I went to Cedar Point this weekend. Although I had a good time with my friend, I was more than just a little disturbed.

Earlier this year, I sat in an Indian restaurant in New Castle, England. Upon learning that we were U.S. citizens, our waiter immediately engaged us in conversation. He shared with us his incredible passion for the World Wrestling Federation, and his favorite wrestler, Stone Cold Steve Austin. Having some familiarity in the matter, we made small talk with him, discussing the current good guys and bad guys, who was aligned with who, and the like. Our waiter learned almost everything he knew about current American culture from watching WWF and Jerry Springer. It disturbs me immensely that these are two popular export items for the U.S.

I have some minor concerns with the fact that American youth rarely bother to distinguish fact from fiction. It bothers me greatly that so many people are so keen on the WWF. As I walked about Cedar Point, I saw more Stone Cold Steve Austin and Goldberg tee-shirts than I care to count. And then there were the guys who chose not to endorse a specific wrestler, but showed their support of wrestling in general by wearing a WWF NWO shirt.

Our English waiter made it very clear to us that he thought the whole thing was ludicrous - he knew that the fights were staged, and that the enitre thing was just a money making entertainment business. He was a little unsure about the veracity of the Springer show, though. He would like to believe that the bulk of the guests on that show are paid actors, flaunting their broken home lives in order to allow folks in lower social stations to have someone to mock. But he can't be sure. To be honest, neither can I.

Over the Memorial Day weekend, I saw an A&E Biography special on Brett "The Hitman" Hart, of the WWF. This was a fascinating show. I was absolutely glued to the television, as I got to catch a glimpse into the life of a wrestler. Moreover, this guy had a lot of personal integrity and genuine concern about his function as a role-model to children. The marketing animal that is the WWF wanted to play up Hart's Canadian heritage. He played along, for awhile. The documentary showed people outside the stadiums, waiting for the wrestling match to start, burning Canadian flags and generally being extremely hostile towards Canada. When asked why, not one person could provide a valid reason. The only response was some half-hearted slander towards Canada, and Brett Hart specifically. I was literally dumbfounded as I watch the future of America curse our neighbors to the north for no reason other then they didn't like one guy.

I am absolutely appalled at the current state of wrestling. I remember, as a kid, staying up late to watch Hulk Hogan wrestle Jake "The Snake" Roberts on our local NBC station. They only showed the WWF on Fridays at midnight. Now cable shows the events what seems like every night. Bars and restaurants make a special engagement of showing a Pay Per View Battle Royale. People are spending millions of dollars on merchandising. Jesse Ventura is getting involved again. The craze is literally sweeping the nation.

I'm not so stuffy as to think that this is necessarily a bad thing. But it certainly is walking a fine line, in my mind. Here are grown men, slanderizing one another and resolving all their disputes by banging chairs over one another's head. The crowds are screaming in frenzied ecstasy at the mindless violence of it all. And then the theatrics of it have guys like The Undertaker simulating human sacrifice.

The WWF spokespeople no doubt contend that this is all just entertainment. Nonetheless, it disturbs me that our children are looking to these guys as examples. And so are other nations.

I sat in the right hand lane of the road, about three hundred feet from the access lane to the freeway on-ramp. Traffic was backed up pretty badly, and it looked like I may have been sitting three hundred feet away from the on-ramp for a few minutes. Fine. No big deal. I was on my way home from work, and not in any particular rush to get anywhere. And then someone behind me pulled onto the berm and zipped up to the on-ramp. Then another, and another. There was soon a steady stream of cars violating established traffic policy by driving on the berm. "What's so important?" I asked myself, as I watched these people bypassing the line, and acheiving my ultimate destination ahead of me. What was the rush? What was so pressing that these people couldn't wait in line another 3 minutes?

I have the same reaction towards all this recent hubbub about road rage. I know people who get violently upset when another motorist cuts in front of them. I know people who get upset sitting in traffic. I know people who scream obscenities at little old ladies driving in the slow lane on the freeway. And I just don't get it. What purpose does it serve to get upset over these things? How will screaming at someone who can a) not hear you, and b) not care about what you're saying make any difference in your life? And more often then not, the people who do the screaming are likely to turn around and commit the same offence within 24 hours.

