An Accurate New Name for "MMORPGs".

If you're a gamer, you've heard and used this phrase countless times. Even when it first became widespread in its usage, jokes flew with its lack of brevity. You know the name... "MMORPG": "Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game".

That name has to be changed.

Why? Certainly some will agree it's a pain to say, but you can just call it an "MMO" instead, right? Unfortunately, that doesn't reach the crux of the matter... it's inaccurate. My first question to you is: Name one massively multiplayer game that is not online.

I'll wait while you rack your brain. Football isn't massively multiplayer. Golf isn't. Baseball? No. A marathon isn't a game. There is no game which exists offline that has thousands upon thousands of simultaneous players!

We've just started, and we've already found that part of the title isn't necessary!

• First change to the genre name: The O's gotta go.

So, we've whittled "MMO" down to "MM". What about the "MM" portion of the title? What defines "Massively Multiplayer"? Thousands upon thousands of players all within the same game universe able to freely interact in game at the same time.

Some games that are often considered massively multiplayer fall short due to design and gameplay considerations. Let's examine Guild Wars. Great game! Fun times. A solid title to own for most gamers. Guild. Wars. Is. Not. Massively. Multiplayer.

What? Everyone says it's an MMO! That is nothing more than a case of people being stubborn when presented with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The actual developers of Guild Wars have themselves proclaimed it not to be an "MMORPG", but instead call it a "CORPG": "Competitive Online Role Playing Game". I refer to it as an "OCG"- "Online Computer Game", like Diablo 2, for instance.

Still, when you are discussing a game with the proper design to allow simultaneous mass-gaming, "Massively Multiplayer", or "MM" works well enough to describe the genre.

What of the final part of the title: "RPG", for "Role Playing Game"?

Role playing can be defined in gaming purposes in two different ways- the act of role playing one's character, or in the design of the game mechanics.

If you log into World of Warcraft (or any other "RPG") on a "Role Playing" designated server you will find only a small portion of players are actually role playing their characters. The majority of players are simply playing the game, ignoring the basic ideas of role playing.

Considering the design standpoint, many of the latest genre offerings are moving away from role playing concepts- the market is saturated already. When every offering available is not of a role playing design, it's inaccruate to declare the entire genre to be "RPG".

• Second change to the genre name: The RPG's gotta go.

So we've reduced the name to "MM", which is obviously missing something.

One of the most common discussions on all massively multiplayer message boards regards the cost, which ususally consists of the retail price and a monthly fee. If you're offering a massively multiplayer game for profit, you must have a monthly fee or other means of income (perhaps ads), or the project will lose money.

Why do products like Guild Wars work with no monthly fee? The design, functionality, infrastructure and operational expenses change all of the cost variables. This simplified system does not require the resources a true massively multiplayer game requires, and therefore can be sustained on expansion packs or advertising alone. Full massively multiplayer games are far more complex and require a full service.

Ah-ha! We've come to the final element we're seeking. These products are Gaming Services.

We now have a shorter, less awkward title than the original mouthful that is "MMORPG", but more importantly- something accurate.

• An accurate title that should be used instead of "MMORPG" is "MMGS": "Massively Multiplayer Gaming Services".

I've done the hard part here- it's now up to the gamers out there to take the next step and be part of the cutting edge in using the new name to support our favorite MMGSs. After all, why continue to use a name that isn't accurate?

What is Happiness in an Afterlife?

"Happiness is just an illusion caused by the temporary absence of reality."

~Unknown

For the sake of ease, let's assume that it is a given that there is an afterlife (regardless of your normal beliefs on the matter).

The traditional Christian view is well known: The "good" go to "Heaven" and the "evil" go to "Hell". In Heaven, everyone is basking in happiness simply by being in God's presence. You are greeted and surrounded with previously deceased family and... well, bask, apparently. In Hell, you are burned and tortured in flames and agony. Both locations are considered eternal.

Let's ignore the above concept of Hell and strictly focus on the above interpretation of Heaven- since we're aiming to discuss happiness, and I'm not thinking many people are going to find tons of joy doing their best imitation of a campfire marshmallow.

If the source of your entire happiness within Heaven is simply the presence of family and friends, combined with an Earthly-unknowable love from God, would everyone truly be the same person that they were in life? What of the joys each person holds within life- some of which make a person who they are?

