I have not written here in quite some time. It doesn't matter to me. For people like me who write when they're upset, or feel a sense of emotion, whether it be sadness, anger or happiness, this place is a fortress. I may never update here, but no big loss. However, I feel obligated.

Often, it's very easy to assume that humans are naturally pessimistic. I always hear "Why is he doing this to me, when he's the one who did wrong" or "Why do others get to be successful when I have been trying harder much longer." We irrationally justify things in our lives, that don't go well. It's hard for me to not do the same in this situation.

Melissa Batten, or at least the Melissa Batten I knew, made it worth it to come to work. I'm not discrediting Epic Games in any way, but she had a talent to cheer you up. Melissa was the type of person to always say "Good Morning" to you or "Good Evening" when walking through those doors, and would be the first to ask you how you are doing, even before the work itself began. Granted, I didn't know her very well, but I've always felt like I have the ability to gage how people are just by getting to know them a bit more than on the outside.

She was pure of heart and happy-spirited, but she always seemed to make it contagious. Constantly, she would bring her black kitten in to the office in a tote bag, and tell us about all the funny mischief the cat would get into. When it seemed like you worked in a straight-collar, workaholics environment, Melissa was there to bring you back to reality. It was fun and interesting to come to work if you worked with her, things were pretty spontaneous, and you could tell that everyone just laughed more. Just by getting to know her only a little bit, it was easy to tell that she had the ability to love and give compassion, and I hope thats what she did her entire life.

However, when in need, Melissa was the one who you would end up talking to. When I did a brief stint of a couple of months at Epic Games, I was going through rough times with house foreclosure, and worrying about my mother's nerves, among many court dates. When you didn't have time, or no one to talk to at home, Melissa made herself available to go outside with for 10 minutes, and talk to. Even if she didn't say anything, she would listen, and it made it all that much better. It was a maternal gift of sorts, one that I needed at the time, and she felt the compassion to help someone out -- just like she would any stranger.

If the industry knew what it just lost, things would be different. However, they don't.. and for all our sakes, I must just say, that if this is any indication of humanity in the future, we are destined to ridicule the best people in our world. The industry we work in lost a big chunk of it's heart only a few days ago, and theres nothing that we can do to bring it back.

I may of not known you for long, but you made me feel like I knew you and could talk to you. You were the definition of a great person.

Just a note before I start off again, these articles are completely my opinion only, and you are free to agree or disagree, just keep in mind -- these are my opinions and my rants, so don't hang me or anything.

A friend brought up an interesting point to me, which was that he thought debating Gameplay vs. Realism is like debating RTS vs. FPS. I have to agree, and then I don't I agree because yeah, they're two entirely separate things, a la arcade games and realistic games, but gameplay and realism are both elements of a game that you add to make the game. Gameplay and realism are things that every game has, but RTS and FPS are things that every game doesn't have. Some are third person shooters, some aren't. And yes, I know there are hybrid RTS/FPS games.

Moving on.

3) Where do gamers come into play? Should they be more interested in gameplay or realism? Obviously, thats a bit of a rhetorical question, because it is completely gamer's choice. I consider a lot of the Nintendo junkies to be people more interested in heavily gameplay based games, because they'll go after games like Super Smash Brothers or Animal Crossing. Games heavy in gameplay, but not so much in the objective of getting as close as they can to realism.

But small things come into play like a gamer's history when answering the question of 'what should a gamer be interested in more.' Going back to my rant about Geometry Wars, I can easily think of many other games that I've had the same experience with, like StarCraft. I played StarCraft for a long time, and I stopped a few years back, but that doesn't mean its not a great game that is still on my computer and I play while I'm waiting for something or bored. I play games like this, heavily gameplay oriented, because of games in my past. Same goes for StarFox, and yes I have emulators for games like Battle Toads, StarFox and Sim City, because I was a SNES/Genesis boy.

But where do gamers draw the line? Its pretty simple really. A game can have heavy gameplay in many different elements. First example: Spore. Spore is coming out, and it looks like its just going to be a FUN game. Spore strikes me as a game that will be focused around gameplay, features, additions -- that sort of thing. This is a game that incorporates so much functionality, that its actually fun to keep playing. That probably has to do with the designer of the game being very focused around fun, but who knows. I don't look at the trailer and see how real the game might be -- because it isn't, I see massive gameplay on a huge scale. Which sells me no matter what.

Then theres gameplay on a different level, like story. Take Halo for instance. I'm a HUGE fan of Eric Nylund's stuff, you look at a game like Halo 1 and you see that it was a hugely fun game. I still play it all the time, and play the sequel less than the first. Who doesn't? But why? I'll tell you why, its the story. The story in Halo immerses the player, and it immerses everyone. They might not admit it, but everyone loves the story and feel of the first game, and thats why they like to play Assault on the Control Room and try and load as many Marines as they can on your Scorpion and get as many Marines following you in their Warthog in cooperative play.

