Trodamus

Archive for the ‘My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games’ Category

My Girlfriend Does Not Understand Game Time

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games, Video Games on April 25, 2012 at 4:50 pm

To those that do not play video games, gaming is a simple, all encompassing activity: controller in hand, seat on couch, eyes on screen, and you’re playing a game. Beyond that, the specifics are lost on the observer as unwanted and unneeded. For my girlfriend especially, game time takes place to the exclusion of her time, regardless as to intent, timing or context. For this reason I tend to play in the evening after she’s gone to bed but this has its own problems.

The greater challenge is in categorizing how and why you play games, and how to convey that to someone who might not be as interested in the complexities of the activity as you are. Chief among these issues is in our quickness to compare gaming to other activities. It’s like reading a book, watching a movie or hanging with friends. Except it’s simultaneously similar and nothing like all of these things. Read the rest of this entry »

My First Con: Thoughts on Chicago’s C2E2

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games, Webcomics on April 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm

As the title says, I’ve never been to a con before. I’m not even sure what I went to was a “con” in whatever classical sense that might govern these sorts of things. It wasn’t called “Chicago Comic Con” — I think that’s a different thing — but in the end there were comics at the McCormick place convention center. Did I have a good time? Will I be attending future cons? Read the rest of this entry »

The 17th Annual List Of Games I Am Kinda Interested In

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games, Video Games on September 30, 2011 at 3:21 pm

Here are some upcoming titles I’m interested in, in no particular order, in a non-exhaustive and only mostly inclusive list: Read the rest of this entry »

My Girlfriend Does Not Want Me To Miss Contagion

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games on September 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm

My girlfriend and I don’t share every interest. Since our relationship began, we’ve converged more than diverged in our tastes, but there are (obviously) more than a few areas we don’t see eye to eye upon. Contagion was one such area, where she desperately wanted to see it, singing a sounding chorus of “this is how we’ll die! It’s all real!” while I was much more skeptical that any popular media, much less a motion picture, would take the care and time to get it right. Read the rest of this entry »

I Just Bought Hunted: Demon’s Forge (And Obviously Haven’t Finished It)

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games, Video Games on June 2, 2011 at 2:51 pm

This game seems to be struggling against itself where the generous (read: overly long) tutorial level is concerned.  It struggles despite itself, being that it’s actually a very pretty game founded on some very solid, old school tried and true fun, and if it had a little more confidence in its abilities, and in those of its players, at least our introduction to the game wouldn’t be so problematic.

Read the rest of this entry »

My Girlfriend Does Not Play ‘Marvel vs. Capcom 3’

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games, Video Games on February 22, 2011 at 5:11 pm

My girlfriend’s first introduction to Marvel vs. Capcom 3 was in questioning how I could justify spending seventy dollars on a video game.  Had they really gotten that expensive, she had asked, and if so why, how on earth could such a thing be worth that much, and so on.  Neither us is is quite used to games costing that much, I myself preferring a much more moderate price of forty to sixty dollars for new products, depending.  In this instance, the extra cost was accommodated in it being the collector’s edition.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Lie Is A Ass

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games on January 21, 2011 at 6:36 pm

Discussing the law's portrayal in media is dedicated to the patron saint of such, Bob Ingersoll.

Lie To Me is an excellent show that was most definitely greenlit to capitalize on the popularity of House, M.D. Unlike House, Lie To Me keenly realized that it was not the presentation of a mystery us laymen would be incapable of understanding or solving that attracted its viewers, but rather the eponymous character’s dissection of the human condition.  So enters Lie To Me, its premise centered around the very real science of microexpressions, explored through Cal Lightman and his rag tag band of analysts and psychologists.

It’s had its ups and downs and several subtle retoolings — notably the heavy emphasis on the science from the first season is all but abandoned — but largely stands on the stellar capabilities of Tim Roth as a very crass, very crude, very intelligent and very British living lie detector who champions the truth, even if it means switching sides on a consult.

At this point, I’m convinced that Tim Roth has a heavy say in the writing process, else some of the writing staff must either be English or know him very personally, as the show does not shy away in the least from using heavy slang or cultural idioms from the island across the pond.  Lightman’s interactions with his daughter, especially, remind me of a lighter-hearted version of my fiance’s insane interactions with her own very Scottish mother, right down to extended discussions and jokes on beans on toast.

