ever does. JVR is still worth quite a bit, but spent most of the season injured and hasn't come close to playing like he did last season.

Lilja and Rinaldo should be fired into the sun (or at least into the AHL, maybe the ECHL for Rinaldo).

If we can net some kind of a good return for a D-man in return for JVR, the Flyers might be inclined to take that chance, with Pronger essentially out of the picture.

-Seriously, Rinaldo?

I can't stress this enough - the Flyers need to stop wasting roster spots on idiots like Zac Rinaldo. There's this boneheaded thought process behind signing guys like him, and it's unbelievably draconian to think that, in the post-lockout era, teams need a bruiser who literally does absolutely nothing than fight and get suspended.

There's no reason for it, and I'm sure there are plenty of talented people that would absolutely love to crack the lineup. Why not give them that chance?

-Coaching Shakeup

This may have people grabbing their pitchforks, but I'm not entirely unopposed to bringing in a new coach.

Laviolette is a great motivator, don't get me wrong. His strategy for timeouts has become legendary and HBO's 24/7 gave everyone an impressive idea of what the guy is really like.

But this series really showed that the coaching staff is unable to adjust their games against teams that (surprise) understand how to forecheck and pressure his system. The Flyers lost the season series to the Rangers and nearly got swept by the Devils.

Again, I'm open to Laviolette staying or leaving. I think he's a valuable coach and he's obviously had success with the team, but at the same time if we're going to make a habit out of completely folding against teams that are able to adapt to his system, then it might be time for some form of change in the coaching staff.

As long as Paul Holmgren doesn't do anything as drastic as last season, I think Flyers fans should be excited for next season - with so many rookies with so much talent, this losing experience might be just what they need to come back hungry for 2012-2013.

Mass Effect has awful writing and it makes my head hurt

I'd like to think that, despite all of the cynicism outside of the industry, games are capable of meaningful, artistic expression. Like any industry with growing pains, we've seen flashes of brilliance followed by long stretches of time of Call of Duty knockoffs and Gears of War ripoffs and so on and so forth.

(Or is that, Nears of War? Courtesy laugh, anyone?)

I've spoken to people about narrative, writing, and expression in games time and time again. The biggest issue I have when talking to fellow enthusiasts is that the bar for good writing in a game is set entirely too low for its own good.

I remember when film critic Roger Ebert lambasted all of gaming, essentially writing it off as something that could never be capable of true artistic expression. Being that this was also indirectly critical of gamers themselves, they did the proper thing and flooded nearly every major gaming website and message board with furious comments, saying that Ebert quite simply didn't understand.

They're right to an extent - Ebert's own understanding of games went as far as about Atari's heydays, and when your only other exposure to video games is through adaptations like Super Mario Bros., Resident Evil, and the Mortal Kombat series, I can understand his sentiment. If your only understanding of Super Mario was based on the movie, and maybe glimpses of what the games look like, imagine what your opinion would be.

That being said, no one really addressed the main issue that many in the gaming community are slowly beginning to understand - in general, writing in games is pretty terrible.

I'm reminded of this any time I see praise for (and I know this may make some readers shake their head in disgust) Bioware and their recent games. There was a time when Bioware had generally serviceable writing in their games, but they seem to have opted out of having true creativity and headed straight for the easy way out. It's a shame, given the depth and visual design of games like Mass Effect that are enormously pleasing and well designed in their own right. But time after time, dialogue and character development comes up that would be passable for a sub-par B-movie.

Why do I feel this way? Consider my experience with Mass Effect 2.

(Now, I'll stay away from going into why I feel the gameplay in ME2 was already a disappointment to the entertaining but oddball spam fest combat that ME felt like, as that would be a whole other post, as I'd like to focus on the writing itself.)

I'm going to go ahead and spoil the opening if you haven't played it already - At the start of ME2, the crew of the Normandy is patrolling for Geth when they're attacked by an unknown ship. The ship is evacuated and, after saving Joker, Commander Shephard is thrown into space and he dies when his suit fails. There's one final shot of him falling towards a planet, before the player is treated to a montage of another organization from the first game, Cerberus, reconstructing Shephards body.

Once Shephard is alive again, he's granted an audience with the leader of Cerberus, known as the Illusive Man, who essentially lays out the plot of the entire rest of the game and gives him his first real quest\mission\whatever.

