No More Gamers Anymore

My "so you want to be a games writer" post

2010-02-10T22:22:00.007-07:00

I've been thinking about this for months. I could probably do a better job of this but I'm just going to do it now while I'm in a state of mind and action where I can do it--if I don't, I may never. I'm not as bitter as this is going to sound. It's been eight months since I wrote on this blog. About four since I last wrote something for which I was paid. No shame and no cares on that mark. Just a bit about why I've disappeared.

I'm never going to "succeed" at games writing and I've known this for a while. Recently Conan O' Brian said if one works really hard and is kind, amazing things will happen. They do. "It's just true."

It's not true. Another games/entertainment writer even explicitly said so soon after that quote. Not that I needed someone to tell me that.

Many game writers have written "so you want to be a game journalist" articles. Most of them talk about the parts of it that are not glamorous, the parts that suck. There is no money. PR people can be difficult. Most games are not fun. Sometimes you have to make it a score that it shouldn't be. And the consistency of the work is spotty as it gets, even spottier than it is for someone writes something that is in more demand, like regular news or features that have a broader appeal or fiction or poetry or articles about HOW TO TURN HIM ON WITHOUT FAIL! I have had experience with all of these except the pressure to change a score. I don't think there are many articles about the topic from people who have never made it, but still did something, who actually qualify as one of the ones who wanted and did not receive. So I'm here to say that if you want to write about games, you should give up. Immediately.

I'm going to list all the stuff I did. It amounted to little. Monetarily and accomplishment-wise. I enjoyed doing it while I did it, but now that it's done, all I've got are memories. I could have been using my time to get money, though, instead! Hmm. It's important when you're married.

So, stuff I've done! Let's review. I have been paid by three different outlets to write about games.

The first is GameSetWatch/Gamasutra. I have a warm relationship with Simon and he's always been patient with me and my wishy-washiness and self-consciousness. Simon, if you're reading this: hi.

Second was Eurogamer. I wrote one feature for them. Kieron Gillen gave me advice on how to appeal to Tom Bramwell. My first pitch immediately succeeded with them, which was a surprise and a delight. The thing only got 8 comments. For Eurogamer, that is very low. None of them based the article, though, at least. I tried a couple more ideas later but nothing really stuck, they had end of year budget issues, and they've already got a staff. I thought it would be my moment where I "made" it, but it was a dead end, an additional item to add to my little vita.

My third was as a blogger for Psu.com. The guy who owns this is in Britain. It was and probably still is struggling. They laid me off after a month. The guy who trained me there was polite and patient. He was 17 at the time. He had been there for about two years. He was convinced, and for good reason, that I was there to stay as long as I didn't bungle anything up. There were budget issues. I had to go. I believe the staff there is even smaller than when I joined.

And that is it. I have pitched to many, many different places. All want features. The best way to break in is to suggest something they know would sell and something that no one else would have suggested. This is not as easy as it sounds. If you want to "succeed" in games writing you need a consistent gig doing news or reviews, or you need to start your own website and have such an awesome and unique personality (and uber "web 2.0 skills" or whatever) that people will trust you as a personality and seek you out by name, even if they don't like you. This is still something you'd probably be better off doing only when you've had a regular gig doing...news and/or reviews. Names: Michael Abbott or N'Gai Croal or Dan Hsu or Shawn Elliott or Jeff Gerstmann. And not even all these people get paid. The ones that don't certainly have the potential to, I'd think, but maybe they know, like I do, that it's not worth it. They do what they do for its own sake.

I never got that big break. I got an actual response with explanation about rejection from Green Pixels, Gamespot, and Crispy Gamer (note: not that I'm happy about it, but I always wondered if/when it would crumble). Two of those mentioned their budget. I asked people connected to all of them how to approach, the way I did with Kieron and Eurogamer. When I interviewed all the game writers for my multipart piece on GSW, I felt on top of the world. I'd made connections, most or all of the people liked me. I got a lot of great advice, especially from Kieron.

Other stuff of note that helped me think I was going to make it: I got sought out independently by a PR guy to do an interview (by Facebook, no less, not via blast) and I still get press releases to the email on this blog every day (I check that email, but is it not my "personal" one).

I can write a review that entertains, informs, has a unique style and says something definitive. I think of all the reviews I ever wrote for Snackbar, that one is my favorite. I've also gotten awesome comments: "that is mighty fine article craftsmanship, Mr. Walbridge." Sometimes I get the traffic too. Look at the super-l33t links I received:

Newsweek's Level Up, AOL's Massively, Gawker's Kotaku, The Sci-Fi Channel's Fidgit, Wikipedia, and SlashDot.

I'm proud of what I've done. I drove up traffic at Snackbar by writing and editing in an intense burst, I learned how to help game writers write better reviews (to the point the other editor said as much), and I did all that crap I just mentioned.

It has led to a dead end. I have been paid $1,000-$1,500 when all is said and done. That is before the taxes. My experiences will not help me get a job anywhere else (it got me one interview, though). Remember how I said most of the games aren't fun? Why would you do and write boring crap and not get paid for it? I had to remember I love games. I couldn't let my attempt to turn it into money ruin them for me. What would I then enjoy?

Really enjoying video games is why I got to the top 50 and top 1,000 on two of the Street Fighter IV leaderboards. This is why I played about 2,000 Starcraft matches when I was in high school and college. This is why I've played hundreds of games of League of Legends and am about to play another. Games are entertainment and escapism. It is where failure is fun, at least ideally.

You take your gaming to the next level and try to make money from it? Especially while you don't have any ideal employment options, if any? The failure isn't so fun anymore in that context.

Don't try to be a games writer. There is no more room. There barely was then. There certainly isn't now. 1UP blew up. Crispy burned down. Are you going to compete with the leftovers? You going to accomplish a lot and then realize the field basically has no money for you, then think "well damn, what now?" Kyle Orland wrote Games for Lunch forever before it got picked up. I wrote over two dozen reviews and edited more than twice that many more. Thousands of views, most or all of them. Nothing. On his twitter Kyle links to something a former Crispy guy says, and it's not pretty. This guy, he's getting out. Kyle is sticking around, but he's got years. Probably not making quite as much as he used to. What do you have? What do I have? Nothing.

If you really have to, make sure you have something else that you enjoy a ton, in case your experience ruins games for you. It almost did for me. I'm pickier now but not completely ruined.

But really, don't take me lightly when I say don't do it. Get out or stay out while you still know how to enjoy video games. All this advice has already been given in one way or another about writing, acting, music or anything else that is fun and inspires passion from many. This isn't that new or even that pessimistic. I just wanted to throw in a good, concrete example for games writing. This is how much you can accomplish without succeeding. Don't do it unless you're willing to do that much for that little, and to do a lot for free.

But really, I'd say just don't do it. "So you want to be a games writer: don't." That's my advice.

Retro Game Challenge

2009-05-08T12:32:00.002-06:00

So I never got around to mentioning it, but I’ve reviewed three DS games recently for Snackbar. The most interesting one was Retro Game Challenge (I always hear it as "charrenge" in my head for some reason).

Briefly: a crazy Japanese guy send you back in time to play games from the 80s with his former self. The games are not actually old, but they are designed and drawn to look old. You are not allowed to leave the 80s until you beat his challenges.

On the top screen is the actual game, but on the bottom is the TV, the console, and two kids (you and the crazy guy’s younger self). The majority of the humor comes from the kid you’re playing with. He makes references to things that really happened in the 80s, asks you naïve, childlike questions, comments on your playing (“Nice!” “Ouch!” etc.), and is always there to bother you.

It’s all very cute, but it’s really saying something about the nature of gaming as a hobby and its big sell. At any time, you can pause the top screen and look at the magazines or manuals to learn how to play the game (or how to cheat). The brief descriptors make it really really obvious that the game companies are the master string-pullers:

--The magazines obviously are at the mercy of the companies and perhaps owned by one (perhaps a reference to the success of Nintendo Power, which in the 80s was actually owned by Nintendo)
--The hints, tricks, and cheats filtered out from the magazines slowly but in time for sequels, ensuring players were hooked on game number 1 long enough to remember it but not so long they wouldn’t be enthusiastically waiting another
--Competition is highly desirable, as it increases a games longevity (and sales)

The challenges themselves seem pointless. Get a certain amount of points, beat a level without using a regular move, and getting to checkpoints in the games. Then, of course, comes the glory of simply beating the game and getting to the end. No one knows of your victory but you and your friend, sitting in the living room.

I mean, today is so different! You don’t just get high scores, you get win-loss records, experience points, and achievements. Your accomplishments can now be seen by anyone in the world.

But has anything really changed? Magazines have, a little bit, but only in volume, not in purpose or type of coverage. Strategy guides are more important as a source of revenue and getting people to beat the games and getting the cheat codes out.

Instead of being the best at home or in your neighborhood or even arcade, it’s being the best in the country.

While exceptions exist, games have changed little as a cultural product or in the way they drive us. All games are now is bigger.

For me, it’s not a bitter realization; games are still fun and there’s nothing wrong with something being entertainment. But let’s not kid ourselves. For economic and cultural reasons, games will mostly be "just games" for a very long time.

News

2009-03-19T13:52:00.002-06:00

There is not much in the way of news. I have applied for a blogging position that may or may not pay, but would bring the prestige regardless. A few of you may not which position I speak of. There's nothing else to publicly say on that.

Games--well, poor 'ole Snackbar had its only advertiser withdraw. The recession has even hit what few free games we (I) were (was) getting. But, I have received some DS games, some of which are awesome, and some of which are not. One of these is Retro Game Challenge. If you haven't heard of it yet, I think my review will turn out pretty well. Look for reviews of that and a couple of other games to come soon on Snackbar.

I've mainly been laying low because 1. I haven't gotten many new games and 2. Most of the places I've pinged have ended in rejection or "looks good, but we're pretty full." There's very little open to anyone, freelancer or non. That's not news. I'm just saying that that's why I'm more sporadic and less consistent. I'm still lurking, still reading, and still keeping tabs.

Oh, and I was laid off from my job in January, so I've had more important things. Also, my 360 red ringed the day I got SF IV, which was soon after I got laid off. Also, we're moving to another apartment in about a month.

Economics and life leave me with little to say, but I've not gone away.

The F word

2009-02-10T14:13:00.005-07:00

It has been a very, very long time since I felt this way. I am currently very excited about the release of an upcoming game.

Valve’s recent offerings of Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead were both games I was pretty excited about. I kept track of them months before their release and purchased them early and played them much.

This, though—this is something different. Something has happened to me, and I do not know what it is. It has been suggested that sexuality is mostly formed before one actually engages with or recognizes it. Perhaps one’s gameality or whatever it is is the same.

I am thoroughly and unhealthily possessed by an overwhelming desire to do nothing but three things:

--Figure out how to procure a copy of Street Fighter IV as early as possible
--Become a freakin’ legend for being so good at the game
--Figure out which tool is best for me to personally bring this about, and then acquire said tool

I am not interested in food. I am not interested in playing other games though I have plenty of time to do so. I am distracted. I got laid off a few weeks ago and I don’t even worry about it. This is partly because I’m waiting to hear on a good job opportunity that I interviewed well for, but it’s no guarantee and I really shouldn’t hold out for it. The last two times I got laid off I spent all my time trying to figure out how to get employment; if not that, I worked on distracting myself so I could forget about it. Games helped, obviously. But now, I spend even more time thinking about how to best acquire, enjoy, and dominate Street Fighter IV.

The roots of this are likely fairly common; when I was 11 years old could make a dollar go for over an hour at the arcade while my parents shopped. I’d play at malls or at a store within walking distance from my house, “Fun Fever.” Fun Fever was a new and perhaps used game retailer that had consoles available for play by the hour in addition to 8 arcade units. These were only awesome arcade units, though, units like a shorter, squattier Neo-Geo unit with four rotating games, Mortal Kombat, and of course variants of Street Fighter II.

SF II: Champion Edition was a big hit because it finally let you play with the four boss characters. I would always choose M. Bison. I fought cheaply and fiercely, for if I lost, I’d die of boredom, a fate I will never again face.

One time when I was between 11-13 a large, jockish kind of guy in his 20s challenged me and I handily defeated him. He got angry after two or three tries; sometimes his frustration made him even closer to beating me and sometimes it caused him to make bad mistakes.

I ended up spending 30 or 40 minutes thrashing this guy. He spent five to ten bucks getting thrashed. Later, in my 20s, I got thrashed in Marvel vs. Capcom by a kid who had to stand on his tip-toes just to see his power meter at the bottom.

But this guy; he chose different characters. He started to shout. He cursed in between matches. A crowd gathered round. My timing was flawless; I had a definite style and could adjust it on the fly. I was king of the arcade. At the end, the guy shouted like Blanka and Zangief, grabbed my neck and put me in a choke hold and with an “AARRRRRRGHHHH YOOUUUUU” he gave me a noogie, rubbing his fist across my hair. While friendly, it was violent enough that it actually hurt.

He let me go and through his arms in the air at the crowd of ten, which was laughing by now. I smiled sheepishly. He left the store. My mother didn’t find out about it for years.

Fun Fever later closed and so did my opportunities to play with others, until Street Fighter II came out for the SNES. My childhood friends, whom I still hang out with (I challenged them and called them out via email recently to make sure they knew of the incoming SF IV deluge), were about my skill. I played against them and my brother for hundreds of hours.

When I got to high school, Street Fighter was a memory until one of my friends got a Playstation and Street Fighter Alpha 3. I had discovered it at the mall near where I worked. I’d use my 30-minute break to sprint a quarter-mile to the mall and play it during the day while still in my McDonald’s uniform. I enjoyed it most when I had someone to play against. Sometimes, I’d beat a guy and then hand over my play to him, explaining I had to get back to work. Surprisingly, I was rarely late.

That was in ’98 and ’99. In 1999 and the succeeding years, Street Fighter III came out, as well as the Dreamcast and Playstation 2. During these years I was off in Australia or at college and couldn’t afford a console. PC gaming was my only option.

I never got the opportunity to get dragged into Tekken. Other recent releases in the Soul Calibur, Virtua Fighter, and Dead or Alive franchises have failed to capture my fancy. I never learned how to play those. I think many haven’t. And now that consoles have a huge network with which to play online, the lineup of opponents is infinite.

The EVO tournament reminds us that some people never left that world, but most of us had no choice. But it’s back.

The ability to take on a slew of incoming challengers is now multiplied—dormant, fierce, Rocky Balboa-esque energies are being awakened and soon the day comes wherein every man who owns a current non-Wii console and can do a Hadouken will be commanded to stand accountable and show his worth. He must face his eternal rival, just as the characters will. See below.

My name is Michael Walbridge, and I have a fanboy problem.

Backlog status

2008-12-22T10:52:00.007-07:00

Any games you want to hear about?

What I'm playing or have recently finished:
Wrath of the Lich King
Left 4 Dead
Team Fortress 2
Gears of War 2
King's Bounty
Fallout 3
Lock's Quest
Tomb Raider: Underworld
The World Ends With You
Drill Dozer
Metal Slug 7
Ninjatown
Geometry Wars: Galaxies (that's the DS one)
Contact

What I've recently gotten but haven't played or have barely played:
Darwinia
Multiwinia
Space Rangers 2
The Political Machine 2008
The Witcher: Enhanced Edition
Audiosurf
S.T.A.L.K.E.R Shadow of Chernobyl

What I still hope to get, in no particular order:
Far Cry 2
World of Goo
EDF 2017
Aquaria
Defense Grid
Strong Bad's Cool Game for Attractive People, Season 1 (35 bucks for the whole season now)
Immortal Defense
Some GBA games and DS games; I cannot access my Amazon list for a while
One racing game for the 360 (wouldn't want to get burdened with too many games to catch up with!) from the following list:
Midnight Club: Los Angeles (leaning towards this one)
Need for Speed Undercover
PURE
Burnout: Paradise
Baja: Edge of Control
GRID

I think that, apart from these lists, the list I have on Amazon, and the games I will receive for Christmas, I will be well-covered for the first half of the year. Yes? Also, hooray! I see patterns erupting. Someone needs to hire me to be the casual MMO guy. I don't know of any casuals who understand or care about MMOs. I also haven't seen anyone compare the vast range of tower defense games that came out in 2008. Along with the downloadable revolution, tower defense has really come of age recently; Lock's Quest is awesome so far and I'm enthused about chewing on the many others.

It's a good thing I haven't gotten a Playstation 2 yet.

Slight Update

2008-12-22T10:09:00.002-07:00

So!

I have not heard word back regarding some freelance offers. There is one more place I will take a stab at; I have discovered by reviews are pretty bad, and am going to be a bit more bold in my next three reviews. One of them is pretty much done. The games are Metal Slug 7, Lock's Quest, and Tomb Raider: Underworld. I only really liked one of them. Can you guess which one?

Upon writing these three (ironically, the one I like seems like it will be the hardest to write about), I'll send them as part of the samples to one more place.

After that, I'm going to take it slow, think about what I'd really, really like to do. Not really sure what it is I'm best at yet, and not really sure what to do with the blog, the idea of freelancing, or the time that I have to do writing.

Also, the post below was going to be up for my column, but my editor rejected it, for he did not get it. That doesn't mean it was his failing, it means that it sucks! Oh well.

Finding someone to play your game with: a guide for the lonely and/or obsessed

2008-12-22T09:58:00.002-07:00

It doesn't seem like the reasons for excessive gaming zeal are mysterious are complex. If you want someone to read a book you read, you can at least join a book club, go online and discuss it, or ask someone to read who might pretend to, satisfying your need for book comraderie.

And movies! It's easy to get people to watch a movie; it's two hours. You, or someone else, can fake it 'til you make it through any movie of any genre. Men who have succeeded in relationships can tell you all about it: to endure a "chick flick" often means scoring major points.