But while they may have some expert consults on the matter of presenting Tim Roth as a crude, British scientist, equal parts arrogant and cursed with his knowledge, they certainly don’t waste any time or money on making sure they understand the legal process.  Which is strange, since ostensibly, the Lightman Group’s major retainer seems to be the D.C. area police and FBI.

The most recent episode, “Saved,” revolves around a traffic accident, and the driving motivation of the episode is dedicated to the teenager involved in the accident being unfairly charged with murder-two after running a red light in his stolen car.

The DA wants this case cleared fast and hard, as the man that was slain in the accident was none other than the city’s premiere sports star; certainly the kind of headline case where everything goes by the book.  So for reasons that were never adequately explained, the Lightman Group is tapped to verify that he was driving the car.

This is all nonsense.

First off, the DA is acting fairly leniently in granting the defendant a second degree murder charge.  To understand that, let’s go over what murder is.  First degree murder is premeditated, the willful, precipitated act of ending a life with malice aforethought.  Second degree murder is made from a “depraved heart” or extreme recklessness, otherwise known as gross negligence, otherwise doing something so stupid, any reasonable person could see that it would in the serious harm or death of others.

Between the two, obviously the car thief did not intend to kill anyone, but in running a red light he was extremely reckless, so a murder-two rap does make sense.  Except it’s still more lenient than the murder-one charge he should be getting.

Gosh, Mrs. DA, I thought this was a headline case?  So why are you going easy on the guy?

Because he killed someone in the act of committing or perpetuating a felony — grand theft auto — the malice aforethought requirement for first degree murder is waived.  This is called “felony murder,” and its used to make sure criminals receive the fullest punishment possible when their criminal acts result in the death of others.

Is grand theft auto a felony, and does this law apply to it?  Great questions, invisible rhetoric person!  It is a felony, though it can be downgraded to a misdemeanor for first time offenders or in cases where it’s seen as an “isolated incident.”  Something that, in this high profile case, the state is not inclined to do.  Now, it was his neighbor’s car, and I’m sure his mother and them are good friends and swap recipes.  So what if she convinced them to not press charges?

He’d still be charged is what.  Just because an individual victim does not press charges does not mean the state must refrain from doing so on behalf of itself and society, which are understood to be victims when crimes are committed.  So the kid’s definitely got a felony grand theft auto charge, and thus has a felony murder charge.

Now, there was that weird scene where it was somehow important to identify the driver.  The kid smartly lawyered up before saying anything, but Torres, a Lightman consultant, reads the body language and facial expressions of all three teenagers to identify the driver.  Meanwhile, Loker is trying to prevent the lawyer from gaining access until she can make this judgment.

So what we have here is a minor infringement on defendant’s rights, and a violation of the 5th amendment.

First off, you have a right to a lawyer.  Police can and do try to get as much non-lawyer time with you as possible, and in light of recent rulings on the matter, anything you say, even after invoking your right to remain silent and to see an attorney, can be used against you.  So there’s nothing wrong with using a confession given after invoking these rights, since you must actively exercise them to benefit.  The police can’t actually stop your lawyer from seeing you, but as I said, this is minor.

The more major piece is in “reading” them.  Your fifth amendment rights protect you from self-incrimination, meaning your status is not harmed by refusing to testify and you can’t be compelled to testify against yourself.

So all of those times the prosecution calls, as a surprise witness, the defendant?  Would.  Never.  Happen.

This amendment, and the one-hundred plus years of precedents, also protect you from being made to confess or self-incriminate involuntary.  Voluntary confessions are defined as “the product of a rational intellect and a free will.”  So when the police put a gun to your head and you let them know they can stop looking for Tupac’s killer, you weren’t acting rationally.  And when the Lightman Group reads your microexpressions, they are doing so against your free will, since you can’t actually stop yourself from expressing yourself in this manner.

So at this point, the police don’t “know” who the driver is.  Not that it really matters, but they don’t.

It also does not matter that the Lightman Group is not part of the police or government for two reasons: the law doesn’t state who it considers when it speaks against coercion — looking at you, Batman — and the Lightman Group is part of the police as they’ve been hired and retained by the police for the express purpose in assisting with investigations.

You didn’t think the police could bypass all of your constitutional rights by hiring someone that wasn’t as expressly forbade as they were, did you?

