Baggage Fees, but Free Wifi?

After getting on a plane at MCO this afternoon, I realized something was rather amiss at Delta Airlines, and I imagine a lot of other airlines have this strange incongruity, as well.


Delta Airlines has a $25 baggage fee for each bag checked at the terminal, but the plane I stepped on had free wifi for the entire flight.


My only question is: What?


While I certainly won't complain about free wifi, which allowed me to play my favorite text-based MUD in flight (Threshold), it still struck me as a completely ludicrous incongruity. Why would they charge $25 for a baggage fee, but could've easily charged for 30 minute increments for their wifi?


I know this isn't my normal posting grounds (considering it is not at all gaming related) but I had to sound off on this just for the sheer mystification I found when I paid the $25 baggage fee (a rip-off, and they're still the lowest price for said fee). 


Either way, airline travel is getting harder and harder to enjoy.

Downloadable Content: Another Way to Eat Money?

Before I start off with this post, let me first say that I do understand that companies make downloadable content after the release of a game to prolong the life of that game. It's a great idea in theory, and sometimes in practice. I like the fact that you can download content that extends the game beyond its originally intended life cycle, and truly enjoy a lot of the DLC that's available.


The problem comes with the price of DLC.

I do understand that companies have to make money from the time and effort they expend on downloadable content. The problem that I have is the fact that the DLC is ofttimes so expensive that I wonder why they didn't give us the full game in the first place when they're just going to charge us the price of another game afterwards.


Bethesda is probably the most notorious that I've seen for this. With Fallout 3, they posted five downloadable content packs on XBox Live's Marketplace, PlayStation Store, Games for Windows Live Marketplace and Steam. All of them were selling the DLC for $9.99 apiece. That's a total of $49.95. In Bethesda's credit, all of the packs were pretty excellent, but I don't think the time and effort I spent on them equated to the price of a new game.


The only exception that I've seen (and please correct me if I'm wrong in the comments) is Valve. With their Left 4 Dead series they've thrown out a good amount of downloadable content in the form of extended campaigns. They've given out a few of them for free on the PC, and for as low a cost as possible on the XBox 360. 


This is where Microsoft comes in with a small amount of irritation. If my information (or supposition in this case) is correct, Microsoft takes a cut of every sale on the Marketplace, and they force you to charge a bare minimum price for each and every piece of content that's put up on their Marketplace.


Bottom Line: I don't begrudge companies for trying to make a profit. I just think that there should be an option to not have to charge at all for some of the items that are put up there, and to not have to pay the price for a full game... twice.

Gaming Insights Games: Barren Labyrinth

Hello readers!


It appears I have an announcement to make. With the founding of this blog, I've decided to start my own actual gaming company: Gaming Insights Games. I've been giving this a lot of thought, especially since I've finished my Senior Project, and created my own game: Barren Labyrinth.


I'm pretty pumped with this! If you want to give it a try, I'll post a link.


Barren Labyrinth

EDIT:


Due to commented requests, I'm including a few screenshots, and an overview of Barren Labyrinth.


Overview:


As Barren Labyrinth was a project for my senior year, and I only had six weeks to develop it, it is a very simple game. You are the "Hero," and your job is to thwart the plans of Madron the Mad by solving the Barren Labyrinth, solve each of Madron's riddles, and take all of Madron's scattered fortune in the labyrinthine tunnels so that he cannot fund any further schemes. 


The object of the game is simply to collect all of the gems and crosses scattered around the labyrinth and get the highest score possible. Scattered Gems are worth 100 points, Gold Crosses are 300, and Massive Diamonds are 500. Each riddle correctly answered is worth 1000.


The game was created using Game Maker 8 over the course of 6 weeks.


I've attached a couple of screenshots below that show the main menu and some gameplay.


Screenshots: 

Main Title Screen

First Floor

An Open Letter to Nintendo

Dear Nintendo,

3D for a handheld system, Nintendo? Really?

In case you haven't had your head in the gaming news realm, Nintendo has announced and made prototypes for their new 3DS, a handheld 3D gaming system. While this isn't nearly as bad as celluloid abortions that are known as 3D Movies, it's still annoying to me that this 3D trend doesn't seem to want to go away.

As the warning shows in the above link, the 3D does NOT show up in the YouTube link, but you can actually see the sort of color distortion that's visible within the video itself.

Since I haven't played the system, and haven't really seen it in action, I'll reserve full judgement. But at the same time, I'm still exceedingly hesitant to take a look at a system that will likely have just about all of the annoyances of 3D on the big screen, just that it'll be minus the glasses.

As I've said in my previous post, 3D has given me personally a great deal of headache. Not only myself, but there are a few links in there that denote that I'm not the only one who has problems with 3D.

I just find that this 3D trend is an abomination on good taste and it'll just lead to more and more bull that will reaffirm this 3D trend.

I just can't wait until it dies again. Judging by the list that I'd linked to on my last post, it should only be another... ten years...

Damn.

Sincerely,

-Paul Clewell

P.S. KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE STUPID GIMMICKS ALREADY. GIVE US NORMAL CONTROLS. (This might be cause for another letter...)