Games, on the other hand, require not just an investment of time, but of effort. To play a game and then not really try or not really enjoy it makes it awkward. Finding someone else to play any game that isn't popular can be very difficult.

If you don't know anyone who likes your game it is imperative, therefore, that one of two things occurs: you either persuade people to like your game and make arguments on its behalf, or you learn to find people who already feel the same as you do. The first method is one that people are doing all the time; no doubt if you are online you are already able to persuade people to play something other than what they already do! Finding someone who already likes what you play is difficult, though.

That's why I've made a handy guide on how to find people to play the games you want to play. Can't find anyone who wants to play Band of Bugs, Quake 4, or Fury? NO PROBLEM! I, Michael Walbridge, can show you how. Not all options work, but for any system or game, there is a guaranteed method by which you will be able to find someone to play your game with you.

For just $9.95 a month or by continuing to read below, I will share my secrets with you about how to find people to play any video game with you, not just World of Warcraft or Gears of War 2!

Nintendo Wii

The Nintendo Wii can't be played online, unfortunately, but there is an option through which you can play with your Wii with other people, and it's the most important option there is.

The Wii Option

1. Find friends or groups of people who like to play video games, or who also have this system.
2. Send a communication of some sort to this person. Say something like, "Hey, have you tried this game? Want to play it sometime?"
3. Wait for a response.
4. Go from there, treating it like any other planned social event, such as playing soccer, going shopping, going on a bow hunting or hog hunting trip or a trip that involves both, drinking alcohol, drinking coffee, or drinking both alcohol and coffee mixed together.

The steps in the Wii option are a common and effective way to play games with people. Also, this option works for a surprising number of systems, ranging from as early as the Atari 2600 (earlier, some claim) and onward to systems like the Atari Lynx, the Atari Jaguar, and even more recent offline systems such as the Nintendo Gamecube. In fact, exhaustive studies have proven that the Wii option works for any system!

Playstation 2

Unfortunately, the Playstation 2 doesn't have online capabilities, just like the Nintendo Wii. See options for the Wii, listed above.

Playstation 3

The Playstation 3 has severely changed its method of social interaction; fortunately, I have delved the secrets of multiplayer success and am sharing them with you.

Option 1

1. Sign into Home.
2. Start up the game of your choice and go into a game lobby.
3. Wait.

Option 2

1. Walk around the town, displaying which game you'd like to play.
2. If no one comes, log out or go to a place where no one can see you and change your avatar to a female avatar.
3. A female avatar's effectiveness is reduced if your name is something like xXxDUDExXx. If a female avatar won't get anyone to play a game with you, option three will not work.
4. Remember to fake your voice or manage to pretend that you don't have a mic. Act feminine!

Option 3

1. Go to the official Playstation forums, or some other forum online.
2. Talk up your game, leave your ID and get the names of others.
3. Send and accept friend invites.
4. Try to get people on these lists to play with you. Send a message that says something like "Hey, do you have this game? Want to play it sometime?"
5. Go from there, etc.

Xbox 360

The Xbox 360 is home to some of the most disgusting version of male known to man. Fortunately, there are ways you can play games that are not Call of Duty 4, Halo 3, and Gears of War 2. Did you know that you can play card games like Uno and Texas Hold 'em? These games never have anything unpleasant occur in them; that's why the online interactions don't need to be rated!

There are other games, too, and the secrets to finding people to play with lie below.

Option 1

1. Sign into LIVE.
2. Start up the game of your choice and go in to the game lobby.
3. Wait.

Option 2

1. Go to the official XBox forums; look for the forum for the specific game you are thinking of. Add your name to the "Who plays this game anymore?" and/or "If you still play this game, put your name HERE" threads.
2. Send and accept friend invites.
3. See option three for the PS3 above.

Nintendo DS

The Nintendo DS cannot be played online, but there are plenty of places where a large number of people have a DS. There are numerous options for finding people to play the DS with you.

Option 1

1. Go to a place where it is known that many of the people have a DS. Make sure popular titles such as Mario Kart DS and the latest edition of Pokemon are on your person.
2. Attempt to socialize with these people.
3. It is likely this will be difficult; parents, teachers, administrators, or even the DS owners themselves might not approve of your attempts to play the DS with them. It is probably best to not even try this option, but instead to try the Wii option.

Important note: make sure that the person has the game that you do, because for every person playing you need a copy of the game!

PSP

The Wii option seems to be the only effective option for the Sony Playstation Portable. Rumor has it that watching movies is a more popular social activity than is playing video games; the PSP is often-touted as an effective movie-watching device, something that the other consoles do not boast of! This may account for why it is difficult to even find the mention of a PSP being used to play multiplayer games. This is still being researched and I'll reveal the findings as soon as they are discovered.

PC

The personal computer is a complex device with numerous options. Sometimes the methods through which you will find people to play will vary depending upon the type of game you play!

Option 1

1. It is worth noting that the options for the Wii can actually work on the computer! Grab two controllers, Lego Batman, a bunch of ROMs (these are widely available and the gaming companies provide them for FREE) or whatever, sit yourselves down, and like magic you can have your own creatively created console experience! Right at home!

Option 2

1. Use the servers or network that the game features; this is particularly relevant for first person shooters or real time strategy games.
2. Wait.

Option 3

1. For MMOs, consult the instruction manual or one of many Internet sites on how to be in these unique game worlds.

Option 4

1. Use forums or websites in a manner similar to the options used for consoles.

Option 5

1. Go to a LAN cafe. You may need to combine the Wii Option with this option in order for it to work effectively. Get your LAN cafe's permission before installing games they don't have.

Option 6

1. Use game socialization software combined with the approach of forums and/or the Wii Option; Steam, MiRC, Xfire, Facebook, Raptr, GamerDNA, and MyGameMug are all examples. Combine with option number two.

Lists. Everyone likes lists

2008-12-10T16:04:00.002-07:00

Lists are so cool. Actually, I've seen a few I liked recently.

Here's one I wrote. I tried to be a little original. If you follow my twitter feed, I already posted a link to this.

Review Terms and Structure: The Experiment

2008-12-08T15:54:00.002-07:00

I wrote a review, but decided to post it first so visitors would see this post at the top, the why before the how.

This is ambitious; I'm 1. proposing common terms and regrouping games' features and 2. demonstrating an alternative structure for a review. The first point has my stronger convictions, but the second could still be of value and open up thinking about reviews in a different light. The alternative structure is better for reviews than criticism since reviews are about being buyers' guides.

One huge problem with reviews is numeric scores. Why do readers demand them? Because reviews are too long to read, or because too much of it is redundant? By having categories like this, a reader is served; numbered scores can be removed with fewer repurcussions because (1) new readers can be introduced to the game while at the same time (2) anticipatory fanboys and enthusiasts can skip the parts they have already passed judgment on prior to release.

Instead of writing a 500-word newspaper/website article, I'm simply listing these new terms as categories and proceeding through them in a logical fashions. In order, they are Content, Gameplay, Sociability, Playstyle, Innovation, and Summary. Most of these are familiar, especially if you've been reading recent posts. The "graphics/sound/gameplay/multiplayer/presentation/replay" groups we often see are narrow categories that fail to address other important questions; I also think these terms could manage help tackle the problem of describing the game so that someone will be able to tell whether he will or will not like it regardless of whether you do or do not like. It will also indirectly address the problem of how long a reviewer spent playing the game. Some parts of a game take time to review; others do not.

It seems two goals everyone can agree on are 1. to judge the game by its intent and 2. to explain it well enough that the player will know whether he likes it or not whether the reviewer likes it or not. I think doing it this way meets those goals.

I am choosing to do a review on Atlus's Contact (below) and Jonathan Blow's Braid (forthcoming). Contact is a very strange and different game, the kind traditional reviews serve the poorest. The opinions on it varied widely and hardly anyone played it. It's hard to explain why you would or wouldn't buy this game; it is a game that would make a person tremendously happy or tremendously disappointed. It is a game that, if you like it, you hope everyone who would want to see it will see it, and that anyone who hates it will never see it. Braid is different, too, but it's recent and many more people have played it or are at least familiar with it. Reviewing Contact and Braid means I'll have both an obscure and famous game to display as examples. Braid also elicited divided opinions, and I also hope to write a review that would explain to those both new and familiar with the game why they would or wouldn't like it.

And now, a review of the categories:

Content: graphics, sound, story, presentation, plot, characters, voice acting, writing, campaign length, "ludonarrative dissonance", etc.

Gameplay: controls, option, game design, bugs, glitches, etc. The part game reviews are most likely to do right because they are simply mechanics and issues each player is forced to acknowledge no matter how seriously they do not take games.

Sociability: Multiplayer modes, communication and behavioristic design. It's one thing to have good multiplayer modes that play well because of good singleplayer gameplay; it's another thing to have a good match-making system or design choices that make the players more likely to stick around or more likely to be mean/helpful, etc. Most Game Anthropologist articles I've written are really just in-depth reviews of the unique multiplayer and sociability design choices that some games feature.

Playstyle: regarding playstyles, there seem to be two types, explained in a earlier post. This means I'm harping on it, but it's convenient to leave it in this post.

Reckless people go into the game with no set purpose. They want to see what it is, then make their choices. Some want to goof around, some want to explore; the key here is that they want to let go of their inhibitions while they play.

Deliberate gamers have already decided beforehand what they want; if the game meets their desires, they will keep playing. If not, they will either not like it or say "Gee, not in the mood for this right now, even if its good." This also boils down to immersion; deliberate gamers are the kind who like to forget they are playing games while taking themselves in; reckless players are aware they are playing a game and aware they are being someone else.

Most games allow for both of these playstyles, but some are very much only one or the other, making them niche titles that are highly hated and loved at the same time: Spore, Little Big Planet, JRPGs, etc. Either way, each game has to allow for at least one of these playstyles to be nourished. How well does it do it? Traditional ambiguous terms surrounding these playstyles are "freedom", "linearity," and "interactivity", which are all terms that are a matter of preference rather than standard.

Innovation: Does it adhere to conventions? If not, are the innovations inspiring, creative, and interesting and do they work well? If they do, are they polished and done better in anyway? Do they matter? Why or why not?

Summary: Does anything not mix well? Basically, do the failings of one area weaken the strengths of another or vice-versa in a way that lessens or greatens the game as a whole? Who would like this game? Who wouldn't?

One note on "replayability" or "game length": these are important, but don't warrant lengthy discussion; I feel they can be mentioned in content and sociability.

I highly welcome and desire feedback on the review, and the terms. Do you like the terms? Should these be the trees, terms, and umbrellas used? What about a review with each aspect written in a separate section, only loosely referring to each other?

An Experimental Review: Contact for the DS

2008-12-08T15:49:00.006-07:00

Read the section(s) you are interested in.

Content

Contact has one of the most unique openings to a complex, twisted plot laced with extremely subtle humor and foreshadowing. It is in fact so unforgettable that I wouldn't want to spoil it (thought most reviews and all comments threads invariably already have). If someone ever said to me, "rent this game, and you'll not regret the money spent even if you only played it for half an hour because the game is just so full of ideas and and creative storytelling mechanisms", I'd have never believed it. Now that I've played Contact, I find that a possible statement.

Contact is one of those games for people who want to see something different, and that's true of almost everything about it. The game's manual and the back of the box champion its willingness to be different, to be a different kind of JRPG. It is clever without being too blatant, for all its oddities, if you give it a chance you will find the premise (un)believably absorbing.

To be short, the main protagonist is Terry, a random silent protagonist kid of indistinguishable age. He gets into some trouble and ends up being abducted on a spaceship by a kind, absent-minded professor who likes like he could sub in for the Monopoly guy. The professor fails to fill Terry in on the details but tells him he needs Terry's help in collecting some organic cells that got scattered across the world; as they are potentially dangerous, it's imperative that Terry collect them.

He spends the entire game at the top screen except during some boss fights and when you are in the inventory system; these are perhaps the only two moments you're guaranteed to be completely absorbed in the game, anyway, so it's unavoidably disturbing that he sits at the stop screen muttering to himself through the entire game while Terry is in mortal danger ("don't let the insects bug you, Terry! hee hee"). They are also illustrated using radically different textures; the professor and his spaceship look 8-bit, while Terry and his environs try to look a little more simple and realistic in perspective, not unlike an improved version of Donkey Kong Country.

Terry gets called by his parents, who are extremely worried, looking for him. The professor shrugs this off in the name of the mission. The armor and weaponry and abilities are also contemporary; if you've played Earthbound, Contact feels similar, especially in its use of quirky soundtracks to enhance locale, but is so different it could convince you that JRPGs have a sub-genre that isn't about swords and magic but about baseball bats and aliens.

I haven't finished the game yet; I suspect the events and ending will highly impact how interesting or satisfying Contact is to the player in a subjective way. Contact is made or broken by its story even more than other JRPGs; playing it is almost like reading a book; it flows quickly, easily, and yet its unique combat system makes the game feel more like work than fun; the story is what will compel the player to keep playing.

Contact is approximately 15-20 hours long.

Gameplay

So the gameplay feels like work, because it usually plays like grinding in an MMO. Terry never gets a party; he is always alone. You can see his outfit and weapon in action, and fighting is a simple matter of entering combat while he and enemies hit each other every 2 seconds until they die. Combat is even avoided or engaged in the same way; if you get too close, they chase you and you can outrun them. If you don't, you can walk through an entire dungeon without being hit. Monsters occasionally throw projectiles; unlike in an MMO, these move in real time, and you have to dodge them the way you would in a 2D Zelda game. Money or items is not guaranteed upon victory; if you do get any, they appear on the ground and you walk over them.

Sure, there are special moves you can use at will, there are stickers you peal with the stylus, an interesting muscle-based, use-it-or-lose-it, Obvlionesque stat system with no levels whatsoever and a stomach-based food system where food doesn't just give health but takes an amount of time to digest while also taking up a certain amount of space in the stomach. Seriously, your inventory contains the outline of a stomach with tubes on each end and it gets filled up to a certain horizontal line; if it's full, you can't eat anymore.

It's easy to pick up after a while, but it takes a while to get used to. While an interesting diversion, it still comes down to grinding, avoiding enemies, and working your way through the story. The quirky inventory and systems (you change clothes and armor only on ship in the changing room, and before you can eat it, the meat that monsters drop on the ground must be cooked on the ship too.) It does manage to mix in with the world and the story rather well, though, so it manages to stay out of the way of the world and the dissonance between Terry and the Professor's world.

The saving is location based, which is unfortunate; were it not for that, Contact would take hold of you like a good TV show; the combat would simply be something you'd do just to see what happens next, like characters, commercials, side plots you put up with. Location-based saving makes it more work rather than going through the motions. Death is frustrating; you lose no money or saved game, but are sent back to the ship. These two flaws work against it; at least the combat is mostly easy and the save points are not brutally spaced-out.

Also, the save point is always a bed and it always has a bathtub with hotwater in it next to it; bathing in it gives you full HP. Contact refuses to do anything by the book.

Also, the bosses are more like bosses in Zelda; lots of dodging; it's awkward though; instead of dodging, then pressing a button and immediately seeing your sword swing, you must dodge, run up to the enemy, and wait for the auto-attack. This is challenging, but they are beatable enough to not crush the player into believing the next attempt will mean imminent defeat.

Sociability

Contact is a single player game.

Playstyle

The plot in Contact is tightly controlled and highly deliberate; if you don't like anything, you can't ignore or destroy it. (You can actually kill any villager, but there are no repercussions, and they reappear once you revisit the area, even if it's by double-backing through a door five seconds later). There is no world map but simply locations you choose to fly or sail to. The ship then lands and when you walk out there is a town or small area or both. This makes the game technically composed of levels that you can revisit; the content and gameplay fortunately make it still feel like an RPG. And it actually has room for exploration; very early in the game you have the choice to visit an island that isn't the place the professor tells Terry to go to. So you go there, and there is a guy with no clothes on who explains he's washing them, sorry he's naked (see screen below, which shows the contrasting graphic styles). A monkey takes off with his clothes. You can then pursue it, and it gets attacked by a large carnivore; upon defeating it, the monkey gives you the clothes and follows you out of the cave.

Jean Pierre then lets you keep his chef's outfit, which gives you the ability to cook.

Again, exploration isn't necessary; the sites are interesting, but not more so than the main plot, which is a problem some RPGs possess. It may give the ability to beat the game more quickly, though, since money is not easy to get and food is important and expensive and the chef's outfit is necessary for cooking uncooked food you find.

Innovation

Contact is literally the defining game on handheld innovation. Interesting, unnecessary, revolutionary, pointless, boring, barely noticable, head-scratching, incomprehensible--if there are styles and kinds of innovation, it feels like every single one is here. It manages to work because its most unique processes are the storytelling devices, narration, characters, story. What's fascinating is that the silly and stupid creative liberties taken with every single game feature still work in harmony with Contact's plot, world, and sense of humor.

Summary

Do you like weird Japanese stuff? Earthbound? Issues of narration in gaming? Studying "ludonarrative dissonance"? Atlus games? JRPGs for the story more than the combat? Quirky villains and characters? Games that are actually funny? Japanese humor? The more of these you love, the more you'll love Contact and put it on your secret list of games you'd put in your personal top ten but wouldn't dare to name in public.

If unique scenery, stories, music, and characters aren't enough to make the journey easier and you require RPGs that reward you with difficult, interesting or intense combat you will detest it for its simplicity, ease, and MMO-like auto-attack system.

Game Anthropologist Entry: Left 4 Dead

2008-12-06T23:37:00.002-07:00

I think this is one of my better ones. Valve is so easy to write about.