This entire sequence of events has bugged the hell out of me throughout the entirety of my playthrough. Shephard is literally brought back from the dead and the furthest the interaction goes with that fact is that some characters are a little surprised you're still alive. It's less shock, more of a, "Oh hey, what's up man, heard you were dead? Guess not, that's cool." It's unbelievably casual. I get it's the future and all, but really, how many people are bought back to life? The Lazarus project is portrayed as something that took years to complete and only by a shady organization with dubious ties to an unidentified man with glowing eyes so I'm guessing it's not an everyday occurrence, right?

Shephard spends all of about two or three seconds pondering this before just taking the Illusive Man's orders to heart and bouncing off on his first quest. There's no existential quandry, no self-doubt, no kind of introverted struggle dealing with life and death - you're alive now and it's awesome.

The writers at Bioware absolutely blew it with developing Shephard's character here and allowing the player to bond with what is essentially their avatar. I understand Shephard is supposed to be an extension of the player, but none of the other characters in the game seem fazed that a comrade who bled and fought beside them for an extended period of time is back from the dead. In fact, one of your own crew mates is downright pissed you're back again, because it was the result of Cerberus' work.

I guess I can understand that, but everyone takes Shephard's re-emergence like it's business as usual. The guy gets sucked out into space after his ship is destroyed and is stone dead and everyone in the universe knows it. But, bam! He's back alive again! Nothing can keep this guy down, right?! Knew you'd pull through, buddy!

There is precedent, obviously, for Shephard being able to overcome the odds, but once someone declares you KIA after your body floats off into space like an asphyxiated ragdoll and you suddenly show up years later looking exactly the same, well, I'd like to think your old comrades would have a question or two about who (or what) you really are.

Bioware fumbles with this, and it shows. For instance, Shephard's first encounter with old ally Garrus takes all of a few minutes to get through, and Garrus responds with what amounts to "Oh, you're alive, what's up dude?" before asking for help in killing a bunch of mercenaries.

Garrus and Shephard have been together since roughly the start of the original game - that's a whole hell of a lot of time to bond and fight together - and that's his greeting? Again, no existential conflict here? Just a robotic "sup" and everyone just moves on? Bioware expects the player to simply accept that THIS IS THE FUTURE and everyone you know is totally ok with you coming back from the dead despite there not really being any precedent for resurrections.

The crew themselves have plenty of problems of their own, though. Only issue is, your ship is more of a focus group meeting for Troubled Kids than a crew of badass scientists, mercenaries, and insane aliens. What do I mean? Look at it this way:

Nearly everyone on the Normandy has daddy issues or a variation thereof.

I'm not joking. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at them:

Miranda: Hates her father. Wants to protect sister from her father.

Tali: Father gets everyone on a ship killed after screwing around with Geth.

Jacob: Hates his father.

Thane: Abandons son, who hates him. (MASTERSTROKE REVERSAL)

Grunt: Just wants to kill people. Ambivalent towards his creator (basically his father).

Mordin: Student, who is like a son, is kidnapped, turns out to hate Mordin. (see Thane)

Samara: Daughter is insane, and wants to kill her. (again, Thane)

Jack: Imprisoned as a child, hates everyone.

Garrus: Wants to exact revenge on someone who betrayed him.

The only one of these that felt interesting was Garrus, given the revenge aspect and Garrus' personality. Killing the guy seems to be cathartic for Garrus, and it's kind of interesting to see the reaction to the killing is one of general relief, instead of the typical guilt trip that many characters fall under.

But for everyone else, perhaps with the exception of Grunt and maybe Jack and Mordin, just has mommy or daddy issues in some form or another. This entire series takes place in the distant future, with various species with widely different backgrounds and upbringing. And this is the best that the writers at Bioware could come up with?

I sincerely wonder if there's some kind of Bioware RPG Character Template that they just fill in the blanks with. Like a Madlib, but only more bland and whole lot less funny.

But according to the (totally not bought out by advertising money) game critic reviews, this is what amounts to superb writing! Yes the (not bought out) voices of gaming have bestowed numerous awards upon Mass Effect, and much of the praise I've seen has been for its writing.

If this is the bar we set for good writing in gaming, then we're in bad shape, fellas.

Don't get me started on Bioware's signature illusion of choice in their games, where complex interactions boil down to decisions like "Pat the dude on the back." or "Shoot the dude in the face." or, my favorite, "Do nothing to that dude and be, like, bye, dude."