An Open Letter to Hollywood

Dear Hollywood,

I hate James Cameron's Avatar.

There, I said it. It seems that I'm among the minority here, but I truly do loathe movies that are intended for the (once again) popular trend of creating 3D movies.

Some of you who were alive back in the late 80's and early 90's may remember that 3D is not a new idea. The idea and practice behind 3D movies has been around since 1903, and was popularized in the 1950's. It faded out of style once again in the late 60's and early 70's, with only a few films released in that time period. It once again gained popularity in the 80's and 90's, and once again fell off the grid.

Now James Cameron has once again put 3D on the map.

I confess, I kind of hate him for it. 3D for me, personally, and for a lot of other people, has been a massive headache, and a definite pain in the neck in order to fit on those ridiculous 3D glasses.

The 3D effects have never been impressive for me. They've done nothing to tickle my fancy, and have been rather lackluster, and even having seen James Cameron's film, I still remain unimpressed and annoyed that the trend of 3D films is back.

All I think to myself is: Great, another rash of films I can't watch.

In short, please stop this horrifying trend and continue to make films that aren't geared towards a stupid gimmick that'll just die in another few years.

Thanks Hollywood,
-Paul

HULK SMASH KEYBOARD!

I know this is not at all gaming or internet news related, but I have to share this story of what happened last night at work.

I work at a retail store here in Florida (I won't name the store) and last night, I was closing with my manager, who we will call "Manager Awesome," and it had already been a long day full of crap customers who don't seem to want to  stop being massive idiots who cannot seem to keep their thoughts straight, or their annoying mouths shut.

At this point (around 5:30PM, I'd started shift at 1PM) a man, we'll call him "Hulk," came in holding a keyboard tucked under his arm and walked directly up to my manager, and thrust the keyboard into my managers hands.

"Thanks," my manager said, looking more than a little confused, "I'm not sure why you gave me a gift, but hey."

"I'd like you to exchange it," Hulk said.

"Do you have a receipt?"

"No," Hulk replied, "but I do have the warranty that your sales guy sold me."

"Well," Manager Awesome replied, "there's a phone number on the back that you're supposed to call if the keyboard's not working."

SMASH! Hulk, in an overreaction to top all other overreactions, spiked the keyboard on the floor as if it were a football and he'd just scored the game-winning touchdown. The Escape key landed on the desk I was working behind, about 10 yards away.

"I WANT MY [bleep!]ING KEYBOARD! I SPENT MY HARD EARNED [bleep!]ING MONEY ON YOUR [bleep!]ING PLAN JUST SO I COULD [bleep!]ING AVOID THIS [bleep!]ING [bleep!]!"

Manager Awesome looked at the man and calmly replied, "I'm sorry, sir, but I'm sure we can resolve this if you'll just calm down.

Five minutes of Hulk screaming and shouting, turning beet red in the face in the exertion, and Manager Awesome finally told him...

"GET THE HELL OUT OF MY STORE!" 

The entire world where I work stopped.

If we thought that Hulk was shouting loudly, Manager Awesome was cranked up to 11. And finally, Hulk left the store. 


A few moments later, I walked up to Manager Awesome, handed him the Escape key and said, "Here. You need some Escape."

Moral of the Story: Even if you think you're the Incredible Hulk, and you smash a keyboard and throw a temper tantrum trying to get your way... Manager Awesome will still tell you to piss off.

I've also posted a fun picture of the aftermath of the poor, blameless, innocent keyboard.

Please, folks. Don't abuse your keyboards.
They're innocent.

$300 For a Blog

An article over at The Escapist has recently been posted regarding the city of Philadelphia's new policy charging bloggers in their city $300 for a "business privilege license."


What?


Are you honestly going to tell me that the city of Philadelphia is that poor that they have to take money from people who may not be even trying to make any sort of substantial money from their blogs. Mind you, this $300 is only charged to those who have chosen to incorporate ads in their blogs, but still, this fee is charged regardless of whether or not you make any sort of substantial money. It could be only a few dollars, or a few hundred dollars per year, but that seems irrelevant to Philly.


What could've possibly been going through the minds of lawmakers when they put this gem through the legislative process? Is Philly that hard up for cash that they're going to charge people who may not even have a full-time job $300 freaking dollars for a license to speak their minds?
This may not be a contention of free speech so much as it is the money that is made from that speech, but still, this is a "labor of love" as The Escapist writer called it. It's a place where you can voice your frustration and anger about a certain topic without repercussions. This is a place of sanctuary where we can fire off our opinions in order to blow off steam. It's therapeutic for crying out loud, and you're going to charge people $300 for that?


I should mention that there also is, included in this license fee, a "pay wage tax, business privilege tax and a net profits tax," all on what could possibly only be a few dollars in a year. There is also a "proposed update" regarding the law that would eliminate the tax on the first $100,000 of profit brought in, but the bloggers involved are still required to purchase a license. There's also a slap in the face of a "$50 yearly plan" that the (I assume) mildly retarded City Councilor Bill Green suggested bloggers pay instead.


I cannot believe that a city has sunk so low as to start charging for ad revenue to a blog that may not even be about the damn money.