As a lesser matter, we have issues of timing.  Much of the conversation made it sound like the kid was already convicted, or their trial had already happened.  Given that it was, if anything, days after the accident, the kid would still be in jail while the police proceeded with their investigation.  He probably wouldn’t have even been arraigned, which is where his charges would have formally been read to him, trial date decided, bail amount set and so forth.  He wouldn’t have been in an orange jumpsuit in prison quite so fast.

As far as spoilers are concerned, it turns out the kid didn’t run the red light, as a psychotic ambulance mechanic had rigged a controller to manipulate the lights.  Honestly, this is where the case would have gotten interesting, and I’m not totally convinced the kid would have had his charges reduced.  But then, his lawyer could have made a big stink, and the city probably doesn’t want a huge, public case made about how a kid is rotting in jail because it can’t keep tabs on its emergency personnel.

Oh, and as a closing note, both the EMT and her brother would both be getting murder-one, because the brother, with malice aforethought, took actions which could and did result in the death of others.  You’ll note the law doesn’t say you actually have to know the person you’re killing.  And the sister receives this punishment as well as she’s his accomplice, having harbored, aided and abetted him for the past ten years.

Maybe They Should Investigate the Death of Constitutional Rights

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games on January 10, 2011 at 8:05 pm
I love it when the pen shoots down it's all like bam and stuff

SPOILERS FOR 01/03/2011, EPISODE 11

 

I love this show.  I’ve not traditionally been into mysteries or crime procedurals, although my friends will note that, technically, The Dresden Files is more mystery than fantasy (in my defense, I bought the first four books off of Waldenbooks’ speculative fiction shelf, though I’ve seen it in practically every section of the bookstore).  Outside of that, I only watch Law and Order or CSI: Topical Subject / Popular Location while I’m at my parents’ house and The TV Must Remain On At All Times.

If asked, and the presumption of an isolated editorial is that I have been asked, I would say I watch it for the characters and characterization.  Nathan Fillion is possessed of a charming demeanor, non-traditionally handsome countenance and the miraculous ability of deft and subtle portrayal of his character.  He’s geeky, whiny and awkward while also being suave, smooth and debonaire; a definitive stand-in for all of us would-be writers and fans that is human enough for us to know where he’s coming from.

Rick Castle isn’t just a “likeable” character.  He’s a believable, real person thanks to the quality writing and excellent portrayal.

Kate Beckett is also indispensably played by Stana Katic, who makes believable this woman who has succeeded and flourished in the man’s world of homicide and detective work.  She pounds the pavement and grills suspects in such a way that we never forget that not just a woman, but written as one as well.  This is important.  It’s too easy to give a male character a female actress in the interests of making a “strong female character.”  She works with the victims in a way that might seem demeaning or mercenary with a male lead.

The rest of the cast is equally well supported in tandem of being the supporting cast.  Ryan and Esposito get just as much done as the rest of the cast, and the captain is suitably advocates and obfuscates lightly across each season.

All of this makes me love the show.  Each character relates with the rest believably and you’re genuinely invested in moments, like Ryan’s proposal to his girlfriend in last week’s episode, and little touches like how Beckett teared up at the proposal just like my fiance did.

So all of that makes it harder to say that Castle, sadly, ranks very poorly in terms of accurately depicting any type of accurate procedures or methodical legitimacy — two huge issues for the police and the citizenry today.  Not just that, but it does join the ranks of CSI and Law and Order in demonizing those that exercise their constitutionally-mandated rights.

This comes up because, for the first time in more than a dozen episodes, and among just the few times it’s happened in the series, one of the people they questioned lawyered up.  And I think it’s the first time it happened with someone that actually turned up innocent.  And, of course they vilified her.

We’re always lead to sympathize with our recurring cast members much more so than the cast that rotates out with each new case.  As such, we’re meant to hate the barriers that prevent them from doing their job and exult when that barrier is removed.  And no barrier is more prevalent than grabbing a lawyer in a police procedural.  We’ve even actually heard heartfelt speeches about how only criminals ever invoke this right because they know the jig is up.  Most of the time the phrase, “I want a lawyer” comes out only when they’ve found the real killer.  So the intent is clear: only guilty people get lawyers.