Back to the original point about Shephard's death and resurrection, it seems like Bioware continuously misses chances to truly broaden their characters and give them meaningful connections with one another outside of the players desire to pursue a "romantic" or "not romantic" relationship. There are jokes I've heard about the ME series being a large dating sim and I can understand the criticsm - should anyone really care about having to pursue a "romantic" relationship in a game where the main character is bought back to life and not as  a zombie?

I'm not asking for Pulitzer-level writing here, just a degree of self-awareness and understanding that not all interactions with other people are robotic back and forth you-say-something-then-I-say-something flat angle conversations as they are in ME. Call it the limitations of the genre or games itself, I still can't fathom why Bioware has only a middling grasp of creative writing and composition, but can nonetheless create a visually deep and creative world. I believe that's what they call wasted potential?

Perhaps the staff had mommy\daddy issues? Given these are the same people that provided us with such hilarity as "gigglesquee" (look it up) it wouldn't be too far of a stretch. In the end it makes it feel like ME is some kind of young adult novel with vaguely adult themes that tries entirely too hard to be "mature" for the sake of being "mature."

Perhaps in my next post I can address some other games that fall under the same bad writing banner (there are a lot) but also ones that don't and actually use the medium as an effective means of expression (there aren't many but the list is growing.)

Lessons Learned - The first post is always the hardest.

Greetings.

I've been meaning to start up a blog for some time now, but given my length of unemployment and lack of anything interesting to say, there was a slight lack of material to work with.

I could have always fallen for the LiveJournal trap, posting every little inner thought and monologue to an audience of nothing like a shy schoolgirl (or any other maladjusted denizen of the internet, take your pick). After all, there's always that shield of anonymity to protect oneself, right?

That's not really my style. If I'm going to write thoughts up on here or try to connect with readers or viewers or any other audience, I should at least claim those opinions of my own. It's a bit tricky though - How do you voice your opinions while working for a newspaper and still remain impartial?

Many people my age seem to think that every voice and every opinion should be given equal weight and, at times, that opinions held outside of an office environment have no bearing in it. Most supervisors, editors, bosses, and so on essentially laugh at that sentiment and it's something many young people learn the hard way in a time when every post, photo, and thought that is put up for the world to see is scrutinized, brutalized, and analyzed to a point where every thought and emotion can result in being held in contempt.

(Unless, of course, you maintain a strict contact list and even stricter privacy options. Just saying.)

From my experience, people are always ready to give their voice on politics online without hesitation, regardless of the content or the extreme nature of their views. Just scroll through any news website comments section and you'll find a boiling cauldron of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, and any other deplorable and disgusting frame of mind. Even without the shroud of anonymity that many users take advantage of across countless sites, people believe that because the internet has given them a voice then every opinion deserves to be heard equally.

For a little experiment, try going to OpenBook.com, a site which searches for words and phrases in Facebook profiles that are publicly viewable, and type in any racial slur. For those unfamiliar with the darker side of the internet, it can be staggering to see just how many results are returned.

(ProTip: Try not to do this on a work computer.)

It seems that many young journalists my age are so ready to voice their political concerns and thrust their point of views at the risk of dangering or outright sabotaging their career. A short search through blogs on here reveal a number of young reporters that seem to think they are safe from any sort of repercussion from posting unfavorable views of political parties, local figures, even their editors and their fellow writers.

I'll refrain from reposting their profiles here as some of them already seem to be using their real names or identities that are relatively easy to deduce.

Restraint is the key here. There are a million ways to voice your opinion to the world and be heard, but to focus on posting like a 12 year old who has just discovered LiveJournal, is, well, stupid.

That little rant aside, as a reporter myself I have to maintain some degree of professionalism when it comes to voicing my opinions and writing my thoughts on here. More often than not I've become sidelined by life or work, but I'm hoping to utilize this blog as yet another means to connect with friends, family, readers, and like-minded people who happen to stumble upon this page. (Which may not be many, just being realistic here.) I'll touch upon my work, add footnotes to articles, other details, and so on. I can focus on my hobbies - reading, writing, gaming, hockey, exercise - and some of the behind the scenes things at the office here.

Oddly enough, I feel I have more time and a better reason for posting consistently on here than when I was unemployed for 9 months. I'm thankful for my job and the work, and with this opening post out of the way I feel like I'm ready to write consistently again outside of an office setting.

The first post is always the hardest.