The second one? Not so much. Yeah it had the story, but Halo 2 was very rushed and pushed out over a huge span of events. If they made a game about the events surrounding the Fall of Reach, that would be perfect. Thats like a 2 or 3 hour timespan, like Halo. But the sequel? You go from your planet, to somewhere else, to a ring, to somewhere else, and then to a Covenant/Forerunner outpost -- it just feels like you're being dragged everywhere.

Gameplay is different on many levels, but its what immerses you the most. Gameplay can be introduced into a realism factor. If you hate the fact that you can move so fast on Warsow, then thats okay, no one will burn you at the stake. If you prefer low gravity, realistic slow movement and slower paced games like Splinter Cell, thats all you. But its a realism thing, when you get into things like that. If you enjoyed the graphics that the Unreal 2.5 engine offered on Splinter Cell, thats cool, its just preference.

So really, there is no good answer to the question. Its finding the balance of that specific player's preference. Do they like a game that immerses them by cool sounds? A game that feels good in your hands? A la, how Saints Row is a great game, minus the controls. How about a game that gets you into the story? The Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield story bored me, because it was loose, so I stopped playing it after a while. But man, I absolutely loved to play Half-Life 2: Episode 1 when it came out, because I love Half-Life's storyline. Who doesn't? I'll be damned if I don't play Episode 2 as soon as it comes out.

4) Can you balance the two when creating games? This is probably the easiest question to answer. Yes. If you, as the game designer, are creating a game that is heavily based in a realistic setting, then throwing in great gameplay makes the game all more enjoyable and enables it to be played over and over again. Lets say that you're designing a game, and you decide it is going to be based on the conflicts between rioters and riot police. If your design documentation places the game in a current day setting, then you will want your graphics team to focus on creating police that look like police, and not pink fuzzy bears with riot shields. Although, that would be cool, its not very realistic. Adding in the functionality to make something very real would be another biggie. Making it so that when you spray water at a crowd, people who are not getting sprayed on go away from the water and don't just keep standing there. How about if one of your officers gets wounded, there should be other officers to rush over there and help him.

It is more of a question answered by the game designer. All games should have really good gameplay, thats the goal. But realism is binary, you can either incorporate it or not. Doing both just makes it a game that fits into the categories of SWAT, Rainbow Six, Quake 4, Halo. Those games are all heavily realistic, their storyline might not be, but I consider those types of games always striving for more realism.

As I stated earlier, there are many different types of realism. Its not all about recreating Black Hawk Down or Band of Brothers. There will be games like Kill.Switch, which was actually originally developed to be a Vietnam warfare game [side note: the game designers saw Black Hawk Down and wanted their game to be like that,] that are realistic in the sense of modern day warfare, and guns that shoot, grenades that explode, buildings you can walk up and down in. Story wise, the game was unrealistic. Mechanically, the game was unrealistic. Who can hold six different 20+ pound weapons at once? In a virtual sense, the physical environment that the main character was in was unrealistic. If a grenade explodes two feet from you, it should kill you, or at least its shrapnel should heavily injure you.

But again, its all binary with realism. You can choose to include it or not, whether that hinders or helps gameplay is up to you. I could choose to make it so that four grenades have to kill my guy, cause he's extra powerful -- and who knows, the game might be more fun because of it.

In the end, neither will win out. People who prefer gameplay and people who prefer realism are just two different species. The argument is a practical debate and has been discussed many times before, but none will overcome the other.

So I was talking to Chris Esaki the other day, and during the discussion, the idea of Gameplay vs. Realism came up. For those who do not know, there has always been this massive debate in the gaming industry among gamers and game developers which is quite simply; which is better?

First, lets look at what both of these concepts are and use some examples. Gameplay is something that all games have. Its usually defined as how the game feels to the player, what emotions or thoughts it will give the player which will ultimately decide the game's replay-ability. Games that are heavy in gameplay could be seen as games like Super Mario Brothers or Quake III Arena.

Then we have realism, which all games have to a degree as well. Realism is quite simply, how real the game is -- which can mean a number of different things. Usually games high in realism are closer to the real world, meaning they'll have the most cutting-edge graphics or audio, and realistic environments.