Why?  Tanya, the scheming soon-to-be divorcee from this episode just got linked to an ongoing murder investigation that the police are trying to close as quickly as possible, and while the last thing they’d want would be to waste time investigating someone that had nothing to do with it, much less book them on charges so the investigation actually stops, they would be obligated to do so if Tanya had said something stupid or accidentally admitted to something.  And even if she didn’t become involved in the booking for the murder, she probably would have gotten charged with something relating to extorting her husband with the honey-trapping.  At the very least it would weaken her pending divorce settlement.

To put it more succinctly: currently there’s over ten thousand offenses on which one might be charged.  Unless she knew each of those offenses intimately and how precedence has affected how they’re deployed by the prosecution, she’d be a complete moron to speak with the police without a lawyer present.

The same goes for all of us, really.

An example I’ve heard about how even answering the police’s questions without legal counsel illustrates it even better:

Imagine that someone you didn’t like got murdered.  As you live down the street from them, the police question you.  Now, you’d read about the dead in the papers: a “grisly gangland-style killing.”  Naturally, you tell the police that you didn’t hear any gunshots, and nobody you know in the neighborhood even owns a gun.

You’re in trouble now.  Nobody ever actually said they were shot.  But now you’ve revealed information that the police had been keeping confidential as part of the investigation.  And believe me when I tell you, it doesn’t matter that it doesn’t matter that you “just assumed” gangland meant gunshots.

So now the police mark you as an interested party and want to know where you were two weeks ago.  Can you remember what you had for lunch two days ago?  Now imagine that any inconsistency will be thoroughly checked by a team of people looking to clear this case as quickly as possible.  Your reported evening out with aunt Mabel didn’t check out.  You thought you were there all evening, but apparently you left early to watch the game, conveniently around the time of the murder.  And oh yeah, even though you said you have no problems with the deceased, every other neighbor spilled the beans on how he’d been hanging around your wife too much.

So they now have motive and means, and you “lied” on record.  Sure, they don’t have a murder weapon, but between your previous “confession” about guns being involved and all of your other inconsistencies, you’ll have an uphill battle not getting convicted.  At the very least, the next few months of your life are going to be on hold as the police turn your life upside-down.

A lawyer would have prevented you from volunteering any information or accidentally assuming anything about the murder weapon.  You wouldn’t have revealed your plans for that evening by invoking the fifth amendment, and they certainly wouldn’t have had any reason to go checking on your relationship with the deceased.  You’d be just another neighbor they questioned on the way to catching the real killer.

So with how important it is to exercise your rights, it’s a little surprising how little lawyers come into play in Castle.  It’s equally dismaying to see how infrequently Beckett procures a warrant, and when was the last time she Mirandized someone she was arresting?

At the end of this episode, she  confronts the killer at his office and does not mention anything about warrants or arrest.  Yes, he randomly confesses to her in a fashion that would do Perry Mason proud while brandishing a weapon in front of an officer.  But the entire thing could probably be thrown out by any decent lawyer as Beckett tried arresting him without a warrant and didn’t Mirandize him; more damaging for him, he’ll probably get a full second-degree murder charge, even though it should be downgraded to manslaughter, since she accidentally died while he assaulted her.  Or even downgraded to non-negligent homicide.

And speaking of making plea bargains, Gretta might get screwed as she made a deal with the police that she never signed and no lawyer ever reviewed.  Heck, Beckett even waived a bunch of scary charges in front of her, but she wasn’t actually charged with anything at that moment; I imagine a little lawyering would have removed most of those charges anyway.  So she basically confessed to a number of things she probably could have gotten off on because she was too stupid to get a lawyer.

I realize that much of what doesn’t happen is for the sake of fitting the entire thing into a 48-minute episode with a beginning and an ending, rather than just getting blocked by lawyers at every turn.  And it’s realistic, since most people also forfeit their rights and get convicted in similar circumstances.

But it’s still disappointing to see Castle joining the ranks of lesser crime dramas and mysteries that villify exercising your rights while showing a number of intelligent people jumping at the police with confessions and letting them run rampant with no warrants, issues they at least paid lip service to in the first season.

This Might Be Why Couples Argue and Don’t Break Up

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games, The Gaming Community on July 7, 2010 at 10:47 am

It’s something of a commonly-held fallacy that gamers should date gamers.  Perhaps as the logical extension of “having so much in common,” gaming is most definitively a lifestyle that includes the desire to surround one’s self with gamers, up to and including your potential love interest.  It hardly seems like a problem, sharing the hobby and its associated costs and basking in mutual achievement with one so intimate.