For instance, those who know me are quite aware I am an enormous Prince fan. If you insert me into the Heaven we're describing, and yet I never again experience the joy of his music, but instead am entered into a state of bliss from hearing God's voice (for example), how would my soul truly be considered unaltered? I suggest that such a state is in essence a form of brainwashing, for lack of a better word.

Certainly some people's greatest joy on Earth is worshiping God, and so this existence would not be an alteration of what made them themselves in life. That is not the case for me, however- my spirituality is more subtle- and I'm not even Christian. If you take away my Earthly joys and force a feeling of bliss upon me, am I still me? I would say no- you've taken away critical aspects of what makes me- and therefore my soul- unique. Yes, my personality, beliefs and morals are a large part of what makes me "me"... but I would say a large part of my personality comes from the things I love in life- Prince, games, writing and all sorts of other creative outlets.

In essence, the traditional Christian view of the afterlife envisions your existence as a brainwashed member of a mass of identically individuality-suppressed souls. It doesn't matter what you were like in life, or what you were passionate about- all of your uniqueness is gone, and you become one of a great mass of energy-forms bathing in a bliss drug known as God.

Given the horrors of such a generic and bland afterlife when examined as above, it reinforces my belief that the afterlife is much more than we can imagine it to be- even beyond what seems logical. While we may not take our physical bodies with us when we pass- that is not to say that we will not have access to another form with physical attributes.

This would mean that a chef would not have to give up their passion of cooking- rather they would have access to all ingredients imaginable, as well as all other chefs and cooks of historical note to learn from, share knowledge with and cook whenever they wish! My love for Prince and his music will be accommodated with both large and intimate Prince performances- perhaps even the ability to be trained in music by Prince himself, so that in another life I will have inherent musical skills passed on by the legend himself! And yes, sex will be possible- how can we have an afterlife devoid of the singularly greatest form of happiness on Earth for most people?

In short, we are unlikely to be denied our passions- the things that make us who we are.

I believe that it is impossible for us to comprehend the afterlife here on Earth, but we can arrive at some reasonable beliefs of what does not await us. After all, any God capable of creating such a vast and complex state of being is not one that will force you into a false form of being upon your death. If you are not given the ability to retain the aspects of life that create the full you, there would be no reason you would be given a taste of being your own self while you live now.

So I don't know what your plans are in the afterlife, but I fully expect to to have access to all of the Earthly joys I experienced... because none of us should be denied our passions lest we be denied our individuality.




R.I.P. Grandmother... who, if I am correct in this post, is quite happy while playing some epic games of Bingo right about now.

X(-Files) Marks the Spot

I've always wanted to believe.

Believe that they never canceled the X-Files, and that each week a new one was waiting for me to enjoy. From its deep mythology that everyone can associate with, to the wonderfully deep and eerily detailed creepy characters fliterring about in the shadows up to who knows what nefarious deeds.

Thankfully us X-Files fans have the upcoming Fringe by the already-legendary J.J. Abrams (Alias, Lost) soon to arrive on our TVs in order to fill the gaping hole we've felt since Chris Carter's show left the airwaves (or, depending on whom you ask, once David Duchovny left the show- I personally enjoyed the show after his departure well enough.)

But before we move on to Fringe, we get another treat to the team that started it all with the release of "X-Files: I Want To Believe" in theaters this week. I'm sure if you're a fan, you want to believe it's good. Is it?

Certainly that question is always up to each individual- leaving the theater today I heard someone mumbling about how bad The Dark Knight was... and I can't comprehend the mind that can interpret the Dark Knight as "bad". But, everyone has their own tastes! What of the X-Files, though?

The thing I like best about the movie was that it is in essence a movie-length stand alone episode of the show. Roughly 7 years have passed since the first movie, and as such life has moved on. I'll leave it to the movie to fill you in on what's going on with Mulder and Scully (I'm anti-spoilers, always) but suffice to say if you have never seen the X-Files, you really wouldn't be in the dark whatsoever seeing this film. It is clear enough who these people are and the relationship they have through the story. This is a necessary move for many shows that make the leap to the big screen, as you can't assume someone is going to know every last detail. Plus, it's been years- who remembers other than the truly diehard fans? (I don't remember what I had for dinner yesterday!)