Shawn Elliott's questions

2008-12-03T10:11:00.010-07:00

Shawn Elliott put up some questions he was going to do for a symposium with N'Gai Croal; the first person I know of to answer them was Mitch Krpata; I do not wish to steal thunder, and will say he's been reviewing longer than I have, and he's done it much more profesionally, too. So! Read his first.

I interviewed all three of them when I was even more wet behind the ears than I am now, and ever since then I've pretty much hung on everything they have to say. Considering that the questions are loosely related to the stuff I talked to them about a while ago, I have been thinking about them for a while.

So I'm going to hop on the "me-too" train. I know that I'm not the most famous reviewer you've heard of, nor have I done all that many--I just counted and I've written 20 reviews at Snackbar (formerly etoychest.org), 12 of which have been in the last 2 months. I'm also the editor at the same place I wrote them, and have had to decide the policy on content, especially reviews; there have been 53 reviews in the last two months, all of which I've edited. So while I don't necessarily count as part of the "game reviewers club", I feel it's not outrageous to claim they are questions that affect me.

Take this as the viewpoint of a writer and a site that wants to "break in"; the kind that is getting PR copies in the mail, but not of every game; the kind with hundreds of page views every single day, but not thousands.

Question 1: How much is on our minds before we begin playing any given game for review purposes? Will we imagine a range of probable scores that a heavily marketed, highly budgeted, and hugely anticipated game will get? What when the game is branded “budget” or is the work of a lesser-known, less-storied studio? If so, how closely have actual scores correlated with our assumptions?

This ends up being a double-edged sword for us, because some of our reviews are of copies we purchased with our own money. Think free games have an impact on game reviewers? So does a lack of them--we get more of the less-desired titles and use them to trade-in for what we really wanted and anticipated in the first place. We did not receive a copy of Fallout 3, Fable II, or Far Cry II, but our writers purchased the first two mainly using review copies of games they didn't like.

On the other hand, these lesser-desired titles do a lot to fuel our content, so I like to think our self-consciousness ensures that we give them a fair shake; budget titles and indie-titles, if they're good, are more likely to receive attention from us.

Question 2: Ought reviewers settle on a score before, during, or after writing a review? How consistent are our practices with our prescriptions? Have we, for instance, revised a score after writing our reviews, even though we advocate against it, and if so, why?

I don't see why before should ever be a good idea; you should also be discovering the score in the writing process. While the number, if you use one, can be in your head at any time, it should be edited and reviewed like the text. A few times we've had a 4/5 or a 3/5 have inconsistent tone with the corresponding text; it's telling that the writers I have have been more willing to change the text rather than the number (though that may be due to the smaller scale we have).

Question 3: When possible, do we look at the scores that other critics give to the games that we're reviewing, as we review them? If so, are groupthink or iconoclasty potential problems?

I try not to, but confess I've had a couple games I reviewed that I read about much earlier. We got Silent Hill: Homecoming for the 360 over a month after it came out, and I'd already read all the conversation about it by Leigh Alexander and Variety's Ben Fritz. This made it much harder to review--I was then reviewing it in context of everything I knew that has been said about it. It was as if I were a literary academic being publicly asked what I thought about Finnegan's Wake.

Question 4: Often times we will have repeatedly played and/or previewed games in development prior to reviewing them. Does this familiarity with a particular game's developmental process influence the scores that we assign to the final product in the way that a professor will take into consideration her students' limitations and proven potential when she evaluates papers at the end of the semester?

This hasn't been an issue for us for obvious reasons. A few of us went to some shows once but I don't think any reviews correlated with any pre-release exposure since I've been there.

Question 5: Review writing carries real consequence, especially among members of the enthusiast press. Once-warm PR people and game producers can become cold upon our publication of undesirable review scores, diminishing or eliminating our ability to secure subsequent interviews and access. Postmortem discussions and exclusive looks at the publisher and/or developer's forthcoming products are less likely. Conversely, a few publishers will permit us to post reviews before competitors, provided our review scores are favorable. Do such pressures produce a subliminal background or even enter our thoughts as we write reviews and assign scores?

As a small site, we end up getting games last, usually. EA has recently warmed up to us and sent us Warhammer and Dead Space before release date, but they ended up getting good scores (by me, incidentally), so this has not become an issue, though it has the potential to. I already tell my writers to give more priority to reviewing the games we get earlier rather than the ones we get later; while this seems fair, it has the potential to be a problem.

Question 6: Is grade inflation an ongoing problem?

As a whole, yes. Not all outlets suffer from it, but many do. Metacritic and Gamerankings become problematic, especially in the 50-70, 70-80, and 80-90 range. Like, what's the big difference amongst them? Is a 74 average really mixed reviews and 75 really generally favorable?

Question 7: Do scores determine our tone? Can a “3” encourage us to explain an aspect of a game in clearly negative terms where our attitude is actually less decided? Example: Game X's camera obscures the action, combat is irritatingly difficult, and “save” stations are few and far between. In our reviews, is Game X's plot, which we're still thinking through, more likely to become miserable than plain?

Ah, interesting throwback to question 2. At Snackbar, the 5-point scale was introduced to be more practical and not have to deal with so many of these problems. However, since 1 point is a huge deal, the writers stick by their scores once they give them to me.

The process can become muddled, but at the end of the day the final version is what the reader will see, and for me the most important thing is that the score and text correspond and complement each other; it needs to be clear why the game ultimately got the score it did. If the review doesn't do this, I tell them to make them align.

Question 8: Do scores encourage our readers to conduct a sort of text-to-number calculus where the two obviously negative statements in an otherwise positive-sounding review necessarily translate into every point deducted from the “10” that the game didn't get? Does this make reviews with high marks more likely to overlook fault, and reviews with low marks less likely to celebrate accomplishment?

I agree that many reviews tend to have this problem. However, if it looks obvious that the game was simply a 3/5 or 4/5 because they started at 5 and docked it points for game "penalties", I send it back. However, due to our scale this usually hasn't been a problem.

Question 9: Which is more important to us, our scores or our copy? If the latter, have our responses revealed any inconsistencies between our attitudes and actions? Are we still convinced of the importance and power of scores?

The copy, obviously--I already ended up answering this.

As a small site, we have to place value on the number in some way because we fear the readers wouldn't accept a lack of numbers since we aren't mainstream with highly-experienced writers. Also, we (*sigh*) want to get on Metacritic so we can increase exposure. It's become this necessary evil; it seems like bigger sites have to set the example and thus a precedent before we could ever get away with doing differently. And the bad part is that I suggested we switch to a 10-point scale soon for the sake of getting listed because 20/40/60/80/100 seems too constrictive if we have to play with everyone else.

Related suggestions for Ethics section:

Have we ever submitted review scores to publishers prior to their publication? If so, why?

Have we ever submitted review copy to publishers prior to its publication. If so, why?

Have PR people suggested that specific critics review specific games? Have we complied with their suggestions?

No to all the above as far as Snackbar is concerned. We have, however, been asked when a review will be posted, but that seems harmless.

On the last question, though, I was once approached by a certain PR rep (through Facebook!) to cover a certain game because of an article I once wrote (not on Snackbar). That someone who has written as few paid articles as I have had already been singled out to cover a game because I would be predisposed to liking it was an uncomfortable wakeup call.

It's been fascinating how someone who has written as little as I have and done work at a site as small as Snackbar has already experienced firsthand many of the little dances that writers and journos have with PR. I'm convinced there other industry has an environment where newcomers can be so easily...uh, accosted.

Reviews Vs Criticism

Question 1: What is the object of a review? What are the review writer's obligations?

Right now, it seems like most are like an automobile review, doing a checklist of features and how well they work mechanically.

What it ought to be is something Ebert said, which I quoted in an earlier post:

"Provide a sense of the experience. No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film. In other words, if it is a Pauly Shore comedy, there are people who like them, and they should be able to discover in your review if the new one is down to their usual standard."

For Snackbar, I want them to craft it around a thesis statement; basically "it is good/bad in this/that way(s); here's why" kind of thesis. We are actually trying to figure out what we want to do as a site that offers something of unique value to readers, making the issue of reviews a very fuzzy and haranguing one.

On a personal note, I am going to shop around an article I'm pitching on the 5 dealbreakers that can apply to every game: sociability, reckless and deliberate gaming, and (again, from Mitch) games that are rewarding in the areas of skill and content. The lack of recognition on these leads people to say irrelevant, useless things like Bionic Commando is bad because there's no jumping or an RPG or FPS campaign is bad solely because it is "linear" or a game is bad because the player isn't able to change the outcome enough. These are preferences, but not standards.

Question 2: If the purpose of a review is to suggest to consumers how they should spend their time and money, why do we avoid less-granular grading scales such as Buy, Try, or Avoid? Example: Giant Bomb founder and former Gamespot editorial director Jeff Gerstmann told MTV's Multiplayer blog that “'How can I save people money today?' is basically the kind of mentality that I tackle this stuff with.” Under Gerstmann's directorship, Gamespot reviewed games on a hundred-point scale. Is a 9.6 different than a 9.7 when the wisdom of a purchase is what the reviewer wants to communicate?

If reviews are serving the purpose of being buyer's guides, the scale should not be more than 1-10, and even those can be difficult enough. The closer the scale is to 10 or below, the better. Crispy's scale (buy it, try it, fry it) is not something I'd want to see everywhere, but it's a view I can appreciate; I'm always curious what their score is on any titles I'm interested in.

Question 3: Actual sales rarely correlate with review scores in cases where games are not also heavily hyped and marketed. Increasingly, gamers pre-order games prior to the publication of reviews. Interactive demos allow our audiences to decide for themselves whether or not a game will be worth their dollars. In addition, word of mouth and message board discussions inform our potential audiences' purchasing decisions with an intimacy and directness that we cannot provide. Finally, review aggregation sites such as Metacritic mute the bias of individual reviewers and provide a bigger picture. Do these circumstances suggest that our self-perception is, well, delusional – a throwback to a time when magazines and websites were gaming's gatekeepers? If our audiences believe this, even if we do not, what are they really reading for?

I don't know! This is the question that has gotten everyone talking and self-analyzing again, but I tackled it in my last 3 or 4 blog posts.

I find it telling that it takes a very long time for people to figure out whether a game is one they would like. Even forums struggle; Dead Space is still a game people most people cannot figure out by reading about it, and I wish the recent arguments on innovation had taken place around that title rather than Mirror's Edge, since it did not innovate that much but did have solid delivery. It really should be the other title mentioned (also by EA's push for a little bit more IP, interestingly enough) in these discussions, but I think everyone's burned out now.

Question 4: Can criticism (concerned with telling our audiences what they're spending time and/or money playing as opposed to whether or not a game is worth spending time and/or money to play) coexist with reviews? Is a competent review also a critique -- as is so often the case where lit, movies, and music are concerned -- or should we separate the two?

As with most elements of pop culture, it seems inevitable that the two will combine. However, the buyer's-guide-reviews will still exist without critique, so I hope criticism gets its own spot in culture at large later on. It drives me crazy that you can discuss music, movies, books or anything else with a stranger or in groups, and to talk about them as critical and cultural products, but not games.

One thing at a time, I guess; though ideally there would be space for all three types, with criticism and criticism/reviews in a state of growth. I don't worry about buyer guides, obviously, because economics is a stronger force here; they will obviously never go away.

Question 5: What can (or should) such criticism take into account? [Note: I don't want to jump the gun on the Evolving Reviews section here, so bear with me if you're wondering why I'm not yet asking certain obvious questions about the shape and challenges of videogame criticism.]

The framing of this question suggests this is a very, very big question. It deserves as much space as the rest of these combined, perhaps. However, to be uber-brief, I do wish for more analysis that is similar to literary criticism, the kind done by Ian Bogost, and for analysis of games as social systems. The latter is a space I try to tackle; I'm kind of bad at it, but I get to mumble about it elsewhere.

Amazon is Insane Right Now (Gaming on a Budget)

2008-12-01T09:17:00.004-07:00

Spore and Far Cry 2 for the PC? Fable II? Star Wars: The Force Unleashed? Ninjatown? A DS with a breast cancer ribbon on it?

20, 18, 40, 30, 15, 99. Dollars.

This is the time to browse. This is even more interesting than the Gamefly store (though that's year-round) right now.

Like Fine Wine

2008-12-01T08:37:00.003-07:00

Sometimes being late to the party is more enjoyable because you already know how to make yourself comfortable. I'm convinced that consumption of older media is the only honest way to enjoy it. If something is new, I get too caught up in wondering what everyone else's thoughts are; if a game is older, we know that everyone else made their minds up and that what's been said and done is over. And if anything to be said is new, it's more in the style where time is not urgent, the way it is with more academic topics. Fitting that an academic is the first one to treat games like books by having a book club of video games. I hope that's a trend that catches on. (Btw, Michael, there should be a link to it from the main page--I had to dig through posts to find a link to it, or would have had it not been referenced today.)

I've had a DS for 3 months and I picked up some GBA games; they are games no one plays anymore. I have no option but to enjoy them for their own sake. Also picked up the hard-to-find Contact, an invisible game that I suspect is much better than the reviews gave it credit for (I've only played it for 1.5 hours). Unforgettable beginning, and I mean literally unforgettable. I wish I could see some non-review writing on that title. Anyone know of anything?

When you want to enjoy games just for their own sake, what do you play? What would you be playing instead?

Also, an update on the last post: upon seeing some more writings that are far superior in experience and expression, I'll admit I now think the post below doesn't really mention anything original except the deliberate--reckless scale. Between that and Mitch's content--skill scale as reasons for playing, I think those two categories and four aspects (they aren't dichotomies because a game could have both, or even all four aspects covered) being taken into account would get rid of most criticism that is purely uninformed preference. Tired of "linearity", "freedom", "interactivity", and "narrative" issues being used as justification for negative criticism instead of simply the first elaboration of style? Me too.

What Game Reviews Don't Do, and Some Suggestions

2008-11-26T09:50:00.007-07:00

The Problem

So we have a problem. Games writing and reviewing is useless (my term), recognized frequently even by those who actually produce it. Leigh Alexander put it best (make sure to read the link) in the midst of a lengthy response to some criticism from N'gai Croal:

"And as I illustrated at Kotaku yesterday, the large majority of game consumers do not currently read reviews because they don't find them useful or relatable. The disconnect between the consumer who reads reviews and the one who doesn't is just a precursor to the rampant disconnect between those tasked with communicating about games and those who enjoy playing games.

This particular chasm, I feel, is one of the largest obstacles to games attaining widespread cultural value beyond that of a plaything. And it's also one of the most addressable."

Reviewers of other products have a sort of use; growing up, I heard my mom say she likes Roger Ebert's reviews because he usually likes the same things she does. That is not something I can think of anyone saying about any game reviewer anywhere, ever. This difficulty is exascerbated by the length of time required to play, meaning that partaking of a game that someone recommends is a bigger deal than watching a movie or listening to some music. Music and movie obsessors can get together and talk while sharing music or movies with each other and the fact that it's much easier to share movies and music make it easier for them to have a discourse. We envy them for this, or should. (Sidenote: this is another reason I think that for critical purposes, games are more similar to books than they are to movies or music, but there isn't room for that here.)

People have not truly learned how to recommend games to each other yet, but reviewers should be the first to learn how to do so. There is no broadly accepted way to recommend them. Right now, it takes a personal relationship and intimate knowledge of someone's playing habits to tell a person whether or not he will like a game. There is no common notion that everyone wants to play even Smash Bros. Brawl or Madden or Halo; when asked, a guy at my work just keeps repeating, mildly, that he doesn't like Halo, and doesn't want to play Halo.

We need to evaluate by intent. While some reviews are blatantly prejudiced, most won't admit it. Dead Space (I wrote about why this was hard to review and why the discussion, even in forums, makes it difficult for people to explain it), Mirror's Edge, Far Cry 2, Left 4 Dead, Fable II (a lot of people hated its 5-hour story and Sims-based methods of exploring the world), Red Alert III, Braid, Mega Man 9, Warhammer Online, and Spore. These games are receiving disparate reviews and opinions, especially by users and consumers; their quality or lack thereof is justified for different reasons from person to person. If the reader has to do extensive research, what use is a review?

The main problem is pretended objectivity. Games may be programmed, binary creatures, but with the exception of perhaps controls, everything in it is a matter of subjective taste.

We could take the advice of someone who is much more experienced with criticism, my mom's favorite movie reviewer:

Provide a sense of the experience. No matter what your opinion, every review should give some idea of what the reader would experience in actually seeing the film. In other words, if it is a Pauly Shore comedy, there are people who like them, and they should be able to discover in your review if the new one is down to their usual standard.

Game reviews don't really do that. Hell, even casual conversation on forums struggles to do that. Figuring out whether someone likes a game, even if everyone jumps in and tries to be as helpful as possible, is difficult. To figure this out, we need to take a step back and remind ourselves about how and why different people play games. Again, we need to evaluate by intent.

Ideas for Evaluation By Intent

These are some recommended do's and don'ts on how to evaluate by intent while trying to explain to everyone whether they will like a game. I admit some of these are more radical than others.

Do these consistently:

--Evaluate the single player and multiplayer as separate games. This doesn't necessarily mean equal time and space, but it does mean equal attention. Far Cry 2 sold well and received good reviews but plenty didn't realize it was more a single-player game than a multiplayer one and were left highly disappointed.

And when you mention multiplayer, mention if anyone actually plays it! Reviews do not mention this; this is why the XBox and Playstation forums are loaded with "Does anyone play this?" threads.

--How "economic" is it? Economics are only mentioned when a game gives a very small or big amount per dollar or if it has an atypical price (note how many console downloadable titles have the price mentioned in reviews). Make it a regular feature. You may have money and loads of free games as a game reviewer; your 20-something and 30-something friends may not need to buy used; but your average game player can only buy so many games and many are on a budget. Economics can't be ignored, and we are usually talking sixty bucks, not ten to twenty. It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter to you; it matters to too many people, parents, students, teenagers, and more.