It is a bad idea, make no mistake.  As to why, that can be boiled down to a single gaming-related reason and one generic reason.

Yes, you will both share an interest in gaming, but no, you will not be exactly alike.  Very rarely do multiple expressions of the same topic conform to each other, and gaming is no different.  You may enjoy one genre and your spouse another; you may play for fun while they play to win; you may play at set intervals through the week while they go through marathon sessions lasting days.  Then there may be logistical problems, and even if you are the best at sharing and caring, imagine this: you care little for Final Fantasy, but be prepared to lose access to your console and your love life upon its release.  Resentment, I think, might just ensue, and not unreasonably.  And hopefully, one of you will have the restraint to reserve some of the gaming fund for food and rent.

Conversely, think back to the periods of greatest growth in your life, when you learned the most and broadened your horizons.  People do not experience growth because they are happy with where they are and content with their lot, and I guarantee you that any time you experienced this, you started out unhappy.  With that unhappiness, you affected a change in your life, unsatisfied with the status quo, and found yourself someplace new.  With both people in a relationship so similar in taste, neither one will truly challenge the other, and you’ll have fully explored the extent of your relationship on minute one.  You may keep it fresh and interesting with each successive game release that interests both of you, but just imagine what you’ll have to do when the power goes out.

This is a big reason why I am both happy with my relationship and unwilling to force her to imbibe each of my interests.  I still sneak off to play, basking in that illicit joy of truly indulging in my divergent tastes. I force myself to find ways to approach her with particularly poignant or impactful moments in gaming, not confusing lack of interest in gaming for a lack of interest in myself.  For her part, she humors me nicely and shows a genuine interest when I stand up and allow her to take notice of such things.  That I don’t get to game all of the time  has shifted my priorities and made me seek out material that is truly deserving of the time I will allot to it, and I enjoy the time I do spend gaming doubly so.

Our differences have forced a deep introspective upon me as I examine my hobby for it’s worth, and I have found more than I ever would have expected.

For my part, I engage my girlfriend In ways that challenge her worldview, primary because I am part of a generation for which electronic entertainment, long-distance friendships and the internet as serious business is fact.  When a law comes up attempting to regulate the internet or discredit blogging as investigative journalism, she learns how much I value freedom and accountability, as well as the fear in our leaders’ eyes when they realize everything they’ve said is out there and they can never, ever get rid of it.

Ages ago, in a summer years since past, my friend Galen had stayed in my apartment for a spell.  Being one of those long-distance friendships, we decided to take things to the next level with a period of intense, face-to-face interaction.  So he came over from California, and we gamed.  Sure, I showed him the city and a few sights and restaurants, but being that he was staunchly anti “touristy crap,” my options were limited.  Thus, we gamed.

Somehow it came up in conversation that my girlfriend didn’t play games, and didn’t quite understand the appeal of whatever we were doing at the time.  Galen, ever diplomatic and quite the charmer, uttered something to the effect of, “Duh, you should get into gaming!” before resuming his quest for bluer sparks and doubled dashes.

The remark was undoubtedly callow and unthinking, and he certainly won no points with my girlfriend that day.  Do prospective relationships find their value solely through gaming for gamers?  Is the quest for their happiness so narrow that they must find someone else who games, else their worth is diminished?

I have been with my girlfriend for over seven years, engaged to marry for over four, and I can’t imagine the worth of that being affected by her not gaming with me.  Other people have not been so lucky.  Most would not consider it to be the worst thing in the world, to find their lifelong companion who’s greatest transgression is sharing none of your interests.

And because one of my friends who have actually married into a gaming relationship reads this, let me just say: you don’t think that a girl, born into the British holding of Hong Kong, who lived through its transfer to China, who has spent time in Japan and Australia, really counts as being too similar to you, do you?  And I’ve seen you guys fight for difference of opinion, so really, you guys should be fine.

In The Beginning

In My Girlfriend Does Not Play Video Games on June 30, 2010 at 5:01 pm

I’m writing this, because I imagine there are other gamers in the same situation as I am.