I was having a conversation about movies that had been made from books with a co-worker of mine last week. Of course, Frank Herbert's Dune came up. My co-worker is a fanatical fan of all the Dune books, and so claims that the film is utter drivel. He has not one nice thing to say about the film adaptation at all. Never having read the book, I will (and do) contend that it's a good introduction to the world of Arakis, and the various Houses. I truly enjoy the movie. One day I'll read the book. But my co-worker gets visibly worked up in his distress at the inaccuracies and chanegs between film and book.

He feels the same about Heinlein's Starship Troopers. Again, I've never read the novel. But I enjoyed the movie. It was a fun action romp a la Aliens. I didn't go to Starship Troopers looking for amazing character development, or an intricate plot; I went for a fun sci-fi action flick. But once again my purist co-worker will spit on the film, and generally present the attitude that anyone who likes the film is a moron.

I recognize that no movie will ever compare to the quality of the source upon which it is based. I've been disappointed with several book-to-movie transitions. But I know going in that there is going to be some content that will be modified for the general public's consumption. For example, from what I know of the original Dune story the Weirding Way was purely voice - there was no technical weirding module as in the movie. And with Starship Troopers, there was appearently a good bit more to the armor they were wearing. In both of the cases above, what was done for the movie worked fine to introduce the casual observer to the themes at hand. I probably would have been turned off by overt mysticism had the weirding modules been excluded from the film. And I would have felt bogged down in technical detail had the armor been laboriously explained.

What I don't understand is why people are so adamant about their point of view. What makes their opinion any more valid than mine? I heartily disagree with my purist co-worker, but I acknowledge his opinion as valid. I recogize that his opinion is his, and I make no effort to change it. He's perfectly entitled to be disappointed/let down/angry at the disparities. But to degrade the effort of the work that went into it defeats his purpose, I think. It also turns people off to other things which he may be a fan of. If he disparages movie X to me, then I'm inclined to avoid talking to him about movie Y which is in the same genre.

Tolerance is the key. Just because I like it doesn't mean I'm an idiot. It doesn't mean the film sucks. It doesn't mean that the person who cut you off in traffic doesn't know how to drive. It doesn't mean that the slow driving little old lady ought to have license revoked. Tolerance. There may well be factors involved of which you don't have a clue. Mechanical issues with an automobile, or a sincere difference in interpretation of the text for a movie.

Zealotry in any form is to be avoided.

Alien vs Predator. I've had my eye on this title for a few weeks now. Every time I step into a computer retail store, I hold the box in my hand, examine the screenshots, and then put it back. Another FPS ....

But I broke down this weekend, and purchased it. I immediately installed the recently released patch, which provides in-game save functionality. After a laborious key configuration process, I was immersed in the world as an alien xenomorph: climbing on walls, making trememndous leaps, and gnawing on the heads of the poor humans. The single-player portion is - so far - quite engaging. It's a quality game engine, and it allows me to play part in a world I've long been a fan of.

The multiplayer options, while unique, left me feeling somewhat cheated. Alien Tag and Predator Tag sound like interesting forms of multiplayer (certainly better than traditional deathmatch), but only in context of a LAN party. I wouldn't want to play Alien Tag with complete strangers on MPlayer, for example. Likewise for Last Man Standing - as marines are eliminated by the host alien, they respawn as aliens; the last human receives bonus points, and the game starts again.

Cooperative mode is what I most wanted to play. I envisioned my friend and I being a Colonial Marine fire team, sweeping through darkened halls to secure installations from alien infestation. I was all geared up to assume the role of Cpl. Hicks, screaming and taunting the digital aliens on my monitor as we progressed deeper and deeper into the game.

No such excitement was to be had. Cooperative mode in Alien vs Predator is nothing more than the human players stuck on the level fighting an infinte horde of aliens (and / or predaliens, praetorians, etc). There is no objective other than survival. But there's no where to go. Get weapon, shoot, get health, shoot, die, repeat. After 10 minutes as a colonial marine, and an alien frag count well over 100, I realized I was incredibly bored. No strategy was involved in any way. Whether one runs, or one stands still, the same results will occur. There's no capacity for strategic movement, or stealth, or inventory management. No capacity for cooperative teamwork in the attainment of a goal. The only goal is survival; and your teammate can't help too much with that.