--Evaluate how competitive and cooperative the game is. Changing trends show that readers want to know how much the multiplayer supports teamwork, competition, or both.

--In a similar light, make sure to mention how sociable the game is. Just because there's multiplayer doesn't mean it feels like you're playing with other people. It's unfortunate how little mention is made of how much a game brings people together, online or no. Culdcept Saga is highly competitive, co-operative, and sociable at the same time, making it an extremely unique multiplayer experience. No game reviews mention this but in the long run, that is half the reason a reader would want to buy it.

This issue has been brought to light by zombie modes in three new shooters that have come out, but it was always there.

--How well does the game work for deliberate and reckless playstyles?

I am not the first to highlight this issue--Penny Arcade and Mitch Krpata were on this beat long before I ever even thought about it. I'd like to review the differences and see what kind of effect it can have on reviews.

Reckless people go into the game with no set purpose. They want to see what it is, then make their choices. Some want to goof around, some want to explore; the key here is that they want to let go of their inhibitions while they play.

Deliberate gamers have already decided beforehand what they want; if the game meets their desires, they will keep playing. If not, they will either not like it or say "Gee, not in the mood for this right now, even if its good." This also boils down to immersion; deliberate gamers are the kind who like to forget they are playing games while taking themselves in; reckless players are aware they are playing a game and aware they are being someone else.

Most games allow for both of these playstyles; MMOs and creativity-based games such as Little Big Planet can be big dividers. Even learning LBP's tools requires recklessness that deliberate gamers lack, which is what made the opinions of it so intensely divisive. A deliberate gamer wants to play LBP and have fun platforming and playing the great levels others have made; they will be disappointed by LBP's awkwardness and the shortness of its "campaign."

Reckless gamers, on the other hand just viewed the campaign as a prelude, an introduction to exploration.

Each type lends itself to different genres; the problem is that some of the most popular genres allow room for both, making this another issue that is neglected. Some games are much more friendly only to one type. Survival horror is quite friendly to deliberate players but not reckless players, which is why opinions are so divisive on them as well.

And quickly, an opposite example where a reviewer expecting a reckless experience found Eternal Sonata to be highly deliberate, which yielded an atypically critical review.

These reviews are basically saying "I wanted this, but didn't get it, and feel cheated out of what I think I was promised" and "This game genre should adhere to these conventions I like, and it doesn't at all, so it fails." Instead, they could have said, in essence, "Creative gamers with no expectiations are more likely to love Little Big Planet, but gamers wanting a stellar platforming experience will be disappointed; that's not what it was made for," and "Eternal Sonata is an extremely linear RPG, so if the need to explore villages and continents is a requirement for you, that will turn you off."

Don'ts:

--Don't make mention of every piece of control or features. Summarize. Go into specifics only if it's something that has not been mentioned in previews and advertising. That nifty new cover system? Everyone's heard of that. It's on the damn box. Don't waste your time doing what Gamestop, the game box, marketing, and most of the other reviews are going to do. This will be elaborated further down this list.

--Spend very little time on graphics, especially on sprites, characters, textures, and scenery. People who care about this will look at these long before your review was every written and already have made up their minds. Those that aren't don't want to read about it. Animation or anything that causes the game to glitch, slowdown, interfere with gameplay are fine since that spills over into gameplay and other parts of the experience.

--Don't review the music. You are reviewing a game, not music, and you don't have the room to review everything. Most game reviewers do not know a damn thing about reviewing music, and most readers don't know anything about music criticism, either. Talk about it on your blog or in a feature if you must, but leave it out of the review. Say what kind of music it is and move on. Offer a sample if possible. If it's obnoxious, has limited tracks, or strangely limited options, you can mention this.

Also, those who care about music usually care about graphics, and well, they've also made up their minds. Acclaimed Japanese composer? Mention his name. No need to say anything else.

--Don't spend much time on the story unless it's an RPG or text-based game. There are no other genres for which a story makes or breaks the game. None. Any game that is not an RPG that manages to make use of the story to enhance the game experience is just giving icing on the cake. Be brief when you mention voice acting and story arc and plot twists. The state of games stories is very dry. Anyone who wants to know more will either just play the damn game or read about it in forums. Simply mention whether it complements or detracts from the rest of the game's package.

Example: Grand Theft Auto IV's story was nice, but given way too much damn attention. Would it have still gotten the score it did if the action sucked? What about if the story were worse than it is? Hmm.

I know that EVE Online is nerdsville, but....

2008-11-21T13:41:00.003-07:00

Man does this make it look cool. Make sure to note the responsibilities and benefits for being elected.

No, I'm not an ARG person

2008-11-12T08:17:00.002-07:00

Matthew Gallant just emailed me to say "So Snackbar isn't a front for an ARG, right? Just making sure." No, no it's not. He was joking, but I wasn't sure at first. I mean, look at it. There are plans to change the design, be assured.

To everyone, especially Michael Abbott, I'm sorry. I knew about her for a while, and I didn't realize there would be any harm or foul; had I known Michael was engaging in solicited emails with her, I'd have given him the tip. I've known for a month.

I was not aware that ARG's are highly offensive to some; it was no harm to me that the blog served as a low-importance backstory for a supporting character in some book I don't care about. One of the comments on Simon's breaking of the story says

"Mark, most writing about games is simply not of a quality and most critique superficial, but the blog was well-written and attempted to delve in deeper critique.

A sad reflection on the state of games writing? Probably."

And that was why it didn't bother me. It was unique, quality content. Why is it fine to accept vanilla crap content with blatant advertising but not quality, bloggy type of content with non-intrusive advertising?

The deceipt, you say. But deceipt happens all the time. People tell white lies all the time. Strangers, acquiantances, and co-workers lie all the time, and we accept that. And technically, the site never lied--the "about me" page was short and had only two links, both of which were highly telling. The handler has basically admitted that it was a mistake and they'd wished people had figured it out sooner--they didn't want this to happen. Even they are a little unhappy with how it turned out. It is possible someone could have figured it out immediately--the fact that no one did until now is just as telling about our Internet habits as it is about how convincingly real a fictionaly game blogger like Rachael Webster is.

Engaging in lots of email conversations--being upset about that is something I understand. But the fact that she did it at all doesn't just have to elicit feelings of anger because "oh no, we were marketed to"--instead, it can remind us that we still have much to learn about interaction on the Internet and about the state of the game blogging community. We can be introspective instead of pissy.

The challenges of reviewing Dead Space, and why I had to call it good

2008-10-28T14:11:00.008-06:00

One time when I was doing some interviewing at Disney Avalanche, a game developer drily told me that for them "an 8 is a 10". It prompted a brief discussion on reviewing game for what they are and what they're trying to accomplish rather than using a universal standard.

We wouldn't rate juvenile literature as poor because it has a lower level of vocabulary and doesn't have new and super-complex themes; we rate it as art (and sometimes morality) for the kids, tweens, and teenagers. It has a different purpose, and is reviewed and judged by different standards than what exists for adults.

This has led me to judge a game by whether or not it accomplishes what the designers intend it to. At best are games in which every single element, design choice, and design execution supports the game's overall intentions. At worst are games that have no intention but to simply exist and be purchased, such as 10-minute DS games that are worse than browser-based Flash games. Some games don't even seem to have figured out what they are trying to do.

Almost all games fall in between these two extremes; the phrase "tacked on" is applied when a part of a game does not mesh with the whole. A game is more than the sum of its parts, but some of those parts have no business mixing with the others. Many a game has a pointless multiplayer that just seems included to extend replay value and sales. Sometimes there are minigames that serve as diversions from everything else enjoyable about the game. Even if they're good, in actuality they're often a hindrance, like an unnecessary poem, letter, journal entry, or story within a story that has nothing to do with the real story.

This led me to some huge problems when reviewing Dead Space, dubbed as both a shooter and a survival horror game. First, it doesn't do either of those well. Second, shooters are my specialty, the genre I have reviewed the most and easily spent the most time playing. Dead Space is not much of a shooter. The only challenges for me were instant deaths, ammo issues, and cheap surprise attacks that take one third of your health. Any time I knew they were coming, they were slow and either poor shots or easy to dodge; I just had to line them up and shoot. This made Dead Space feel like work. And the survival horror stuff wasn't there that much; it's space, everything is in the open, it hardly even got dark, and it was more or less predictable; and you can upgrade your weapons and armor! To add to that, at the outset almost every single freaking part of it I could attribute to other games. Far Cry 2. Half Life 2. Bioshock. Doom 3 and Quake 4, even, which were mostly generic and looked to be a last hurrah for terrible, icky monsters in space that you shoot at close range with powerful guns. Bad + bad + derivative = bad, right?

I started to get excited. I, Michael Walbridge, would convincingly break down for the masses why Dead Space is overrated; and even if no one would read it, I'd have a good sample for a heavily-hyped game; I want a well-rounded selection to draw from when I start pitching for reviews. I must be getting somewhere if I didn't like what everyone else did, and can make a convincing and persuasive case as to why.

I got farther into Dead Space and my review thoughts and worried I was being unfair to the game. How many people are so aware of every single other freaking game, even all the shooters? What would a typical reader think of the game? That's something I want to respect. They don't give a damn about all those games combined or about narration or whatever, they just want a game that's "cool."

I played with headphones and I often played in the dark. I thought of what Dead Space was really aiming to be, a standard I promised I'd live by and had temporarily forgotten. Did EA say it was supposed to be a shooter and survival horror? No, those were attributions others had given it to summarize it. Dead Space was supposed to be Dead Space. But what was Dead Space supposed to be?

On the horror front, it still disappointed, and that is criticism I didn't change. It is predictable and it is really more gory and gross than it is scary. A lot of average guys would still want to play it because of the production values. And it did have some challenges that were not related to shooters or horror; the instances with zero gravity or zero air, or both were crisply presented, unique, tense, and they didn't seem "tacked on", or simply there just to be cool. They blended well with the whole package.

In fact, as I got into it very few of the elements seemed to be pointless, even the ones I didn't like. So what did I do in my review? I mentioned why some people (me, really) might not like it, and tried to say why everyone else would.

And by being patient with it, I found it is a little deeper than many others have given it credit for. Dead Space is a subtle horror story and manages to do something new for silent protagonists and game narration. Gordon Freeman, Jack, and Chell are you, and that forces you to feel as if you are part of their world. In Dead Space, Isaac is a silent protagonist just like them--or so you'd think. He actually has his own opinions. All his objectives have texts with his own opinions, and you see him on the outside. He rarely shows his reactions, but there is one time where he does which is rather poignant. And some of his decisions look obviously stupid. They often do not feel like decisions that I, the player, made.

Most subtly of all, on the last two levels, you, the player, gain a big distance from him. There are plenty of plot bombshells that surprise Isaac, but a couple of them are revealed to the player and not to Isaac. This is the game accomplishing something new: it draws you in as close as possible without making you the actual character. You don't feel like you are Isaac, you just become convinced you know how he feels. Then the game jerks you away from him; you now know how he feels but you also know something he doesn't. This is a blending, to me; you have your Bioshock/Portal element combined with something classical and effective, dramatic irony. You know that Romeo isn't really dead, and that Juliet doesn't know what's going on, and it gets to you. Isaac becomes a Juliet. And in the end, there are a couple parts people call plot holes that are in fact not holes but simply missing information. There are a couple of parts that, after you beat it, don't make sense (biggest bombshell, without spoiling it: if a certain person at the end of the game knew a certain thing, what did that mean for the beginning of the game?); but there are plenty of possible, rational explanations, none of them which aren't freaky or shocking.

This is Dead Space's saving grace as a horror story: it masterfully tells you plenty without telling you everything, and it isn't until you sit back and think about it that the lightbulb hits you and you have an "OMG! Why?" moment. You, like Isaac, don't have the answers you want, and you are left chilled.

Where I've been

2008-10-27T09:56:00.002-06:00

I've been quite busy; I guess I should take it as a good sign that I have something other than my blog to pour writing into, though, yes? I've been writing airy, proud stuff on GSW for a while and have been wanting to expand my reach and range of topics; other than an article for Eurogamer and some links to my GSW/GamaSutra/Blog stuff, I've not got much to brag about. I've also been receiving some encouragement from a writer or two and came to the realization that I don't know how to review, or at least have not had much experience at it.

At the same time, Snackbar Games has been growing a bit and its owner, Chris Rasco, finally got a lot of personal life stuff in order and has been spending a lot of time on the site. Chris Rasco and I had talked for a long time about really pushing the site. Get it enough traffic to make money, and we'll start paying people, he says. I've been the editor there for over a year; over 90% of all the final stuff in that time period is due to my amateur editing. Some mom and pop sites don't do much, or get anywhere, but then again some do. It's true Snackbar is just some little volunteer site, but it's way ahead of all the others. First, it used to be etoychest (technically making SB 6 years old), a metacritic-indexed site that people had actually heard of, headed in large part by Jason Dobson, who is now a respected writer for Joystiq and other places. Second, our traffic is so big we get unsolicited games we get over 20 games a month. We're in good with THQ, 2K, Activision, EA, and others. Not bad!

Anyway, Chris's efforts have had me doing a lot more editing and grabbing a lot more staff, so content here will slow down and I'll probably be posting on there more. I have written four reviews in the last two weeks, a news post or two, an interview with the devs for League of Legends (the first one they've given that I know of, coming later this week), and a first impressions piece on Call of Duty: World at War.

To anyone who reads (or writes!) reviews, I'd love feedback; I wonder if and why these are good enough to use as samples when I approach other outlets; if I have style weaknesses, I need to overcome them. The other editor, Graham, has thankfully been taking some of my workload and recently begun editing my stuff; before that, I wrote it, I usually didn't get any other eyes on it and then edited it, then it was posted. Feedback on the SB site is welcome, too, as Chris is making a lot of changes to it.

So that's where I've been, and that's where I'll be much of the time.

Protoss: "Snobbery Has Arrived"

2008-10-18T18:12:00.003-06:00

Good 'ole Kieron recently said that game critics are starting to move in the direction that other critics of other media are. He points out that one of the practical uses of critics is that they turn us on to titles we may not otherwise have heard of.

I mentioned it in chat with him the other day and he said he may have changed his mind about it. The money isn't really in that kind of criticism, at least not yet. But we still have it. It's still in operation. Braid is a game many would not have heard of had the critics not jumped out and said "OMG BRAID! LOOK HOW BEAUTIFUL!" Maybe not everyone is an artist, and maybe not everyone looked at it for very long, but many people went to the exhibit.

King's Bounty and World of Goo. Man, World of Goo has been all over my twitter feed and were it not for Michael Abbott or RPS's frequent references to it, I'd have not known about it. I once saw a trailer for it a very long time ago, but I'd long forgotten the name. And how would I have found it? Little Big Planet? A bit bigger scale, yes, but the buzz and prereviews have to have boosted its reach. Partially due to shows, events, and meetings that only game journalists and writers get to go to, sure, but still.

Blogs like Leigh's, Mitch's, Tom's, Michael's or N'Gai's will sometimes politely and quietly turn me on to hits before many people, even Internet readers, hear about them. And the Twitter feeds! Oh man. Yakuza 2, a recent PS2 exclusive, fits this pattern. Note the comments and where people say they are hearing about it.

Onion AV, Paste, Variety and of course Penny Arcade are financed operations that will still cover some of the bigger titles, but also make sure to find gems for you too. As in, "Hey, here's this one. Did you guys know about it? It's actually quite good. I don't see anyone talking about it. Sad, because I need some to talk about it (or play it) with."

There are plenty of "gamers" who have played so much that they are demanding and wanting to see the new big thing. This isn't because they are picky (even if they are), but because they have seen so much that they have a vampire's hunger for the blood of the new and sensitivity to the blindness of the redone or reused. Whenever another freaking first person shooter comes my way, I am always sniffing for the difference.

Game criticism has really gotten somewhere. If you say "I didn't like Braid," that's like saying you don't like the Dark Knight or that you didn't like Ulysses. This may sadden us, but really, if we've gotten to game snobbery where it's cool to like or dislike something, it means games are being taken more seriously.

Obsessed with innovation? I think not. Games are not nearly as broad or diverse as other forms of entertainment. They are also expensive. Why would we use money, time, and even perhaps emotion or curiosity on something so similar to what we already have? This type of criticism may not have the money in it, but just wait; the demand for this will inevitably grow.

Warhammer Online Recap

2008-10-07T12:48:00.004-06:00

So! I've been writing an awful lot about Warhammer Online lately. I also wrote an official normal review for it over at Snackbar Games, the tiny site that got me started that I'll be doing some more reviews for shortly. This is the last new thing on it I have for you. But wait! There really is more and it's not my fault.

Someone dugg my post about why WoW players go to WAR; that has easily been my most read post to date.

Lastly and most successfully is my piece on the community side of Warhammer. EA/Mythic: improve the text and chat system. It's highly outdated and it's sad that such a small and easy thing does so much against a wonderful game. Good thing MMOs are about huge changes and improvements, because you need it.

Anyway, this piece also got hosted on Gamasutra and WorldsInMotion, then linked to on Slashdot and then discussed by Tom Chick, the god damn king of games writers, on his personal site Fidgit. I'm a big fan of Jerry Holkins' writing, so by virtue of his love for Tom Chick, he technically likes me back. If I ever meet him in person, I will use this as my first piece of evidence should he not understand my reasoning.

DRM: the Hate Continues

2008-10-06T13:44:00.002-06:00

I think it's going to be non-stop from here, really. Mass Effect for PC had a bad time of it, and I also stumbled upon a certain new release while at Amazon.