My girlfriend — actually my fiancée, but I don’t feel like looking up whether it’s fiancé or fiancée, not to mention hunting down the “é” on the character map — does not play video games.  She’s not really in to them.  As a medium, it’s something she’s largely written off; not as incapable of inciting an emotional response or producing a worthwhile narrative, but simply incapable of being as such to her.  This affliction extends beyond gaming and into all non live-action mediums for reasons that may simply be reduced to personal taste.  And, as we are all aware, in matters of personal taste, there can be no argument.  She shan’t be convinced.

I’ve tried convincing her.  To date, she’s shown the most interest in heavily narrative-driven titles, and among these only those with voice-over narration stand out.  The two (2) titles she’s sat down and actually watched me play — a tremendous event far rarer than a blue moon — have been Legacy of Kain: Defiance and Fahrenheit / Indigo Prophecy, though she (of course) agreed that the latter’s plot devolved into an exercise in incredulity.

But these paragraphs do little to describe her interests.  When I met her, her favored movies were indie, art-house flicks and she never shied away from a hefty foreign film for the subtitles.  Her father instilled in her a great appreciation for science fiction, and through our relationship I cultivated with her an interest in zombies, superhero movies and Jason Statham (I also got her into plays).  She likewise shared her interests with me, and as far as cinema is concerned I think we’ve both broadened our horizons and now share very similar tastes in film.

So it’s not that she’s too high brow to deign to accept games as a medium to deliver fun; enjoying Crank and its sequel officially revoked both of our rights as such.  She’s just not into gaming.

Because this is not a hobby we share, there’s been a great deal of tension over the time it takes away from “us.”  She’s madly in love with me, and I her.  When we watch movies, we watch them together; we can tolerate even crappy films by simply being with one another.  Gaming, in contrast, is not something we do together and she does view it as direct competition to her where I am concerned.  We’ve really gotten into it a few times if she perceives that I am playing when I ought to be spending time with her.

It doesn’t help that gaming serves as a conduit to hang out with my brother and my friends; suddenly, she’s not competing with just games, but the rest of my social life.  If you thought this would mellow her out — after all, I’m not leaving the house for some nebulous, potentially adulterous “poker night” — but it just seems to incite further feelings of resentment to the medium.

It takes me away from her.  It cuts her evenings short.  She spends hours, alone and asleep, waiting for me to come to bed as I game the evening away, and of course I stay up too late.  It presents too much of an idea that never may there be a day “just for her” as I continue to enjoy a gaming nightcap night after night.  It prevents me from helping out around the house as I should; and quite unfairly, while she does chores by herself, I consider time away from her to be gaming time by default.  When does she get to relax?  Were she not around to prod me, I would likely do nothing but game, be perpetually late and procrastinate everything as I defer to my hobby.

In my defense, I have tried explaining that I play at night because she offers no opportunity to do so during the day.  I have no qualms about this; I understand full well that the afternoon and evening should be used to see movies, eat dinner and generally spend time with each other.  Additionally, she does not have the legs for staying up late as I do, and she’ll naturally begin to feel drowsy a little after nine in the evening.  I’ve also plead that she “wins” over my friends and gaming more often than not, and she expects any engagements I have scheduled to be canceled at her whim if “something comes up.”  And, while I do admit I could be much better about keeping up the house, I would contend that I do most of my gaming in the evening, when it’s generally not suitable to, say, start vacuuming.

What this most often boils down to, is that on occasion I am thoughtless with either the timing or the duration of my gaming, ignoring chores and girlfriend alike, and she is occasionally callous in her absolute rejection of my hobby and social outlet, starting an argument in the middle of a session (“in front of my friends” so to speak) or outright denying whole swaths of perfectly viable game time on general principle.  This doesn’t mean we don’t love each other, but it also means that this problem isn’t going away any time soon.

I’ll close with an anecdote of the first time this came up:

We weren’t living together as yet, but for whatever reason, I would be staying the whole extended weekend.  As she had to work during this weekend, I thought it would be kind of nice to bring my Gamecube to entertain myself with while she was out.  As she was showering for work that day, I got out my equipment, hooked it up and began playing (Phantasy Star Online, if you must know).  She got out of the shower and was appalled I that would be playing during her last few moments with me before leaving for work.  I backpedalled, agreeing in principle and stated that I was making sure it still worked.  At that point, however, the damage had been done; she left in fear that our weekend would be overshadowed by my gaming.  For my part, I distanced the gaming so severely from our time together that it may have set an unfortunate precedent… but we did have a wonderful weekend.