Don't believe the misconception that only the recently released games are the only realistic ones, because they aren't. Why else would Super Mario Brothers have gravity, flowers, a sky and bushes. Could the developers of chosen to make their own environment, with no gravity, upside down flowers, a black sky and bushes on fire? Yes, they could of, but they didn't. Pong was realistic to a degree, maybe not as realistic as something like Doom 3, but its there. Think about it: a ball that goes back and forth between two blocks, seeing as Pong was originally developed as 'computer tennis' you can see the realism there. They're emulating a tennis game.

So to get off my little rant there, we have these two great ideas of gaming that a lot of times can conflict. Thats where the argument will arise.

1) Is it worth it to create a game that is more realistic than more gameplay rich? Yes, and no. Lets look at what makes a game realistic for a second. As I stated earlier, they usually have the most cutting-edge graphics, most crisp sound, environments that are parallel of the real world, so on and so forth. Games that have boasted these qualities in the past usually receive a lot of press. Take Prey for example, the game received a lot of focus and attention prior to its release and many looked to actually buying it.

Come release though, the game did not actually play out well and ended up going quietly into the night. Thats usually how these games go on by. Another would be Quake 4. Beautiful and realistic yes, but did it last? No.

The question could be answered correctly if you look at the difference between gamers now and gamers five or ten years ago. Five or ten years ago, console gaming was a big thing, and arcade gaming was still in its own element. Games weren't completely about how good graphics might be or how cool audio sounded. They were more or less just about how fun the game is.

Now, you hear a huge amount of gamers screaming about how a game that is coming out soon 'looks' and not necessarily if they think it is going to be fun or not. People look at a lot of games now and see merely how bright or cool something looks, usually the people who liked Steven Segal and Rambo movies. Easily amused, bright colors and explosions, whopdee!

Now don't get me wrong, I think a pretty game is always a plus. But I looked at Supreme Commander and didn't see a better looking version of Total Annihilation, I saw something that could wholeheartedly be fun because of the scale and the love for the previous designer's games.

2) Is it worth it to create a game that is more full of gameplay than realistic? No, and yes. Right away, you're asking, why would I switch it up? Because honestly, I do think it is a bit more worth it to create a heavily gameplay oriented game than something that looks pretty. We can sit back all day, and make movies -- but playing those movies and having an experience when doing so is a completely different ballgame.

What makes a game gameplay-rich, you ask? The question is not answered easily at all. The easiest way to get an answer to the question, would be just to figure out if a game is 'fun.' Its kind of hard to define if it is fun or not, because everyone has their own opinions about games. Since its hard to answer a question with something like that, we'd have to look into what makes a game fun.

Thats a bit of an easier question to answer really. We all know that Geometry Wars is just plain fun. Anyone could play that game for hours and hours. Why you ask? In this particular case, a lot of it has to do with the game's replay-ability and the competitive by-nature feeling. You always have to beat your high score, or a friends, always. Theres many other factors as well, the fact that the game feels smooth when you play it, is never choppy and your focus is always changing. You never stick to a certain section of the screen, constantly looking and thinking.

So getting off of my Geometry Wars splurge, because it is a brain busting good time, I'll continue. There is definitely more things that define how fun a game is, if it gives you experiences, and you feel an attraction to the game, and won't put it down. That kind of thing. Its more of a natural feeling, that someone will just feel. I'll admit, I thought Doom 3 was cool and snazzy, but I didn't think it was that fun. Scary? Yeah. Dark? Undoubtedly. Fun? I'd rather play solitaire.

In Part 2, I'll be talking about what the gamers themselves think, if you can balance the two and the final outcome.

I was listening to the latest 1UP Podcast, an interview with Cliffy B and Mark Rein, and Cliffy said something pretty interesting. Somehow, over Mark's breathing, Cliffy mentioned that gamers need to stop feeling ashamed and down for being who they are, and that this is the best possible industry you can be in. I wholeheartedly agree, I cannot think of a better industry that is more fun, engrossing and social than the gaming industry.

Lets look at the two parties, the game developers and the game players. First, lets look at the game developers. Mind you, game developers are also gamers themselves, but pay attention only to the area where they create the games.

First of all, game developers get to make games that they want to play. Most of the time, the in-house game designers will base an upcomming game. Take for instance Mitch Gitelman and FASA Studios, they're currently working on Shadowrun 2. As Mitch said in the interview, everyone in the studio are huge fans of Shadowrun, so hopefully they'll be able to keep it on par with the huge collection that Shadowrun is, whether it be tabletop game, boardgame, videogame, collectible cards, what have you.

Also, any NORMAL gamer will have the drive to have the latest and greatest equipment, whether that is a top of the line computer, or the latest console with all the best games. Game developers get to have all of that right in front of them, all the time, so that they can play games without having to worry about all the technical issues. The developers also get to create and work with some of the coolest tools and equipment on the market, not everyone has a chance to get their hands on the Crytek engine or the XBOX 360 development kit.