EA et. al: it's not going to get better from here. Every single place on the Internet is covering this, and its pouring gasoline on the flames. Unlike console games, you can't rely on the ignorance of the many whose soul sources of gaming info are huge game sites, Game Informer, and Gamestop employees.
Why?

Because PC Gamers spend lots of time on the Internet. Because they have a PC, and they game with it. Get a clue.

Mega Man 9: Modern, Meet Retro. Retro, Meet Modern.

2008-10-03T14:22:00.009-06:00

Okay, so I've gotten to play Mega Man 9 a bit and I think the game is a great specimen, gaming's first meta-period-piece. Some people call Upton Sinclair's The Jungle a snapshot of culture and a piece of history, but not a very literary or entertaining read. It maintains its importance as a cultural artifact, a turning point, something that matters. Mega Man 9 doesn't innovate or call itself art or revolutionary, but it is a great piece of our period, something that will help old gamers understand new and new understand old.

Mega Man 9 may not have consciously meant to do that, but it had to be in the developer's minds. The thing I love most is that it manages to display the developers' opinions (or at least, the opinions they're allowed to express) of video games in an open state. What I mean is that while the message Mega Man 9 sends is not readily apparent to those not critical of games, it's not exactly invisible.

Mega Man 9's differences aren't limited to its place in time and its salute to the past. It is also a carpet ushering in the era of the new. It's similar to the first 6 editions, but should not be properly regarded as part of the old series. It's paying respects to gaming's past while admitting that we've moved on.

The first difference is the required integration into current game systems. This includes a traditional Mega Man menu with "Go Back To Live Arcade" written on it and a save feature that doesn't feature passwords, but simply a hard drive. These are simply requirements, though; the game itself doesn't necessarily have to be different based on this. But it doesn't end there.

The level and boss designs in Mega Man 9 are very different, and so are the ways you beat them. The levels are shorter and the difficulty concentrated. In the former Mega Man games, the difficulty was smooth and buttery. Here, it's chunky and not evenly spread. In a Mega Man level, there is only one objective: get to the end. It was always hard, but here it's a different kind of hard: single, isolated points of concentrated insanely stupid challenge.

There are basically two kinds of levels:

1. Easy, then a difficult miniboss (or series of bosses) battle in the middle, then a moderately difficult section to finish. (Magma, Concrete, Jewel, Hornet. Concrete has 3 elephants instead of a singular mini-boss.)
2. Easy, then an extremely difficult section filled with difficult-timed jumps and plenty of instant-killing pits or spikes. (Tornado, Splash, Plug. Galaxy Man is this pattern, too, though his level is much easier than the other three of this type).

The bosses are different, too. Previously, the bosses would follow set patterns. Here, the bosses follow patterns, but they change depending on your position. In Mega Man 3, Snake Man ran back and forth across the screen no matter your position. These bosses will stay on one side if that's where you are. The bosses are thus more difficult because their A.I. is improved. They go from being wind-up clocks to responsive, auto-attacking land mines. Their attacks are based on your position.

But here's the catch: they still do the same amount of damage. They have to run into you about 8 or 10 times and then you're dead. And there is no power slide, no chargeable mega buster as introduced in Mega Man 3 and Mega Man 4; nothing to help compensate for the increased dodging difficulty. I wonder if dodging some of them is impossible. Hornet Man is extremely difficult but possible to avoid, but I see no way to dodge Magma Man at all.

Yet, Magma Man is one of the five bosses I've defeated. And I didn't beat him by using a secret weapon, a gaming feature that can only linger in the past. I beat him by using screws I'd collected over my lives to purchase energy tanks. I kept refilling my life, and then I beat him. It takes a while to earn those tanks, but I got them.

Mega Man thus goes the way of the future: it turns out you really can just muscle your way through the game as if it were another XBox 360 game with regenerating health and save points. The achievements, awards, and time attacks are there to give you bragging rights and assure you there's still a reward. If you want to see the content, the story, the world, that option is surely open to you. Games can be difficult; that is allowed. However, to see every part of the game's content, including the ending, is guaranteed as long as you put in the time. That's now considered a right in the games of today, a right that was never demanded in the 80s or even the 90s.

Yes, it's difficult. Sure, you have lives, sure, the save points aren't as convenient as most modern games are, and sure there are extremely difficult bosses, jumps, and landings, but really, Mega Man 9 isn't a remake of the past; it's a tongue-in-cheek admission that we've moved on while maintaining respect for the path paved before. It's "what happens if we make the past meet the new?"

The story at the beginning has a key line from Dr. Light that prefaces Mega Man's design philosophy: "Be careful, Mega Man, you haven't done this in a while." Almost none of us have, and we are likely to never do so again.

(Update: I revised this on the 10th because some of it was very poorly written.)

New GSW Column: Warhammer Online

2008-10-03T13:18:00.002-06:00

This week I attempted to summarize the community at Warhammer Online. It's my first time being in an MMO at launch, so I found it interesting and exciting. As you know, I'm a convert to the game, so I was motivated to give it some more coverage.

Really, I wanted to demonstrate that I can write on the fly and get to the heart of a game community without years of extant casual forum discussion floating all over the place. I think I managed to be fair and capture investigators' hesitance and the participants' exuberance at the same time.

Things Muschie says, III: How to Get the Female Vote Edition

2008-10-03T08:13:00.004-06:00

Muschie:

"She's so beautiful."

Later:
"She's so beautiful, though."

Later: "She's so beautiful." (She says this three more times; she's never really seen her before.)

Palin: "Nuke-ya-lur." (She says this about 4 or 5 more times. Muschie grimaces each time.)

Me: "I find it humorous that one of the points which is a minor point for those who don't like her ends up being your major point. Mispronunciation."

Muschie: "She's so pretty though!"

Me: "You're going to vote for someone pretty, even if she's dumb?"

Muschie frowns. Then grins.

Muschie: "Yes I am, just because you said that. Hah."

An Exhaustive Analysis of 8-bit Mega Man Music

2008-09-30T08:42:00.009-06:00

Of the current generation of consoles, I only own a 360. I've also been highly anticipating Mega Man 9, but it comes to the 360 on October 1st, about a week after the other two consoles. To console myself and tide myself over I've gone to the Tubes to listen to some of the soundtracks and give a listen to some of the older ones.

This is the funny thing: appreciation of Mega Man music is a microcosm for the kind of snobbery you see in indie-music-loving white people. It's also a microcosm for the popularity of the series as a whole.

Below is an extremely typical favorites list. Warning: there are a lot more links farther down below. You might OD.

The first point of evidence I'll point to are the broad, commonly accepted rules. These rules are useful so that you can serve the purpose of having a standard for people to adhere to while still letting them think that they're thinking independently! This way, everyone can have great taste, except for a few people.

Second, opinions are fierce, no one really thinks the same thing, and the love is very sincere. And serious. Bashing Mega Man music is like saying the Beatles suck. Looking at the many countdown lists and top tens, you'll see some common themes.

This is what I've learned about each of the first 6 titles. Remember, it's a microcosm: the opinion about the music is the opinion about the game itself.

Mega Man 1: No one played this game. People who like the music for this game like it because they're bragging about how old they are or how young they were.
Mega Man 2 and 3: considered the best of the series. The argument about which one is better doesn't ever fully come to bear because a. there are 6 freaking Mega Man titles for the NES, and picking one is hard, b. an argument about whether 2 or 3 is better may reach physical violence, and c. some realize this is an extremely stupid thing to argue about.
Mega Man 4: universally agreed that it is good. If you think it is better than 2 or 3, you're in the minority, and if you think it's better than both you have weird taste.
Mega Man 5: it's considered okay to like this title, but no one played it. The SNES was out at this point.
Mega Man 6: why this was released is a puzzle. It's pretty weird. Also, everyone had a Super Nintendo by this time and didn't bother to get this one. If no one got 5, why would anyone get 6? Seriously, find me someone who's played Mega Man 6 and you'll have found who is still playing this. (Better quality found at 2:20 here. Note: the music from this game is better J-Pop than any Mega Man ever had.)
Mega Man 9: the arguments have already erupted over this one. Agreed: hardest one evar. Most agree: comparing it to all the previous ones is pointless. "Favorite song" can be read in favor of all 8 of robots. It's obvious that Tornado's is smokingly the best: it's the longest and was made for the trailer.

Now for my own stupid opinions on what's overrated, underappreciated, and correct, at least as far as the music goes.

Overrated: All of Mega Man 1. Seriously, 1986 compared to the 1990s. Just...yeah.

Wily's Fortress in Mega Man 2. Man, just because it was your first time getting to the end of the game doesn't mean anything. 3, 4, and 5 have better sounds in the castle department.

Universal acclaim for all of 2. 2 was good. But Crash Man has one of the worst tracks ever. Heat Man wasn't great either. Bubble, Wood, and Air Man are good, but not stellar.

Snake Man does not have the best track in 3. Top Man is overrated; good, but not stellar. Skull Man has universal acclaim because he sounds like he's from 2. But he's not 4's best.

Water levels are good and yeah, okay, making music that corresponds well with the elements is a great feat, but water music has never been seen as superior at any level, anywhere. Bubble, Dive, and Wave Man plus Splash Woman are decent, but not at the top.

Deserved acclaim: 2 and 3 were the best, I concede. Magnet, Spark, Flash, and Metal Man are constant favorites and for good reasons. These are truly awesome tracks; nary a squabble here.

Underappreciated:
3: Needle Man and Shadow Man are never mentioned. I have no idea why; probably because they start slowly. These track aren't 38 seconds long, but a minute, unlike the other tracks from 3. This allows them to be more complex.
4: Ring, Drill and Dust Man. All of these start off slowly, but progress somewhat unpredictably.
5: All of 5 is severely underrated. No one knows 5, but it really belongs with the pack. And 5 has longer tracks than its predecessors. Gravity, Napalm, and Charge Man stand out.
6: Okay, yeah, it was weird. Still, like 5, they had longer, more complex tracks. Check out Knight Man and Tomahawk Man (the latter is best between :30-1:00).

In conclusion, very few people played all the games, some of the best tracks were in 5 and in castle stages other than 2, Guardian Heroes goes for about 100 dollars on Ebay, and I hope you're not sick of the music.

If You Know WoW and Your Friends Are Playing WAR and You Don't Know Why, Let Me Enlighten You

2008-09-22T11:58:00.005-06:00

While all games elicit a range of opinions, the range of opinions on any specific game is usually narrow. You get a range of 60-83 on a scale of 100, with more than half between 65 and 77. You get numerous mentions of that one cool gun, the fact that they used the wrong button for crouching, or how the options are limited. Games are scientific that way; we're conditioned to like the familiar, comfortable and workable, and to only accept the new if it's an improvement or amusement.

Perusing the comments made on the dozens of videos, previews, and features about Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning, you'll see two common and fiercely defensive sentiments: Warhammer is a copy of World of Warcraft, cheap and derivative, or WAR is an improvement on WoW, the next big thing.

I'm in the latter camp. WAR has very little in common with WoW, but you'd not think so at first. One or two hours of WAR won't impress you if you still like some things about WoW, but try playing about ten hours of WAR and going back to WoW, playing a low level character. That's what I did.

WAR is for the informed, tasteful, higher-thinking MMO player. If you're older and more critical of games, if you often have the contrary opinion or are quick to find fault with what everyone says is awesome, you'll love it here, even if everyone is saying it's, well...awesome.

Here's why it's slow to impress: it does play a lot like WoW in some conventions. The action bars, bag space, and looting system are obviously influenced by the greats before it. There is some reorganization: different hotkeys, XP bar on the top, that sort of thing, but really, when you immediately start to kill 3 marauders or 4 squiggs or 4 guards, 5 ghosts and rally farmers and plant pikes with heads on them, your first thought has to be "Oh, God, this? Again? Nothing has changed!" then, you'll go back to your other MMO.

If you play for a while, different things happen, like public quests, dying, or (of course) PVP. One of the first quests is to do a scenario, which is a battleground. If you're unwise enough to choose the cool side, destruction, and to do so on a server which has a hell of a lot more of them than they do order, you may have to wait. Some people claim to have waited for hours. I've played on four different servers and not had to wait more than 10 minutes.

At any rate, the bell dings in your head if and when you reach another rank through doing some RVR (realm vs. realm, the game's term for PVP). A scenario was the first thing I did on one of my characters, and he reached rank 2 within minutes, because we were winning. In the permanent world, I hadn't moved more than 50 feet from my starting point, and I'd already gotten to do some instant RVR.

This is the first moment of realization: player against player combat gives everything to you. It is not an option. It is required, and you won't be punished for doing it. If you play WoW for the PVP, there's no reason to stay there and not go to WAR. The tank classes have the choice of being damage dealers, debuffers, choke point holders, or protectors. The non-clipping means a melee class can literally get in the way of enemy players. The healers aren't instant meat and can actually kill things. At this point, the dps classes sound like they've been hung out to dry, but they are still very popular and worthy of choice; they don't die easily if they fail to get the quick kill, and they're still necessary against any targets that are difficult to take down. The mechanicis and workings of these mysteries will doubtlessly be unfolded in the near future; already, message boards and guild chat is inundated with statisticians obsessed with the numbers as if they represented baseball.

RVR is tired at first, but only because (or if) your rank is so much lower than everyone else's. So it's back to the PVE, killing things for credit. Back to the tedium. Perhaps it's only WoW with a better PVP system, with a handful of features being an improvement. But the public quests come quickly enough; these are fun. Remember how in WoW, if there's a huge thing out there, some group quest, you must talk to the leader, must get in some preformed group? Not here. If there are 100 things to kill, and that cap is reached, everyone gets quest credit. Then, a huge dragon or giant, or some tough wizard comes out and bellows threatenings. Groups are open to join, and someone who isn't the party leader can "refer" people to join, helping the party combine at a quick level. WoW has never generated raid groups so quickly. And even if you're not in the group, every point of damage and healing goes toward helping your rank in rolling on the public chest for the public quest. That's right--after this awesome huge guy goes down, you're all rolling for the right to pick your item of choice from the chest. And no matter who was in whose group, everyone rolls, and everyone's stats count for assisting in that roll. By the way, you might be a mere rank (level) 3 at this point.

Another realization: WAR brings people together, if not personally. There is no penalty, no reason not to be in groups.

The regular quests, it must be admitted, are not very engaging or original. If you like the huge PVE "raids" from WoW, this game will disappoint you. But if you are sick of them, if you are tired of waiting around wondering if anything is going to happen or if you will even get to do anything interesting tonight, WAR is the place to go. Unlike that familiar place, your guild will always want you. Rank 6 and I'm already in a group of 5 to do a scenario.

I've gotten farther into the world at this point and I finally make a mistake. I die.

What happens? Do I take 2 minutes and 15 seconds to walk back to my body, make sure I won't be attacked, resurrect, then wait for my health and mana to go back up using materials I bought or looted? This is what happened when I went back to my alt, a level 17 mage on WoW.

No. I get a debuff. Minus ten percent to my total health for 15 minutes. Also, I can pay to remove it.

I'm back where I am and realized I wandered into an area with creatures that were a bit higher than normal. I must have taken a wrong turn. I look at the map again to see where I should have gone. Then I see it. Red patches.

I'm not kidding here: when you are told to talk to a person, it's marked on your map. When you do a quest, the area where that quest is located is marked on your map, even if you haven't been there yet. This game helps you level. And anyway, when you are killing things it's usually not 12, it's 3-5. You aren't collecting 15 or 20 of something. You're collecting 1 or 2. You don't have to walk far into the barren Barrens, halfway across the zone. You aren't redirected every which way so you can waste your time. You don't have to eat food. You don't have to drink water. You don't have to walk 20 minutes to "get the flight path"--when you arrive at one of them, you get the equivalent flight path in two other areas. Your progress in flight paths is linear, not lateral--you go from point 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 until you are ready and done.

Your gear doesn't need to be repaired. There is no aristocracy of players where the people who have the most time are the wealthiest and best-geared, where there are disparate gaps between hardcore and casual.

The best thing about WAR isn't public quests, awesome as they are. Those are there to ease the pain of leveling. The best thing about WAR is that it doesn't act like an arcade game, there to suck the new version of quarters, 15 dollars a month, by forcing you to stay on and take longer for various arbitrary reasons. Your time is not wasted with graveyard runs, getting flight paths, repair bills, quests whose directions are unclear and require long bits of travel, eating and drinking, weapons and armor that aren't ideal for killing both players and monsters (why would an awesome shoulderpad be like that?), and doing business in the city all day. Don't mistake me: there is a very large city, and there are items to sell and buy. But let's be clear: this city is not the city of bored people lounging around drinking, arguing, and trying to find someone who wants to buy their enchantments. This city will be a base under siege, a place to restock your potions and potion materials and then get back to the fight. There is a crafting system, but it's not there to make you stay on so that you can eventually find a group in a world where it's increasingly difficult to find one.

WoW's got character, sure. The Postmodern worldview is cleverly applied in a fantasy setting where Alaskan-style pipes erode Netherstorm and the definition of who is good and bad is fuzzy. The difficult grouping system makes WoW feel like you are on New Jersey street at 3 AM, frequently bumping into people but rarely into someone who you want to communicate with.

WAR, on the other hand, is simple; it's fantasy, where there's good and evil, us vs. them, with all the objectives and desires in the game being circumscribed into one great whole. Everyone's on the same team here unless they're on the other team. You can't be lonely here, not from a gaming point of view. WAR is neat and tidy; it knows what it's supposed to do, and does it. It doesn't distract you, it doesn't try to buy more time so you'll buy more time, and it doesn't make you stressed. Perhaps best of all, you can play it at your own pace and at your own dosage without regretting it or without missing out on what's best in it.

