Computer games have attracted much criticism recently. There are those who reasonably believe that the playing of certain games can have an adverse effect on the behaviour of the player. There are those who seem eager to lay the blame for a range of societal ills, from childhood obesity to gun-related crime, at the door of this modern entertainment medium. But hell, there are people who believe they've been granted the supernatural power to detect when a mobile phone is turned on in the house next door, so we won't hold the sane majority responsible for the actions of those in the shock-absorbing wallpaper market. However, acting on behalf of large groups of sane and insane people alike are institutions such as the German, British & Irish governments, who have recently banned computer game software such as Manhunt 2 and Rise of The Dead.

Now, the question of whether adults should be free to choose for themselves what entertainment media they consume has been discussed at length elsewhere, and a level of education in behavioural phsycology that I do not possess is required to assess the impact of a game like Manhunt 2 on the individual, but one thing that has become increasingly clear is that games publishers and buyers alike are capable of incredible insensitivity. Unfortunately, one has to doubt the ability of the games industry to self-regulate when incidents such as the Resident Evil 5 debacle occur. For those not in the know, Resident Evil is a game in the survival-horror genre in which a military-looking gentleman of Caucasian descent must fight off hordes of marauding zombies in order to keep breathing for any length of time. *In the films the protagonist is female and played by Mila Jovovich, which makes things more interesting on several levels. Capcom, having obviously not learned anything from the seventies in general and Shaft in particular, chose to situate the latest Resident Evil in Africa. Result: a game where the player takes control of a white guy in camo fatigues, assaulted from all sides by barbaric, bloodthirsty creatures -- all of whom have black (albeit rotting) skin. Come on Capcom, how could you have possibly managed to put yourself in the position of being accused of portrating a negative stereotype of the `baddies' in your game when they're the frickin' UNDEAD?

I know what you, the reader, are going to say: "it's only a game, these criticisms merely reflect the insecurity of one demographic in modern society, and most likely are the result of an individual attempting to blow this up in order to make political gains. My people have been the zombies in the previous four games, and we didn't mind". And I'd agree. Except for the fact that the closest our ethnic group has come to systematic persecution is the eternally rising cost of a pint in Dublin pubs -- and no, this does not bear resemblance to the civil rights struggle of fifties America! Charlie Chawke might be making money off our backs, but he isn't as far gone as those segregationist es from the deep south (http://www.the-iss.com/2007/09/evil_democracy.php).

As Games^TM magazine pointed out, it's too late for re-locating the game to be a financially viable option. As a result, I expect we will shortly see a departure for the Resident Evil series -- a dark-skinned protagonist. Although reeking of lip-service to political correctness rather than a true understanding of the resposibilities of media providers to respect all portions of their audience, this option is fine with me as far as the game is concerned. On the other hand, if i turn up at the cinema and get a load of Will Smith in place of Mila there will only be one appropriate response: ban this sick filth!

1. playing gigs is AWESOME
2. having all your friends turn up to support you is AWESOME - thanks a million guys!
3. the look of relief on your friends' faces at not having to lie about your band sucking ass is AWESOME (thanks Luke!)
4. anyone who was lying can hide it well
5. playing slowly is a lot harder than playing fast
6. sometimes it's harder to play when you CAN hear yourself
7. some guitar amps have a 'mute' button
8. there will be times when you make a mistake on an easy riff, realise you have to play a solo in thirteen seconds, walk to the front of the stage, fuck up, then fall over your effects pedal trying to get back behind the monitors. All your friends still cheer, it feels awesome, and five minutes later you nail the solo in the next song. AWESOME!
9. the rest of the guys in the band rock. Go Eddie!

Photos coming soon!

Poll #908417 Name the band - please!
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 4

What should the name of the band be?

For the record, although I wouldn't like to see in-game video refereeing introduced, I would like to see suspensions for players who are clearly seen to have dived in post-match replays. And by clearly, I mean where no contact was made - unfortunately, anything else would be unenforceable.

I do make a distinction between a player deciding to go to ground before contact is made and a player choosing to go to ground after being fouled. However, players are now so fast that after making one bad touch they can decide to 'simulate', it doesn't have to be pre-meditated. A player doesn't have to be 'chopped down like a field of corn' to have been fouled, a good example being when a player's shirt is pulled. In that situation, it is extremely hard for the referee to spot the foul unless the fouled player wheels away.

The difference between a player and a cheat is whether they try to get away with actions that are outside the rules of the game in order to gain an advantage; going to ground *after a foul* is legal, setting out to 'rough up' an opponent is not. In my opinion, the attitude that anything other than staying on your feet after contact is diving contributes to the culture of cheating within the game, as it muddies the waters. After all, if you're going to be labelled a cheat for taking your free kicks anyway, why not take a dive or two? A good example is Jose Antonio Reyes, a player who went to ground very often after contact, and was considered a diver by many despite the fact that this Arsenal supporter never saw him take a dive. Surely this undeserved reputation would have reduced his motivation to play honestly?

btw, Viera, Eboue and Ashley Cole I have seen clearly dive

Tags: football!

Roy Keane says he's glad he's not playing in the Premiership anymore, because a lot of players are trying to put one over on the referee. He says: "Trying to get another player sent off is cheating." and rightly so. However, what he fails to point out is that there is more than one way to cheat in a football match.

The prevalent attitude in English football seems to be that a player who doesn't strive to keep his footing even when fouled is acting against the spirit of the game. I would argue otherwise; when a player is fouled and doesn't go to ground or wheel away from the ball the referee will generally play on, assuming the player would prefer the advantage. Therefore, the player who feels he has been fouled has every right to go to ground - this isn't cheating, it is communicating to the referee that the player wishes to take the free kick. If the referee doesn't award a free it's the player's tough luck that he has a different interpretation of what consitutes a foul.

And so to Roy Keane. Cheating can be defined as 'acting outside the laws or rules of a game in order to gain a competitive advantage'. So, when we see a team such as Manchester United set out to gain an advantage by kicking members of the opposing team whenever they can get away with it, as against Arsenal in 2004, what we are seeing is also cheating.

Sometimes the most skillfull players are labelled 'cheats' because they go to ground easily, but English football needs to recognise that the beautiful game is only at it's best when top players are protected from the cheats who try to drag them down to their level by adopting an overly physical approach which is outside the laws of the game.