Game developers also get to attend all the greatest conferences that exist, including but not limited to; E3 (RIP), PAX, TGS, QuakeCon, Blizzcon and of course the great competitions like CPL, CEVO and MLG.

Not to mention the huge amount of celeberties that game developers get to meet people like, Beastie Boys, Breaking Benjamin, Al Pacino, Robert Duvall, Clint Eastwood and Sean Connery just to name a few. Game developers got it real good when it comes to benefits and rewards, but remember, it is a lot of work for them. They pretty much deserve it, all the time.

But lets look at the other side of the story, the gamers. The average person is probably not too happy to say outloud that they're an addicted gamer, if infact they are. They would rather say they like to go shopping or listen to music, because it might be more 'socially-acceptable.'

Lets be honest though, gaming is much more socially accepted than it was. Although, I thought the kid from Big was pretty cool, even if he played games. Plenty of times you'll see people like Snoop Dogg, Marilyn Manson, Rob Zombie, the Crystal Method guys big into gaming. People from the music industry, people from hollywood, people who set 'social-standards' for the majority out there, play video games. So why should you feel ashamed?

Yes, I do admit, that through my schooling I a lot of times denied that I had any involvement with video games. It was actually quite the opposite, seeing as through middle school I did nothing but play competitive Counter-Strike, Starcraft and Day of Defeat and through high school, when I was not procrastinating about school work, I was with friends or by myself gaming. But I am defenitely not afraid now to say it to anyone. Be proud that you listen to the Metroid Prime or Final Fantasy soundtrack, be proud that you can act out the Mario Brothers or that you get so into Halo 2 or CounterStrike that you become angry (because I know I do.)

Gamers have it right, believe it or not. Gaming is nothing to be ashamed of, its socially acceptable, whether you play smaller games or not, whether you play it to become part of the community, or just as your five minutes of fun. Someone might call you a nerd because you're a computer programmer for a modding community, or because you do web design for your favorite game's fan website, but be proud that you received that title. Who knows, maybe the person calling you that is actually next year's IGF recepient.

So the big announcement within the movie-to-game and Bungie communities this past week was the announcement of the director for the Halo movie. The movie, slated for 2008, has not even begun pre-production and it already has a nice following. Ever since the producer, Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame, was announced people have been asking who the director will be.

That man is Neil Blomkamp. When he was announced this week, many people were wondering who he is. Actually, I think some were even asking for Guillermo del Toro, who was rumored to be the director, to be chosen instead. Most of that thought probably just has to do with ignorance, simply enough people do not know who Neil is. Actually, I had only heard of him here and there as well, and was pleasantly surprised to find out that he had created one of my favorite smaller indie films, Tetra Vaal.

The guy has talent, a great vision, but up until now hasn't had any backing or support. Some are skeptical for what Neil will provide, but I am confident that he'll do the right thing.

But lets see the other side, really quick. First let me pronounce that I have always been the hardest of hardcore Halo fans. I started playing in late 2001 and within a year I participated heavily in a community called HBO (just ask about 'kingphreak.') I was there for the Halo 2 launch, I stayed up until four in the morning playing it after waiting hours in line at GameStop.

So on to the other side, there are two gripes I have with Neil so far. The first one is that Neil loves the flood, a little too much actually. Now don't get me wrong, I love the Library and shotgun combination as much as the other flood-toasting guy, but this strikes me as odd. The Halo script has been written and re-written and tossed around between Alex Garland and D.B. Weiss, but if it is to truly abide by the original game's elements, they should look to Bungie.

In the original game, the Flood were a major plot twist on the game and seen as a burden, or something that you have to 'deal with.' Not in the bad sense, they were so much fun to blow away, but they are not the kind of guys you'd want to hang out with for long periods of times. For instance, if you wanted to get to know the Graboids from Tremors, interesting at most, but not worthy of the majority of the film. This has got to be my weakest gripe with Neil so far, because I somehow have confidence that he won't concentrate a large part of the film to the Flood, as I personally am a large fan of the Covenant.

My second gripe would have to be that Master Chief's Armor is going to be revised. Okay, wait, what? The first gripe was a small one, but seriously this is an outrage. What I don't understand is why there isn't as big as an upset as there was with Optimus Prime's truck being a different color. Granted, that was a rumor that was put off, but this has been confirmed. Look guys, if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it. Both Master Chief's Mjolnir Mark IV and V looked beautiful and fit the persona for 117 so well, that there should be none other than those and their predecessors.

If his armor is changed drastically, I could easily see the Halo film being the Doom film of 2008.