WAR makes it fun to roll alts. People are already doing it. WAR doesn't make you regret a short economic attention span. WAR doesn't separate people from each other. WAR doesn't have any content that conflicts with itself.

Unlike WoW, WAR is war done right; not at war within itself. It's people fighting the right people. It's an MMO that has beaten WoW at PVP and at managing to reduce conflict amongst players, and that's why it is an impressive achievement.

Changes may stink, but no permanent losses

2008-09-18T10:22:00.005-06:00

Across formal and informal outlets the discussion about the direction of games journalism has become somewhat of a dry topic, juicy stories withstanding; but the direction of the games industry hasn't. Writers, commenters, teenagers and "older" gamers everywhere are concerned about this or that trend in the games industry.

While there are unfortunate and foreseeable changes coming, none of them mean "never" or "always". Regrettable events occur, but I'm here to tell you that unless you're in Germany or Australia, gaming the way you want it is here to stay.

I'm optimistic because of good things. I'm also optimistic because bad things aren't so bad. First, the not-so-bad bad things.

The Neglect of the "Hardcore"

I can see why this is a worry for some. Nintendo's behavior at the last E3 was disappointing, and did not cater to the more serious gamer. The "hardcore" demographic is being left behind by the Wii.

But this is old news. The "got a Wii, don't play it" attitude is not a new one, and we've still seen lots of great stuff come out for the "hardcore". Not on the Wii, of course, but I doubt anyone who considers himself "hardcore" relies solely on the Wii for gaming.

There are numerous Halo projects coming, Gears of War 2, more Command and Conquer crap, Starcraft II, Left 4 Dead, Mad World, Team Fortress 2 is still frequently updating, Call of Duty 5 is coming out in November. There's also more Rock Band, more Guitar Hero, and more Fallout. Street Fighter IV is hitting early next year. And there are still a great deal many of players playing Team Fortress 2, Call of Duty 4, and Halo 3.

There are enough games to play now, and there are enough new ones coming out to replace them. As long as people will buy these kinds of games like they're chicken nuggets, they continue to be made. Speaking of money...

The Shift of Money

Another common worry regards the "big money" that is involved in games. Some developers wonder aloud about the impact that advertising will have on games.

Advertising will change games that have advertising. Advertising won't change the whole industry--we have no reason to think it's gotten to that point yet. Even as it increases, there will be a split; independent games, "artsy" games, and any other games that refuse to be ad-driven will still be here. There will be a demand for them, and they will be created.

To think the fact that corporations and shareholders are ruining the industry and screwing it up shows a vast misunderstanding of how the industry works in the first place. Every console is backed by a lot of money. It isn't possible to produce consoles without a huge sum of money, and the only people who have a huge sum of money, regardless of whether it is one person of a few hundred shareholders, are not going to spend money solely in order to further the field of video games. They are doing it to make money themselves.

Anything else that is "cool" is also money-driven, even if it has artistic influence. Jonathan Blow understood this. Numerous times he has said that Braid wasn't about money; it was about making a game he wanted to make. Yet he wants to make more games; in order to do this, you kind of need money. So the money matters a lot, even if something matters more.

Any other industry that involves entertainment on a level of mass distribution is going to have big business and money principles behind it. Our other comparisons of books, comic books, music, movies, radio and television have the same shit going on in business deals. Mergers and business failures and sellings-out abound; gaming is not the first form of entertainment to have people howling with joy, laughter or despair at the most recent industry news or the most recent gossip or comment from some respected or infamous insider.

Even if games do get worse because of money, the "indie" thing hasn't gone away. The RIAA, music industries, and publishing industries have gone vastly downhill in the last decade; they are doing much worse than games are. And yet, the way of "indie", the way of how you want it prevails.

So many people want to be in a band, write a book, or make a game that we will always have them the way we want, even if not exactly how we want. Publishing on demand, indie music, and the fact that for every successful indie band, 999 other unsuccessful bands are willing to take a chance and fail ensure us that there will always be something there.

Points of Optimism

The game industry, games, and consumers are all maturing.

Players are getting older. There are a lot of shitty games. I frequently hear people say "gee, there sure are a lot of shitty games coming out." Game reviewers complain about being drained by having to play bad games all day. Their situation is not unique. All serious reviewers mostly review stuff they don't like. Most of the selection that is available is junk. If you go to a large used bookstore, like the one we have in SLC, you can see numerous books from 1900-1950. Rare! Hard to find! Unique! OMG! I once saw 4 of the same one from about 1910. They cost 8 bucks each. I was confused, until I started looking through it: it wasn't very good. It was what you might call "commercial fiction". Music, movies, books, games, TV: the majority is forgotten. 80-90+% of it is crap, especially by any one person's standards. The gems are precious and few. It's always been that way.

The nature of industry news is becoming very similar to that in other entertainment industries. It is a self-aware industry; journalists and bloggers are known by name, and so are company executives and game developers. Because it lends itself more heavily to social media and the Internet, it's a little bit more "open". Game developers and publishers (some of them, anyway) are listening and hearing actual game players more than they have been. Game players know better how to communicate to publishers and developers. And industry coverage provides bridges and forums for discussion; even if it's two people shouting across a canyon to each other, that's better than where we were before.

Take Spore. The DRM has been a hot issue. So hot it mobilized players. They took action, then gaming news outlets covered the Amazon hate, the Sporepedia hate, and it's piracy rate (higher than normal). What did this do? It prompted EA to respond. Not only did they speak directly about Spore concerns, but they also spoke about Red Alert 3; they didn't really have to do this, but they chose to anyway as they'd heard much about it on their forums.

Are they doing anything anyone wants? In the eyes of most, no. Are they at least saying something about it? Yes. This is the worst, but it's still better than where we were before.

Ages

2008-09-14T02:06:00.002-06:00

A long time ago, I wrote an article and I've been anxious to see it posted so I could add it to my uh...vita.

Eurogamer! Why yes. This is another first for me--it's the first thing I've had published that wasn't published by Gamasutra and friends.

I really would never have thought to pitch them had it not been for Kieron so even though he doesn't have time to read my wimpy little blog, I have to thank him again for the tip.

Castle Crashers: an homage

2008-09-09T15:01:00.021-06:00

No, not an homage to Castle Crashers: an homage by Castle Crashers. The developers have publicly stated being influenced by the classics, and it shows. Now for an attempt to cover the basic elements of design that all beat 'em ups are held to:

Thugs + Baddies

1. 1 in 6 enemies will be just like the rest, only huge. Players must hate every single one of them. They must have twice the life of a regular guy and they must do more damage and difficult-to-avoid moves. Also, these guys are the only non-boss characters allowed to grab the players.

2. At least one baddie should be doing something that looks extremely out of place just before getting into a brawl. Sitting or leaning while pretending nothing is happening is common. Also permissible is eating, drinking, smoking, or (in CC) reading a newspaper.

3. There must be at least three creative ways for baddies to enter the scene other than simply being on it when the player arrives there. Suggested ideas include jumping through windows, opening doors, dropping from ceilings, taking teleports, and arriving on moving vehicles.

4. For at least one point in the game, the player must be surrounded by a shitload of enemies. Watch the first half a minute of this video:

Level Design + Theme

1. The dramatic beginning: there is either a death or a kidnapping at the beginning and the fight is done out of a need for revenge or rescuing. In every beat'em up there must be at least one beautiful woman, and at least one is either in need of rescue or a selected character.

So, a Turtles game has no selectable woman, but you must rescue April. In a Streets of Rage game, there isn't a woman to rescue, but you can kick their asses with Blaze.

There is either a death, kidnapping, or both.

2. It's best if it shows the boss or collection of bosses take something at the beginning. It can be the girl, some public official, an object, or both. Better if the final boss is part of it.

2a. Ideally, a different version of this will be occur at some point in a later level.

3. At least one level must include traveling through air or water in an object as if you were driving a car. Better if both.

Sorry for the ugly pic, but you get the point.

4. There should be at least one level or a part of a level where fighting occurs on a high-speed object. The object doesn't arrive at its destination until you beat up all the guys who are chasing or awaiting you. It is preferable that if the player falls off, the players takes damage and is magically dropped back on the object.

5. There needs to be an elevator ride that doesn't end until you beat up all the guys who jump on to or into the elevator.

6. An obstacle course on a high speed object is optional. It must be one of the most memorable parts of the game.

7. There should be a finger, hand, or arrow that tells the player to go, even if it's not an arcade game with a time limit and doesn't need it.

7a. It is preferable to have a pointless, slow, time limit.

7b. If your game is cool enough, there can be a time limit that matters. This time must be the amount needed to escape from a very large explosion.

8. There is kissing somewhere in the game, whether it is sexual or sweet. It is usually given to the main characters as a reward for rescue. Watch the ending of this video:

9. It is strongly recommended that players or characters be required to beat each other up in jest or out of competition. See above. If these options aren't available, consider making them able to hit each other at anytime.

10. If there is conflict between groups or a few individuals groups, the motives for that group are quite unclear and usually amount to basic despotism. Bosses and villains can only be memorable because of their moves or even their looks, but not for their motives or words.

11. Obstacles in regular levels that work by alternating between on and off must are optional. So are pits and holes. Alternating obstacles must deal in elements, crude substances or high technology.

Permitted:

--Fire/Lava/Flame
--Ice
--Electricity
--Oil

Required, unless in a fantasy setting:

--Lasers

Gear + Powerups

1. The main method of replenishing life will not be first aid kits or anything having to do with technology. It will be food. Junk food gives you the least, appetizers, fruits, and vegetables give you a medium amount, and meat of any form gives you all, or almost all of your life back. This food can come from:

--Greasy guys you just beat up with your bare hands
--Revealing them by breaking hollow objects like barrels or boxes
--Out lying in the open, unattended, in the sun
--Revealing them by breaking large concrete items that are not hollow, such as statues, rocks, and signs

2. It is preferable that there occasionally be something for the player to ride on and hit people with. If there is, when you reach the end of an area, the screen goes dark and a new area loads, the ride must disappear. Enemies who are not part of number 8 or are not bosses can use these as well.

3. Shops are permissible, but only if the game is badass and has a basic inventory system. It is unfortunate that Double Dragon III broke this rule.

Bosses

1. There must be at least one boss who is either completely mechanical or is a person relying on a machine. It is preferable to include both.

2. There must be at least one boss that is a giant mutant or abnormal or created creature of some kind.

3. At least one boss must have a bunch of regular baddies surrounding him. At least one must be able to call for reinforcements.

4. At least one boss will come back to challenge players again. This can be in different form or state if desired.

Think I covered most of it, though I'm sure people can point other stuff out. Jokes aside, Castle Crashers is amazing and combines the best of the old with a dash of the new.

The things that excite us

2008-09-09T09:22:00.003-06:00

I've been quoted in a Wikipedia article twice--once as part of the introduction and once in the summary.

And no, I didn't do it.

Warhammer Online beta news

2008-09-08T18:16:00.002-06:00

I waited over 24 hours to download this stupid thing and the file is corrupted.

EA/Mythic, you guys suck. Can't even get people online in the beta...what's going to happen at the actual launch, hmm? Hmm?!

Things Muschie says, II

2008-09-08T12:43:00.005-06:00

This is regarding the last post.

LameStop: "Would you like the bubble gum pink, or the metallic pink?"

Musch: "The bubble gum."

L: "Oh, that's an old model, they don't make it anymore, I should've checked to see if we still have one; let me go check."

*checks*

L: "Looks like we don't have bubble gum. Want me to call another one of the stores?"

M: "Yes, please."

L: "Looks like they do have one. It's at the Sugarhouse location--"

Me: "On Highland Drive?"

L: "Yeah, been there?"

Me: "Yeah."

M: "Great!"

Me: "Honey, just so you know, that's the one with the obese guy who you said was rude and weird and leered at you."

M: "Oh." *turns to L* "I guess we'll take the metallic pink." *turns to me* "It's not really pink, it's more like rose."

Me: "I really don't mind going over there so we a better color." (Note: the location is 15-20 minutes from us).

M: "Yeah, but I hate that guy."

The deal was I had to get a pink one

2008-09-08T09:21:00.001-06:00

I was born in 1981. I didn't get a cell phone until 2005, and except for a short period of my life, I hardly ever use the thing. I'm an old man at the age of 26, already insisting I don't need these gadgets and plenty of online software getups. Other than a cell, and a basic one that I don't use for anything at all, not even texts, I don't use anything. I figured out why; it's because I'm an introvert, and that means I need to take breaks from people. I don't need technology to help me get over my cravings for extroverted needs.

So I never really gave much thought to getting a DS, and it wasn't until I'd edited a lot of Snackbar reviews that I considered the fine library it has available. But I do have one, and now, I feel safer. Am I stuck at a movie theater watching a movie I don't like? Am I waiting outside the changing room for half an hour? Am I waiting in line for ten minutes? Waiting for Muschie to get out of work for fifteen minutes?

In all of these situations save the last, a book doesn't suffice. A book does not fit in your pocket, and a book is usually not carried with convenience all over the place. Books are harder to read in distracting surroundings.

It wasn't until I got it that I got it. I'm converted to the way of the portable.

Battlefield Heroes isn't "ripping off" Team Fortress 2

2008-09-05T09:57:00.018-06:00

Battlefield Heroes is frequently being compared to Team Fortress 2, and for good reason--it's the only other FPS with a similar style of art, and a very unique style at that.

This has led to frequent criticism that it's just some copy, just some clone, and that for that reason it's going to be inferior. The topic of making decisions about games based on trailers or previews is a dry one, and the people who still engage in such fallacies aren't open to other methods or techniques of evaluation, so right here I'll stop myself and think in my head: fine, let's look at it.

My own excitement about the title has decreased, too, for reasons I'd like to think are more intelligent; still, let's not talk about the gameplay or the rest of it. Let's talk about the art, and why the art doesn't matter that much.

Battlefield Heroes:

Team Fortress 2:

Okay, so it's similar. And? What does that mean about the game? How is it a copy of Team Fortress 2?

Is it also copying TF 2 because you have guns? Because it's an FPS? Because it's a team game? Because it's multiplayer only? Because there are classes?

Look, instead of complaining that Valve is being imitated, maybe we should be rejoicing that there is a new standard, a new paradigm, a new sub-sub-genre: a different style of FPS, titles that are just there to be fun, with extreme violence that is even more unrealistic and is merely humorous at best, and gross at worst.

I mean, if you want, they could give you more of this grit:

These guys are totally ripping each other off. OMG.

Also, you get 100 achievement points or 3 trophies if you can tell me where each of these are from.*

*As Mitch would say: you do not get 100 achievement points or 3 trophies.

Spore links

2008-09-05T09:00:00.003-06:00

Spore is one of the most anticipated games of all time, and certainly one of the most innovative. To anyone with a PC: if you consider PC games as part of the canon, this will be one of the titles of the year that you had to play. Add it to your stack.

Now for links:

Real biologists who are real gamers talk about Spore as a game. Not only about the game itself, but its potential impact on how people view evolution and science. Must read for those who are interested in the topic of "games and society"

Kieron, master of of the universe, gives you the real, almost exhaustive rundown on Spore so you can know what you're getting into.

One of the weirdest and coolest marketing methods I've ever seen. No, not the cool street art in Boston, but a bunch of miscellaneous celebrities' creatures. Melissa Joan Hart and Stan Lee included, if you're into those kind of people.

Things Muschie says

2008-09-02T08:53:00.003-06:00

"What are you playing? Pixar Terrorist?*"

"No, Final Fantasy."

"Final Fantasy? Only really nerdy people play that.**"

*She assigns made-up names to half of the video games I play. It should be obvious which one she's referring to.
**This is probably true.

Something that took me too long to learn

2008-08-28T10:32:00.003-06:00

Man, people comment without reading, don't they? Like, MOST of the time. I thought GSW and Gamasutra could maybe-be-just-a-little-bit-different-please but nope.

I don't know whether I should at least be happy people are reading, or upset that people don't read and thus don't like and may not read anymore?

An exhaustive analysis of my gaming habits

2008-08-28T10:01:00.004-06:00

I want a new game
One that won't make me cheat
One that won't make me throw my pad
One that is possible to beat

I want a new game
One that won't count the score
One that won't have stupid kids
Or make me feel too bored

I have this cycle where I need games I can play for a long time. I'm a voracious feeder. Some people, such as reviewers, play an average of one new game every one or two workdays, every year.

I don't have that luxury. What I do instead is feast at the buffets that some games offer until I've absorbed it into my DNA; then the pleasure decreases, and my Darwininan compulsions send me in search of new traits.

Here are the games I sunk many, many hours into. Let us analyze this pattern by looking at my feast games in roughly chronological order:

Final Fantasy

For the old 8-bit NES. As a 9-year-old with a strategy guide, this game seemed so, so long to me. I probably really only spent 20-30 hours on it, but it's the only NES game I remember consuming me.

Street Fighter II

My love for this started in the arcade. When it came out to the Super NES, I played it with my friends a lot. I made sure to see all the endings, too. Once, at an arcade, when I was 11 or 12, this guy in his 20s gave me a noogie for beating him like 10 times in a row. If only I were so Asian now!

(One time I played Marvel vs. Capcom and this little kid challenged me; he had to stand on his tip-toes just to see his power bar at the bottom. He usually beat me.)

Saturday Night Slam Masters

Another Capcom favorite, the 4-player action for this was stupendous. It was awesomely ported and me and my friends would play it for hours at a time.

Mario Kart 64

The first 4-player edition of the series. Battle mode and racing were had in abundance.

Goldeneye

The N64 had lots of 4-player games, but THIS one we played the most. Grenade launchers in a 3 v 1 was their favorite: they hated how good I was. I have spent more time on this game more than any other game on the console. I also played the single player a lot because the unlocks made for awesome multiplayer options. The second level in under two minutes was difficult and had a random chance element to it.