The story itself is what you'd expect on any week of the X-Files- nothing more, nothing less. This being the case, I anticipate the "casual" fans of the X-Files (those who love the show and have seen most or all of the episodes) will enjoy it just fine. It's not going to rock your world, or leave you thinking "that was the most amazing thing ever!" You'll should still feel like you got your money's worth- the acting alone is well done enough to cover that cost.

If, however, you've never seen the X-Files, while you will understand this movie (as I mentioned, it's quite clear for the newbies) you probably will think you've seen better "cop"/suspense movies. On the same hand, I feel like X-Files diehards- those who tape X's in their windows and/or have written Mulder and Scully slash fiction will likely be disappointed. It's a hard call, but with the level of jadedness in today's entertainment crowd, I am guessing the fanboys are going to feel the film is too "mundane".

In fact- the one thing you'd think would be involved in an X-Files plot would be aliens/ufos to some degree... nothing of the sort in this case. The plot is actually something not too far-fetched from what goes on in real life. In a way, this makes it all the better for me, as Mulder and Scully's relationship drama seems to hit home with more impact. By showing them in a less science-fictiony styled world, it makes their travails all the more potent and touching.

Should you see it? As always, your call- only you'll know for sure if this is going to appeal to you. And I can't tell you if you'll like it or not. For this X-Files fan, it was a happy trip back to a beloved story franchise that is missed dearly. Seeing Mulder and Scully up on screen just felt "right", again.

And I certainly hope there's more to believe in in the form of more X-files movies to come.

Batman Defeats All Records... And Starts an Online War.

Unless you live in a cave, you are fully aware that the newest entry in the current Christopher Nolan-directed Batman franchise swooped into theaters this past weekend, sweeping every record imaginable under its long, dark cloak with more likely to follow in the coming weeks.

Time article on Dark Knight's Record-Breaking Weekend

Yet, even when a movie of such critical and public acclaim comes along, it seems there in no pleasing some people. Certainly not everyone is going to like the same things, nor should it be demanded that they do. But there's a level of hatred in the critics that makes one stop to scratch their heads and wonder why these people are so far off the page from everyone else.

Case in point? Examine film critic David Edelstein's review of the movie.

Now certainly Mr. Edelstein is entitled to dislike any particular movie he desires. And, as his "job" (and I use that term loosely, as I find "Critic" to be just underneath "Supervisor of Watching Paint Dry" in terms of usefulness to society) he is entitled to put out a negative review, warning the ten people that will makes their film viewing choices based on his comments not to go see the film and instead revel in the glory that is "Space Chimps".

No, it's not about David Edelstein that I'm referring to when I say "critics". It's about the people in the comments. All of those people at the bottom of any discussion online concerning the new movie, hidden behind the anonymity of netnames, cyberspeak and devastatingly broken grammar. Take a moment and read some of the comments on his review and others across the internet. I'll wait here, promise.

There are a "large" amount of people online speaking up in support of Mr. Edelstein's view that the movie is too dark and societally bleak. Yet the converstaion goes farther than that- people are bringing concepts into their view of the movie as if it relates to real life. That's right, some are blasting the movie because it's too reflective of the times we live in, and that this desensitizes (younger) viewers from the horrors of killing people, regardless of whether you are wearing clown makeup or not.

Anyone coming to the defense of the movie, say, by pointing out it is in fact a movie and not, in fact, reality, are being grouped into the ever-popular "fanboy" grouping and dismissed as not worthy enough to discuss the film.

I certainly don't know what's in the water that's causing this level of hatred online, but is it not possible to hold opposing views without viciously attacking each other? While I cannot personally comprehend what someone would not like about "The Dark Knight", I am not about to label them an idiot or begrudge them their choice. Yet, I'd like to see some compromise from their side as well in not dismissing the opinions of those who loved the movie simply as frothing drones who serve at the whim of the Batman marketing department.

Want proof of this phenomenon? Check this blurb out on IMDB.

One thing is for certain- love it or hate it, Batman is the new Knight of the box office, and where his records are set, more of the same will follow in an attempt to recapture the largest opening in movie history.

Though it may have been dark, it was a very dark green for Hollywood.