Perhaps the designers see the Alien vs Predator world in a different light than I do. Perhaps they want to stress the visceral nature of a fight for your life. Perhaps they want to stress the constant chaos of a fight against alien xenomorphs. But this just doesn't interest me. The levels are small, and generally circular in design. There's no real Point B to make it to. You just run, and shoot. Mindless. Mind numbing.

I hope that Rebellion and Fox can envision gameplay from a more cooperative point of view. Whether it's colonial marines trying to secure a landing zone, or predators vying for a xenomoprh skull trophy, or aliens protecting the hive - the game needs a stronger cooperative function.

I was addicted to Doom, as I think most of us really were. It was a lot of fun to run around as the muscle-bound hero, blasting hordes of anonymous alien monsters. I had a ball! Then I discovered the joys of multiplayer deathmatch, and my life was never to be the same.

I played multiplayer Doom via DWANGO - now unfortunately defunct - and dial-up connections to my friends. This was all radically new to me at the time, as I barely knew what PPP stood for, or what an IP address was. But I did know that I enjoyed strafing down a hallway backwards, watching the blue zig-zag from my plasma gun, and hearing my buddy's character scream in agony! We played on hundreds of custom WADs - even dabbled with making our own - and evaluated many of the popular Total- and Partial-Conversions. My favorite was the Aliens TC (Check those corners!). It was one on one, generally. When connected to DWANGO, we enjoyed the massive bloodfest of a four-man free for all. The thrill of victory - of proving your prowess in the hunt, weapon selection, and map strategy - was fantastic. The crush of defeat was mitigated by the intense adreneline rush and pure joy of competitive gaming.

I'd spent months reading about Quake. I downloaded the QTEST, and tried desperately to get my 14.4 modem to sustain a connection on Kali. I downloaded all the various hacks to enable the monsters. My appetite was voracious. Then the shareware release hit the FTP servers. I spent hours downloading - sitting at my monitor waiting with baited breath for the status counter to hit 100%. After some intense shock at the addition of the third dimension, I raced through the single player missions. I quickly learned to master the mouse. Freelook became my friend.

My first game of Quake online, with 7 other players, was fantastic! I was in sheer awe, admiring the quality of the character graphics. I looked at the level design. I shot the rocket launcher, just to watch the explosions. I lobbed grenades everywhere, amazed at the arc of the deadly pineapple. I was addicted, all over again. I spent countless hours playing Quake with complete strangers. Racing around corners to confront enemy fire. Learning exactly how big the splash radius was from the rocket launcher. Timing grenade launches almost perfectly. Finding every tactical nuance to all (eight!) of the maps.

Now, many computer upgrades and game modifications later, I look at the upcoming crop of games. Not one of them catches my fancy. The novelty of true competitive gaming made easy, as embodied by the original Quake, has yet to be duplicated. No single game or game feature sparks any interest. I've grown weary of mindless deathmatch. "Why am I here, shooting these people? Is it just for frag count? Is that the only indication of skill?" Questions such as these filled my head. Ping discrepencies also affected my attitude toward online gaming. Zoid's original Threewave Capture the Flag was a breath of fresh air into the stagnating online gaming world. This was a fresh addiction; but it, too, became bland.

During all of this, a whole online community sprang up. Blue's Quake Rag became Blue's News. PlanetQuake was born, and matured. My personal favorite of the time, Quake Command, provided some of my favorite modifications (the original flamethrower; oh how I loved it!). My daily ritual involved a quick skimming of the major sites, then several hours playing Quake. I found the Quake Clan Database days after its inception, and quickly aligned myself with one of the original twelve clans.

From this came some great friendships, which exist today. I've travelled across the country to visit the friends that I met in my Quake clan.

Enter Quake II. The much stronger single-player campaign held my interest a lot more (I've never completed the full Quake I single-player campaign, all the way through). The new weapons presented a whole new set of skills to master. The new levels were beautiful. My new graphics accelerator made the colored lighting look absolutely fabulous. The monsters were gloriously detailed. The sound effects were rich. The flow of adrenaline was constant. It was a good game.