Super Smash Brothers

My mom told me I couldn't use the computer and I was hardly ever on the TV anymore due to the next game on this list. So I decided to buy this one. Link had the most kills: over 1,000, I think. So much data!

Starcraft: Brood Wars

This game is the only one to negatively affect my life for more than a period of one month. I used money from my job at McDonald's to find out that we needed more RAM, to buy said RAM, and have a guy install it for us.

Eviltoasteroven had more than a thousand games, Rhymeswithloser had more than 500, and who knows how many alts I had. At the end of the day I had 54% wins. So mediocre.

Unreal Tournament

This was a beautiful game. My first college roommate was often gone because he was more social than I was, and was on the racquetball team and went on some away games. Awesome Internet connections were rare then, but I had one. This took over Starcraft; SC faded away.

DOTA

Between February 2001 and March 2003 I was indisposed in ways that did not allow me to game anymore. (Haha: this is the Utahn in me. In Utah, you avoid all possible mentions of going on a mission for the LDS church unless you are at said church.) I was in Australia with the name tag being hit on by gay guys, told off by straight guys, yelled at by old guys, and ignored by women. Anyway, no games, but one time in the mall I saw the Warcraft 3 display in an Aussified version of Game Stop and I looked at the box. It was one of the few moments I yearned for home.

So anyway, I got back and got a really awesome deal on a Dell (dude, better than any offer you could get now, considering I later sold it for more than I got it) because I was going back to school and had nothing to type with. So the natural platform of choice was the PC.

I played through the campaigns, bought the Frozen Throne when it came out, and discovered that DOTA was much, much better than regular WC 3's multiplayer.

UT2k4

I'm really an Unreal Tournament guy more than I am a Quake guy. I played this for quite a bit when I was at school. Friday nights, I was usually doing this.

Call of Duty

This game was awesome beyond belief. I overheard mention of it somewhere in a game I was playing, so I looked it up, and bought it. I devoured the campaign and played online and in tournament play. I wasn't too bad.

Call of Duty 2

Between March of 2004 and September of 2005, I didn't play games much. I sold my PC, got a laptop, and got a life. I got engaged and unengaged. I had some seriously crazy college happenings afterward, enough in a year that I could write a book about it. I literally gave up games and got a life. It was pretty cool. Almost a year after the engagement broke off, I realized it was okay to like video games, and that they weren't the source of my problems.

My timing was good: Call of Duty 2 came out a month or so after I ordered a new rig after I sold my laptop. I played on a team that was in a tournament for money and we played very hard. One time on a Saturday we practiced for 6 hours and got pissy with each other just because we were starting to feel like family to each other. Our coach / team leader managed to calm us down and effectively dismiss us from practice. I wish I'd written more about what it was like. They were fun times.

World of Warcraft

In December 2005, I had to replace my car engine. That coupled with a new landlord who booted me out forced me to live with my mother (oh, the cliches!), but not in a basement, thank God, just the room I had uh, grown up in since the age of 10.

One of my best friends from elementary school and beyond had also moved back in with his family, apparently because they missed him (I don't know, they were kind of weird about it). I had coincidentally run into him at an FHE in Salt Lake when I was buying something for someone, before I'd moved back. He was always the first to suggest we stop playing and actually go outside, so I was surprised when I found out he had purchased a PC and played WoW; I was still in the mentality that subscription fees sucked.

Like all people who play WoW, someone else got me in. At my mom's house, I started playing WoW. Good gravy. I moved out in only 4 months, which was a shorter stay than anyone had anticipated. I got married 4 months later and deleted my level 55 character. My friend pressured me again, so I asked the wife if I could play again. She said yes, and soon after she asked if she could have a character. I couldn't get my homework done (she had graduated, I had not) and her character was level 30-something, so I bought her a computer. Now, we have two of them next to each other.

A month ago, I got tired of it. It stopped being fun. I try to enjoy it, but I really only play when Muschie asks me to. My friend isn't on that often anymore and Muschie and I rolled Alliance to 70 just for him. She's rolling some Horde again. I'm considering Warhammer. I have a review copy coming my way.

Team Fortress 2

This is something I had an eye on for a long time. I made the mistake of buying a gold LIVE account instead of this. Big mistake. I had to wait for it.
Just this last week or two, I've gotten a little tired of it. Only 328 hours! Nothing on Goldeneye or Starcraft. It has more time left, though.

My brother, a 30-year-old doctor, got a computer because they didn't have one, but mainly so he could play this. Sometimes we play.

Now

I got a DS on Friday for our anniversary. It gives me an enormous sense of security. Not even contentment, just security. It's like I'm packing heat, only more fun and without the anxiety or precautions.

Maybe it's because there's a huge inexpensive library of RPGs, strategy games, and few other decent games, but in reality, they will only be the equivalent of ONE of these games; and it's more expensive. LIVE arcade has a few coming too. GTA IV couldn't do it for me. I finished the main storyline of Mass Effect in 26 hours. Bioshock and Portal were snacks.

Here's hoping on Warhammer, Spore, Streetfighter IV, or Starcraft II get it for me.

I guess I see patterns now. I'm still competitive and need that to feed me. I have nothing against single-player, but I chew those up.

Maybe I should try to be a reviewer.

The mega interview journey, part 6: everyone else

2008-08-27T10:26:00.002-06:00

The last three people I talked to were Chris, Shawn, and Mitch. Because I had formed many conclusions by this point and in order to avoid overkill, I'm going to cover all three of them together. The quality of these interviews was not lower because of the subjects, it was because of the interviewer. I'm stressing that because I don't want anyone getting the idea that the first four subjects were "better" in anyway.

Chris Dahlen and I talked for an hour; our conversation was clearly the most comfortable one of all, even more comfortable than the one I had with Michael, who sounds like a Rogerian therapist. I misunderstood him from the beginning. First, he's in New Hampshire, and second, he doesn't seem to really consider himself a "game writer"; he'd likely more say he's a publications writer and that gaming is just one of his topics. At this point, I'd formed some conclusions from my previous interviews, and they probably shined through in my questioning. I don't think I lead him, though; it was more like I got so comfortable he could tell what I was thinking when asking the questions, and we then descended into a friendly and polite bitchfest. It was fun to complain with him.

Shawn Elliott was someone I was lucky to interview. I didn't even think to talk to him except that N'Gai suggested he would be interested. I had to message him by making a 1Up account and giving him my email address. Given his experience, I think he pretty much knows how things are right now and how they'll be in the future, but considering my naivety, my preformed conclusions, and the questions I asked him, the interview was very short. If there is one interview I could do over again, it would be the one with him. Recently on Neogaf he commented in a Braid thread that this really is the "lost generation."

Mitch has no email posted anywhere either--I had to leave a comment on an old post on Insult Swordfighting to get a hold of him. He was the last I interviewed, and his interview was also short; he was the last one I talked to, and after two interviews where I heard unique perspectives and voices but not many unique thoughts (I was coming to the common realizations now), I was very burnt out. Truth be told, after the first four I was burnt out and I just got worse as it went along.

They had the following in common:

--They were all generally disappointed with most games coverage.
--They all liked literature and/or came from "literary backgrounds" and commented on it when I asked about games criticism. Basically, when they think "criticism" they think of it the way that it's done for books. A point: games have a lot in common with books, too, not just movies.
--Under this definition, yeah, some of it has been done, but not very much.
--All had a fatalistic approach: things will be the way they will be; that's just the nature of publications and the gaming world and the world of gaming publications. Chris was stumped. Mitch pointed out: "The more games are accepted by the mainstream, the more games writing can change. The New York Times, the Phoenix, and other mainstream publications aren't relying on video game advertising dollars--that's why they read differently." Shawn perhaps made the most qualified and specified declarations about what to actually do. "Many games writers today are chosen by their love of games and not their love of writing. Their needs to more attention paid to writing skill and a desire to write well about games." Also: "First we need to establish the possibilities; after that, we need to let people take the time to appreciate it; if enough people do, they will demand it." Ooh, a mantra.
--A label of a gaming community wasn't needed or necessary, not as far as this writing is concerned.
--All commented that this change in maturity in our writing was inevitable as the maturity of the games, games industry, and the people who write about and play games.
--All lamented that there wasn't much space, and all made a few comments about the actual writing itself and what makes the good good and the bad bad. We've already driven that nail through the wall.
--Chris has written for a variety of outlets and a variety of topics, so I asked about game writing in the broad public space. How can we get more of it in there? He actually said, "1-2 years ago I'd have said we simply need more outlets. Now I'd say there are some outlets that try to publish more thoughtful content. Now we need more outlets, but we need more writers than outlets."

The sad thing is I still need to write a summary and conclusion of it all, and I'm wondering how much space or seriousness I should give it. I'm debating whether to put it on GSW considering that it seems like for some people it's been over analyzed.

Someone make me a database, please

2008-08-26T15:20:00.004-06:00

By now you've made up your mind about Wikipedia; you either use it to justify your pretensions about technology, or perhaps bemoan the fate of how we view academic information. Or, hopefully, you'll actually have a real opinion about it; perhaps something like "I have issues with its infrastructure and can't take it as seriously as some people do, but generally, I'd say it's a commendable success, especially when dealing with the online world."

Intelligent and educated discussion doesn't occur often outside of certain settings, and it certainly doesn't occur very often with certain topics (games are one obvious example). One thing that I've seen in some corners of games writing is the desire to cover new ground, new territory, to say what's not been said before. That feels to me a lot more like academia than it does the simple blogosphere or world of journalistic outlets, which are mainly simply there (and this isn't a criticism) to enlighten and entertain.

And is it just me, or do you ever worry about being accused of plagiarism, even when you're just writing on a forum? On the Internet, someone probably already said it. And if you're going to participate in discussions or write op-ed pieces or columns, wouldn't you want to make sure you say something original? I've occasionally come across comments that say "oh, someone already said this" or even "this point was also made in this other article that had a different topic."

So, I've got an idea and I'm guessing no one else has done it yet. What if there were a site that had listings of all relevant content on a particular topic?

Let's take Braid again. Much material has surfaced on it; in fact, one forum post in particular has generated much discussion on it but it doesn't seem that it is well-spread in news outlets. It was such a convincing theory, though, that it quickly surfaced on the Penny Arcade epi-thread and it prompted a question by Destructoid to Jonathan Blow in their podcast with him. He spent minutes commenting on it.

I'm aware that much of what is produced in popular periodicals is repeated; it disappoints, but it's not changing anytime soon. But what if there were a type of wiki where, for a given topic (say Braid), I could see all material that has even been said on it, serious or no, intelligent or no. All memes, videos, graphics, music, sites and written text on it. It could be in roughly this kind of format and instead of simply being a summary, an encyclopedia where everyone argues over what the best summary is, it could be a gathering of all relevant links and works on the topic. Write one or two lines summarizing the link.

Wouldn't it be awesome to have a site where every single review, metacritic or no, and every single thing ever on a game (say, Metal Gear Solid 4, this time) was listed? Updated continually? Some games get an enormous amount of coverage (say, Too Human), yet if someone's interested in knowing everything that went down and wants to know a lot of the commentary, he'd have to have awesome search engine skills.

Blogs and publications do this with "tags", but that only gives you all the information done by a particular publication. And some places don't have tags. And some places don't write about games very often, but have interesting or amusing material about a certain game or type of game.

I can only hope. And meanwhile, if I want to do it on any other particular topic, I'll have to do it myself. When I do, I'll post it here. And to Simon Carless and Neuroanthropology, thanks for sifting through gobs and gobs of links and presenting us with good and intelligent ones. Much appreciated.

Ideas

2008-08-25T15:00:00.001-06:00

I have only about half a dozen topics left for my GSW column. That's actually 3 months worth, but it can't hurt to ask anyway.

What communities in the game world deserve / need coverage? What's interesting?

A new division of games: some ideas on how to push innovation in a way that makes everyone happy

2008-08-19T12:14:00.002-06:00

The most common division of games is "hardcore" vs. "casual." While there have been plenty of arguments saying "the game market is simply more complex than that", I'd like to make two arguments of my own. The first is that some games blend both of these genres (most notably the Guitar Hero and Rock Band franchises), which has likely already been said. I mention it in context of my second argument, however: games can be easily divided into two camps. It's just the wrong two.

A daring argument to make, but hear me out. I watched the most recent episode of Pure Pwnage the other day, lighter fare to be sure. The main reason it caught my attention was that it parodied Yahtzee's Zero Punctuation as Zero Coordination. The doctrine it preached was the one Pure Pwnage has preached (or parodied, if you will) all along: that games are games, not stories, and the satisfaction that comes from them is being good at them. The criticism of games as stories or art, childish as it were, was pretty scathing and convincing. The only reason I don't fully side with them is because I've been capable of this type of appreciation of games in the past, and I also know that games have the potential to be a beautiful, inspiring medium.

But potential is all we've really been discussing. Even Leigh, whom I believe to be a champion of game criticism, has said that there is no game that has justified game criticism to the mainstream, to those who aren't already invested in them. And I believe her.

What we're doing is hoping. Witness Braid. Artistically, it is small potatoes, in fact, vastly inferior potatoes to everything in other mediums. We're all excited about it. We're only excited because it's actually making a step, even if it's not a very big one. Those were the victories Bioshock, Portal, and GTA IV presented us with too.

Still, Braid actually wasn't that good--not as a game, or as a piece of art. And deep down, we all know it. But it still had something to say, and what's more, it did it in a way that required a lot of vision. So we forgive it for its flaws. In fact, I was planning and am still planning to write on Braid later.

To build up to this division, I present two more small anecdotes. The first is the day I talked to Leigh. As noted in my article, the day I interviewed her, later at dinner I asked my dad and my wife what it would take to get women interested in games. My wife had said about the mainstream, "convince people they are more mainstream, popular, and relevant than they think." On women and games, she wasn't sure--she has OCD and a strange relationship to games (right now she plays WoW and only WoW, and part of that is for some personal and obviously idiosyncratic reasons). Anyway, my dad. He said, "they'd have to feel something. If it doesn't influence their feelings, it's not going to occupy their minds."

A few days later, I noticed a comment on Gamasutra on a long, theoretical game design article, probably by an adolescent male. It said, in effect, "But in a game, you have to be DOING something. You can't not be doing things or not have an influence on your surroundings, otherwise they're not really games anymore." About men, my dad had said "it has to be something that is impressive to them. Like, you can further your status in some way by playing them."

Yin and yang? Male and female? Games as sports and games as art? Well, I'm wary of labels for obvious reasons, but use all of those and you'll get what I mean. Anyway, I'm becoming more and more convinced that there are only two basic contexts in which people take games seriously: one is game-playing skill, and the other is games as a medium, a context for aesthetics, theme, philosophy, and art.

As mentioned earlier, a few games blend these; but the blending isn't possible, doesn't work well. Again, for example, Braid. (But [MASSIVE SPOILER] then again, maybe it was purposeful. It seems clear that it was about the A-Bomb, a failure of a solution to peace. But science isn't a solution to peace, it's simply a method to produce desired effects on the physical world; perhaps symbolically, the binary and scientific systems video games create can't allow us the full proposed interactivity AND created art; no having our cake and eating it too; notice the contrast between the princess being a woman and an object [END SPOILER]).

Again, the best games are the ones that only stick to one simple purpose. You can make a game that is a good context for competition and skill, or one that is good aesthetically and artistically, but you can't do both. How are you going to explore the themes people have noticed are absent? Sex? Relationships? Family? How can a game of skill, so object-oriented, possibly explore with depth issues that are so metaphysical?

A split isn't so ridiculous. Before TV and movies, there were picture shows. Some showed the news. Some were for entertainment. TV and movies broke off from each other, though they use the same methods of creation and presentation. Why not (insert name for "art games" here) and (insert name for skill-based games here)? Sure, there are exceptions, some games train doctors and some present political issues, but they aren't thought of as "games", really.

The split has already begun, and one of the revealing places that show this split is the kind of community Pure Pwnage fosters, based in competition. In Korea, of course, games are sports. The term "esports" is scoffed at about anywhere else, but if they become as successful as they aspire to be, laughing will stop. Sports weren't always taken seriously, but anything that can make money for a family is something men and women everywhere will accept, at least as a society. High school, college, pro. Football, hockey, baseball, basketball. Not everyone's cup of tea. Lots of worlds in those worlds. But love it or leave it, sports flourish and sports are seen as a matter of preference, which is what video games have largely become (like it or not, believe it or not).

If Esports does well, this split can continue comfortably. But, for obvious reasons, I'm worried. Profitable esports is difficult, especially in the U.S. And those who participate, train anonymously--you can become good without learning social skills on the playground or in a rec league. The poster kids for esports don't always sound or look good on the camera, and that's bad for business.

It's an odd spot to focus our hopes on, but really: if Esports does well, it will be good for both types of games. Hell, even Halo 3 was developed with input from the MLG. Rainbow Six Vegas 2 was designed with input from the competitive community. They become sport games, as in games that are played for sport.

As for "art games", most of its opposition comes from "hardcore" gamers who worry that they will ruin their fun experiences. But if esports grows, and the games they want continue to be released, they will complain less.

There's no reason we can't have both skill-based games and art-based games. Just make sure that "both" doesn't mean "at the same time, in the same game."

A heads up

2008-08-11T14:24:00.004-06:00

An unspoken rule if you're trying to use your blog as a tool of ambition: be sparse on details about real life.

A corollary: if something in real life will affect blog content, or still has to do with the blog's topic, mention is permissible if it's not overly personal.