I know one thing's for sure, I'm not moving to Philly anytime soon.

The Laughability of "Mature"

Recently, I was combing through the Kotaku archives, and I found an interesting article regarding a study published in the U.S. Pediatrics Journal back in May 2009. It detailed that "giving a video game a mature rating makes it 'unspeakably desirable' to children." This got me to thinking, "Why do we even bother with making a rating system at all if the kids are just going to find a way to get the mature games anyway?"


Before you jump the gun in the comments section and blast me for saying that the ratings of the games are useless (and I'm not so sure that they aren't) hear me out. When you look at the game's ESRB rating, and see that big, honking M sitting there, aren't you thinking you may have found a decent game? Maybe even the "T" for Teen has tickled your fancy once or twice. This "forbidden fruit" angle that the Kotaku article explored depicted the study as a "foregone conclusion," and that the study's findings, "surprise(d) no one." 


The original idea behind the ESRB was to rate video games based on the maturity level of the content that the game held within. Having a game with gratuitous violence, gore, nudity, drug and alcohol use (and abuse) would obviously fall into the "Mature" category. Violence, drug and alcohol reference and the like would fall under the "Teen" category, and so on. But there's a rather large flaw with this system: The kids are playing the games anyway, regardless of this ban on the sale of Mature games to minors.


I suppose the point of this post is the fact that kids are going to play these games regardless of the Mature or Teen ratings barring them from purchasing the games in the first place. They'll receive them as gifts from parents, aunts, uncles, or people who just plain don't know any better, or even care. Why do we bother with a rating system that doesn't prevent anything except a minor inconvenience of having to receive the game via a middle man?


I've been playing Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 since a month after the game came out, and whenever I had my headphones (and sound) on, I heard the voice chat of at least one boy that sounded as if he hadn't hit puberty yet. At least one I heard sounded like he was maybe eight.


It's disconcerting to think that these children are able to freely roam the ultraviolence of Modern Warfare 2, trying to impress the older generation by calling them all sorts of filthy, vile things, and cursing with abandon. I'm not sure if it's bad parenting, a poor enforcement of ratings at the stores, perhaps an archaic ratings system or a mixture of the three.


I suppose my point is rather selfish in nature but: I'm pretty sure just about everyone would like to play these mature games without a shrill voice shouting in our ears that we're "hacking c*nts."

A Particular Annoyance

Thanks for taking a look at my page, it's been a while since I've posted on this blog, and I hope to start posting with a sense of regularity. When I first started this blog, I was trying to create a review column out of thin air. After one review, I gave up, and didn't come back for three years. But, now I'm back and I'd like to share my views on the world of gaming today, and just my view in general.

Today I've got a topic which is of a particular irritation for me. I hope not to be ranting too much in my later posts, but today's has hit a little close to home.

Recently I asked a woman out on a date. During that date, while we were getting to know each other over a cup of coffee, I asked if she enjoyed playing video games, and I was met with an astonished, and very disgusted stare. "Video games? I'm not a kid anymore. Grow up." And she left.

It's been more and more apparent that you still can't call yourself a "Gamer" without some sort of social pariah status being attached to the label. As stated in David Wong's article over at Cracked, 5 Reasons It's Still Not Cool To Admit You're A Gamer, there's still that stereotype of the "lonely virgin" sitting in our rooms, playing our "little games."

But that's really not the most accurate portrayal of gamers today. The typical gamer is not just a sixteen year old boy who has all the social graces of a rabid wolverine who's high on angel dust. On average, the gaming age has raised significantly to the 25 - 40 age group.

I'm twenty-seven years old, and I feel like that I'm still being treated like I've the emotional maturity of a seventeen year old. The most successful, recent games that I can think of (Mass Effect 2 and God of War 3, for example) include scenes of sexual nature. Yes, Mass Effect 2 does have censored nudity, but the point remains that there's a central plot toward a romance that culminates in a very pervasive sexual scene.

God of War 3 is even worse than this, at least BioWare had the decorum to censor the scene. God of War 3 doesn't even bother. (WARNING: STRONG sexual content and a lot of nudity.)

Yes, I know I'm making the same point that David Wong makes in his article, but the point remains the same. We've been put down as disgusting perverts who like nothing more than to watch a pair of women so overcome with their sexual desires that they just attack one another. (Yes, that happens almost exactly as I described in the above video.)

While I can have a puerile, dirty mind on occasion, I'd like to think I can shake the "lonely gamer" and the "social pariah with an almost paralyzing fixation on boobs" status.

There's also the fact that a lot of the games have, at best, a plot from a late 80's action movie: Man against a sea of faceless adversaries. A wind-up toy with guns. Load him up and watch him kill. It's almost disturbing that we can't have a decent story in video games. While it isn't the most paramount thing, I'd like to think I can enjoy a story and still be a gamer.

Even the critically hailed Alan Wake still can't seem to shake this shtick. The titular character faces a sea of "taken" people, killing everything in his path in order to rescue his wife. Yes, it plays out like a movie, and that's progress, but it's still not enough.

My whole point? We've grown up, why can't video games do the same?