But what did it add to gameplay? Very little. It took months for the official Capture the Flag modification to be released. Without it, it was the same old mindless killing of people for no particular reason. It was, frankly, boring in concept. Oh sure, the visuals were engaging. The maps were challenging. The weapons were new and fun. But the gameplay was boring. Even CTF, once released, failed to keep my interest for more then a few weeks.

Then I stumbled upon a wonderful modification: Rocket Arena 2. I'd heard about Rocket Arena for Quake I, but never investigated it. I downloaded a beta version of Rocket Arena 2, and was immediately hooked. Once again, I was eager to get home from work, and play! Hours would go by as I played round after round of RA2. What a fabulous modification.

But now, I haven't played Quake (I or II) in several months. Starsiege:TRIBES has currently gained my favor. Because it makes sense. Here's a game specifically geared towards cooperative online multiplayer gaming. Capture the Flag, Capture and Hold, Defend and Destroy - this isn't mindless and mind-numbing elimination of your opponents. This is the attainment of an objective. Acquiring the enemy flag, holding a check point or structure, or destroying the enemy base - clearly defined mission objectives within the framework of a quality first-person gaming engine.

What is the point of the essay above? To express my disappointment in the maturing gaming industry. No longer are we seeing truly innovative games coming from the strongest developers. id software is churning out their third Quake title, which will sit aside nearly countless professional and user-created mission packs. No new game play is being developed. Unreal is taking much the same approach - focusing more on a solid multiplayer foundation than on providing a quality gameplay experience. Half-Life was a good addition to the FPS market, with its incredible single player missions. I was engrossed in Half-Life more than any other game I've played recently. I couldn't wait to get home to play it.

Games like The Dark Eye by Inscape, or The Neverhood by Dreamworks, really catch my fancy. These games force me to think creatively. They can be funny and irreverant, or morbid and morose. I understand that they are in a completely different segment of the gaming industry, let alone differen genres, but I wish that game developers would look to these bargain bin titles as inspiration for ways to improve the content of their own games. Run, shoot, die, respawn and repeat does not a good game make. What has been introduced into the FPS market lately that truly makes a better game? Even my favorite, TRIBES, doesn't add much that is new - TeamFortress focused on cooperative teamwork for the Quake players in much the same way.

Why is the focus today on taking a good product and driving it into the ground? Why can't developers move away from a successful title and create some quality new products? Is it that hard to have a brainstorming sessions to work up some creative content for a new title? The recently announced Opposing Forces add-on for Half-Life, while falling prey to the above criticisms about sequel and add-on mania, sidesteps a lot of the actual meat by allowing me to play in the same world but from a different perspective. Now that is refreshing!

I would like to see original content coming from game developers. I realize that id software has been making a slow direction change towards developing solid game architecture / engines, and then allowing third parties really make it shine with good content. Is the industry as a whole so terribly afraid of making something really new? Have the suits of the corporate world so tainted the developers by insisting that people will only buy a product based on a previous success? It's a sad day indeed, for the gamers.

I went for a bike ride the other day. Halfway in to my ten mile round trip I got a flat tire. Grumbling, I set off on my five mile walk with bike in tow. After about ten minutes, and dozens of passers-by, someone finally asked if I needed a hand.

This friendly stranger stopped to examine my bike. He pulled out this nifty little pump and tried to inflate my tire for me. After serveral failed attempts, I simply thanked the man for his efforts and sent him on his way.

The whole way back, I thought to myself - Would I have stopped, if the roles were reversed? My honest answer is probably not. I'm not generally a very outgoing, friendly guy. I've never stopped to help a stranded motorist on the side of the road...

You know, we're told so often about people being attacked or abducted in situations like that. If my car broke down on the road at night, I would probably refuse help from a stranger. Crazy, isn't it? And I certainly wouldn't stop to help someone, for fear they think me some homicidal maniac.

I was quite depressed on the walk home. What a sad world we're living in. How nice it would be if an honest helping hand didn't have to be second guessed.