One day, during my last semester, I read something by a popular game writer who writes terribly. I said to myself, "I can write a hell of a lot better than that guy, and he's published, so it only follows that I, too, can be published." My confidence magically increased. I got my column at GSW, an article (that still isn't published) that was accepted at Gamasutra, and an article in the works at Eurogamer.

I've hinted at my current life position, but let me give you a brief summary: I just finished my schooling this year. The economy sucks. I pitched while I tried to get jobs.

Well, now I have a job (my first week was last week), and less time to write and think. I have pitched/applied in quite a few other capacities. One, on my second pitch, told me almost, but no. I will try with them again and am confident I will eventually write an article for them, but I don't know where to go from here. I'm still going to do GSW. I'm just saying to my literally 20 (max) readers: I don't know if I'll ever be a games writer, and one day I may stop. And I don't really know yet how my job will affect this blog, or my attitudes to game writing.

Anyway, I am in a position of relief--one that pays bills. Writing while waiting for employment and writing during employment are different things; I'm simply saying I don't comprehend those differences yet, or their implications. Reduction in quantity, and even quality? Possibly.

The mega interview journey, part 5: Michael

2008-08-08T08:04:00.005-06:00

Sorry, there have been some moderately large life changes recently. I need to finish these up!

Of the seven people I interviewed, Michael Abbott is the only one who is not a game journalist; he is, however, accurately classified as a games writer. His persona matches his writing: confident, mild, wise, and academic. Still, the two words that keep coming to my mind are "gentle" and "enthusiastic." While the Brainy Gamer is an experiment, he is not far removed from his subject material. It isn't just in text that he gets really excited about games and even more excited that people are talking about them with maturity in an open forum.

Brainy Gamer started in August 2007, a blog dedicated to "thoughtful conversation about video games". Before one year had passed, it had received over 270,000 unique visits, 1,000 RSS subscribers, and an average of 15-20 comments per post. (For those who dig Google Page Rank: 5, purely by word of mouth and text.)

I asked about why he had started it and what it was for. As many know, he is a professor at Wabash College. Brainy Gamer was initially simply a work project, but Brainy Gamer, a living and breathing creature, took on a different life. Even Abbott's opinions have been shaped by the discussion taking place, and now he has new and informed ideas about a myriad of topics, including gaming communities, their formation and evolution, and the place of games in academia.

"I took a sabbatical from teaching; this is my project. It's my attempt to bridge the gap from game community to a new form of game scholarship. Initially, my real purpose was to demonstrate at Wabash that you can be serious about games. The blog started, and it became clear to me that this is something that could be integrated into the liberal arts. It was a lightbulb moment."

"It all started as conversation, but now part of my mission with Brainy Gamer is to convince people that games can and should be a part of a curriculum. It's difficult: we have people who are saying 'just let me play games and have fun,' but there are also those who have never played games and who are saying 'how can we let this in the academy'? I think both groups are resistant, but for totally different reasons."

"What would it take to grow these kinds of communities?" I asked.

He responded, "One thing I'd like to see is for developers to join these conversations with us. Steve Gaynor is one good example, and his blog is terrific. Manveer Heir at Design Rampage is another developer who blogs about design and communicates with the wider community. Developers could add a dimension we often don't see."

"Part of what [game] criticism is doing is that there's a kind of teaching mission. We're presuming we have something interesting to say to help people understand and appreciate games better. Potentially that appreciation will enable the group to grow."

He is still optimistic, though. He added, "I think it's a bigger space than we may think. The community developed, I think, largely due to college and grad students. There are a surprisingly large number of people who write thoughtful essays and comments on my blog. Enough people are interested to make it a critical mass."

We also spoke on the difficulties of it being a stable field. I remembered out loud how many professors become friends simply because of common fields and specializations; he told me a lot about the status of games in academia. He was comfortable with the term game criticism, but had some reservations. Like the rest of us, he is nervous.

"Narrative games are barely past the infant stage, and critical commentary and analysis about them are even less developed," he warned. "Everyone is still trying to figure out who everyone else is, and in this process communities form themselves. We are on the ground floor of this effort to try to figure out how to talk intelligently about video games - how to analyze them and develop a critical language to discuss them. We're not like other disciplines (I'm not even sure I would call us a discipline yet), because we're all figuring this out together; we don't even have the terms yet."

I had mentioned the other people I was planning to interview. Intellectual discussion has a social growth that's almost academic. "A very typical example: How did I meet Mirch Krpata? Well, someone linked me to something, which linked to him somewhere. I contacted him, and he kindly responded. That's pretty much how it works."

"Well, and it's interesting," I said. "Even, or especially outside of academia people are on unsure footing; Leigh's the only one who dared to suggest a term. For the most part, people seem to be quiet about it."

He told me, "Part of our trepidation about what to call it is that there is already a field called game studies, and some of us aren't comfortable with where that's going or don't feel we quite fit in there. Game studies is taking a fairly traditional academic approach to research and scholarship, and as a professor who has done my share of papers and conferences, I'm trying to go another way. I want to write about games at the place where they are being discussed most vigorously, online and amongst gamers. I greatly respect what game studies is doing - and I've benefited from this work - but I've reached the point in my career where I'm not terribly interested in traditional academic research anymore."

Despite that, he worries about how games will function in academic curriculua. He explained why some academics aren't comfortable with games: "Schools are nervous about games becoming academic without rigor or structured pedagogy. I'm concerned about it too, frankly. I don't want it to be just discussions and nothing else."

In short, he reminded me of what Kieron had said earlier: when we discuss games, the discussion is public and usually on the Internet, and opposition can easily form there. "Between having both the common gamer and academics strongly disapproving of the way you and the rest of us talk, it sounds like you have quite the fight on your hands," I said.

"It's not a fight, it's making a case. What is the place of conversation about video games in the liberal arts? Is it possible to teach the Odyssey and the Metal Gear series in the same class? Can you leverage students' interest in games to get them to think critically, write persuasively, and discuss intelligently, all of which are goals of a liberal arts education? I obviously think the answer is yes."

Michael had a lot to say. But in briefest form, this is the most important thing I learned: the question we should be focusing on isn't if or when, it's how.

Interview with Andym4n

2008-07-29T08:51:00.002-06:00

Recently I wrote about Culdcept Saga, the youngest cult hit out on a console. I'm posting the full transcript of the chat I had with Andym4n, a player who is almost single-handedly trying to preserve its community.

Andym4n: you here?

me: Yes, yessir, I am

Andym4n: how goes it?

me: pretty well
thanks for taking the time to chat with me

Andym4n: np

me: So, I write a column
and it's about game communities
I used to play CS, esp. when I first got it
And for various reasons, I dropped it, but I remembered that there was a website where everyone gathered
and that's where I saw you, though I also saw you at the official xbox forum too

Andym4n: yeah, I post on all of em heh
for CS anyway

me: I take it you still play then?

Andym4n: yeah, often

me: like, one match per day?

Andym4n: I'd say closer to 5 a week... I don't get to play during the week as much as I'd like

me: still, you know what you're talking about : )
Can you even get a match without asking a friend?
Is it pretty much impossible to random?

Andym4n: there's usually a match or 2 available. of course, I'm usually available right in prime time, so I bet it would be very difficult earlier in the day.
it's mainly due to the game matches being 2+ hours in length

me: don't they ever go 1-2?

Andym4n: the more people in matches, the fewer in the lobby

me: ah
You have a long friend's list, so you'd know
I guess I thought hardly anyone still played it

Andym4n: you can make shorter matches, but most folks like a decent-length game
I don't mind the lobby wait, I usually edit books while I'm waiting
CS has a thriving online community, you'd just never know it by the GameFAQs, Xbox.com, or Proboards forums... the culdceptsaga.com forum is where all the activity is.

me: You still there?
(no rush, mind you)

Andym4n: yes

me: So, let's say there are two types of people
one knows about the best forum, the one where the admin is AWOL
the other one has no idea that that forum exists and just tries to use LIVE
Do you think there'd be a difference between these two?

Andym4n: in terms of...?

me: How well they'd be able to play...what kind of experience they'd have
(or lack thereof)

Andym4n: I'd say anyone who frequents a forum is going to have an advantage
as far as how much fun each would have, the edge would probably go to forum guy there as well, as you connect with more people

me: I agree--forums generally enhance any game community

Andym4n: and as you probably know, playing against friends online is generally much more fun than playing strangers

me: (aye); The admin is AWOL; what would happen if that forum suddenly disappeared, do you think?

Andym4n: I'd have to speed up my plan lol
I'm in the process of creating the go-to Culdcept site
www.culdceptcentral.com if you're curious

me: oh-ho, I didn't know about this; I picked the right guy to talk to

Andym4n: a few of us at culdceptsaga.com offered our services as co-admins/moderators
the admin chose three of us, but it's been a month since he last e-mailed and we have no admin access as yet
given that knowledge, I decided I'd go ahead and create a reference site for Culdcept stuff (which seemed a good idea, with a DS version coming in the not-so-distant future)
I have a feeling culdceptsaga.com might just vanish someday here

me: That's the feeling I got too, and I've barely been there, heh
you can't even message each other on there

Andym4n: yeah

me: that's why I had to use LIVE

Andym4n: if I did implement a forum on my site, it'd probably be different than the FireBoard one he uses
a little more robust
nothing against the admin there, mind you... I think he must travel a lot for work

me: or he just gave up, or he lost Internet access, or something bad happened to him, etc.
Hmm...did you tell people at the first site that you are making a new one?

Andym4n: some folks there know
I haven't announced it publicly yet
trying to resolve a few minor issues with it first

me: tick tock, eh?
Oh, I know you probably don't know this, but do you happen to know if this game is still in print? I know you can get it on Ebay or maybe a huge Internet retailer, but they're not making more or selling more to hard retailers any more, are they?

Andym4n: it's still in print as far as I know, but I do know it didn't have nearly as wide a distribution as some games

me: where I got mine, they had 2 copies
and that was the day of or after it came out

Andym4n: yeah, stores tend to get only enough to cover perceived demand
I ran a GameStop up until January, some games we'd get only 1 of (or none)

me: Okay, last questions: what do you think the state of the CS community is right now and where do you think it is headed?
(wow)

Andym4n: hard to build a big fan base when few copies are out there :/

me: haha
true

Andym4n: I think its fan base is growing slowly but surely
the forum at cs.com is steadily growing more active, and I think new people are trying the demo and liking it
the community is definitely growing tighter
we did an informal league that went over well, and nearly double the players have signed on for season 2

me: I was wondering how that league went

Andym4n: I just hope cs.com lives long enough to get my site fairly well known, or people will scatter if it goes down

me: So the people who are in it and the number of people..that status won't change much, but there's some stability there, you're saying?
aye

Andym4n: yes, definitely
it's one of those games where if you play it, you want to play it mroe
more*

me: Very consuming
It seems you can't casually enjoy it

Andym4n: and the more you play it, the more you realize that the possibilities are endless
with each match, loss or win, you see ways you can change/improve your book and gameplan
oh you can, it just sort of infects you heh
it looks like a casual game, but it's much deeper
I will say this
it has by far the friendliest online community of any game I've ever played

me: really?
maybe that's from change
I played a game with a couple of not-so-friendly fellows once

Andym4n: there's always a few bad apples online in every game
the nice thing about CS is that they usually shape up or stop playing

me: fair enough
seems like there is a lot more opportunity to chat, too

Andym4n: if they stir up trouble on the forum, there are 10 others there to say "hey man, that's not cool"

me: I played one where the guys talked non-stop

Andym4n: definitely

me: but they were actually chatting, not just singing or talking shit

Andym4n: I talk very little when I play, but it's usually because my daughter's in bed in the next room when I play heh
right
it's intelligent fun conversation
you know why, right?
in CS, if you talk smack, your opponents stop focusing on beating each other and gang up on you

me: haha
Aren't there 1 v 1s, though?

Andym4n: yes

me: not as popular, though?

Andym4n: people tend not to talk smack in a 1v1
something about it being more personal, I guess
1v1s are probably more prevalent than multi-player matches
due to the small number of people in the lobby

me: Well hmm, I think you answered all my questions
If there's anything you think I should know that we didn't get around to, feel free to email me
this column will give positive exposure to the game and community
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/column_the_game_anthropologist/
I don't know when it will be up, but when it is I'll let you know

Andym4n: sounds good :)

me: Thanks again, sir

Andym4n: happy to, thanks for the chat

GEEX: Verdict from SLC's least qualified

2008-07-28T13:56:00.003-06:00

Salt Lake City is a strange duck in the gaming world (it's a strange duck in any world, but let's stay on topic). I keep hearing the stat that in Utah, there are more gaming consoles per household. It has more game developers than you'd think, and hardly anyone, not even the people who live there, know it.

It also has an annual LAN sponsored by a local hosting company that is held at the University of Utah. It's all kind of underground here. So I was surprised when a show called GEEX, the Gaming and Electronics Expo, was announced. Even more strange was that it was held over E3.

Like anything in Utah, it was pretty tame. It lasted 3 days, all the Youtube videos revealed little about the show and there were suspicions that it would be...well, lame. Predicably, the news shorts and dry newspaper articles were nothing more than the usual "Hey, this thing is going on! Did you know?" type of pieces. I'm not sure which is more amusing to me: the article or the certifiably Utahn comments.

I didn't go. My gamer conscience told me I should, and I didn't, mainly because I didn't really want to spend little of the money we had on it. And anyway, I thought it would be little more than a glorified vendor display. This thing was half tournament and half convention full of speakers and vendors, a little hodgepodge. The topics seemed dry and some of the speakers (one guy was from Neumont University) were a little lacking.

One surprise was how much money was involved in the tournaments. A total of about 20 grand is a lot for Utah.

However, there are three promising signs and reasons I will go next year. First, a ton of people went, probably because of the tournament. Second, there are frequent rumors that some people snubbed it and wished they hadn't (oh the guilt I feel!). Lastly, it's coming back in less than a year.

Folks, this thing ended less than a week ago and they've already taken the old page down and put up the announcement for the next. The next time I've got to go.

The mega interview journey, part 4: Leigh

2008-07-21T13:32:00.000-06:00

My wife and I went on a disaster of a vacation for over a week after I had talked to Kieron. My wife had a work party thing at the worst theme park of all time on the day of our return. I originally had thought I could interview Leigh inside of this park, but decided that no, I really couldn't, even if background noise was minimized. We went home and I rushed inside and called Leigh immediately because a car wreck on I-15 had made late (five minutes) to calling her.

Just as with the other New Yorker I interviewed, I talked to Leigh on Friday as the weekend dawned. I think I looked forward to talking to her more than anyone else because her blog was the first or second one I discovered and I had really based my own doctrine, if you will, on the content and style of what is written there and at the Aberrant Gamer. She stressed that we not say anything about Kotaku, and I stressed that SVGL was the thing I wanted to know about.

Instead of immediately asking about the whole label or community thing, I simply asked why she had SVGL. Kotaku must take a heavy toll--that's a lot of writing and a lot of work and yet she still writes on her personal, non-ad-supplemented blog.

Why did she start it?

"I wasn't really sure what I wanted to say yet, so it was simply a repository for my thoughts and a place to practice my voice," she told me.

"Well, don't you get a hell of a lot of practice now without it? There must be another reason, a reason you still keep it."

"It's still important for me to be able to say things I want when there is nowhere to publish them," she told me. "I mean, it'd be a misconception to say that we are getting paid for our opinions all day and write thoughtful stuff--that's not what our jobs are." She did stress that thoughtfulness and opinions are still part of journalism as a whole; it's just that "think-pieces and editorials" are not the bulk of what she is getting paid to do.

Then I shifted, and asked if there's a commonality, a common, unacknowledged sort of creed all those blogs kept. "Game journalists are constantly having an identity crisis," she told me. "Fans have so few places to go," she told me. "Lots of people don't know about this kind of discussion, and many still don't. If more people knew this discussion was taking place I think we'd have more people who are interested."

"I didn't even know about this kind of discussion myself," I said. "I'd have gotten into a long time ago had I known about it. Gamasutra and GameSetWatch introduced me to it and from there I found the Aberrant Gamer and from there I found your blog and eventually decided to write this piece. Would you say there is a name for this? What do you all do?"

Unlike the last two people I talked to, there was no caution or hesitance with Leigh, at least not on this question. I'd never seen it written anywhere, but she'd obviously been thinking about it longer than I had. "Oh, I'd call it game criticism," she said.

Game criticism? Well then! "It's kind of like the difference between simply being a film review or a critical commentary on film. We have both of those in film, we see people being reviewers or truly being critics. We have plenty of game reviews--now we have critical game commentary."

"Only there isn't very much of it," I complained. "Why does it have to mostly be in little corners, blogs, all these writers' side-projects that provide no money?"

"Well, I don't think there's any game that's really justified it yet," she explained. What about Metal Gear Solid 4? Or others? Plenty of talk about that on SVGL "Well, I mean, to the world, to everyone else. I think we kind of consider ourselves ambassadors, really." I had felt that way before even meeting her. Fans of games, she told me, are "very insular" and "not open to change."

"We only discuss games in context of other games, not other life experiences. I recently wrote about a friend of mine who had a friend that died in Iraq. He played Call of Duty 4 to learn about it and deal with it. That's how someone is really playing it and viewing it. But we don't see much room for that kind of conversation."

"It's not going to get bigger until there's a mainstream need," she said.

"At least it's changing," I said. "SVGL has been around a while."

She laughed. "You think so? Do you know how long it's been around?"

"Uh..about a year, isn't it?"

"Well yeah. But why is it considered a veteran blog? It's only a year! And we're not ending up satisfied, are we?"

How long will it take, I asked? What's going to happen?

"Perhaps in 5-10 years it will change as people see that video games have cultural relevance."

"Really?" I said, thinking of N'gai's "young fogeys."

"I keep [doing SVGL] because I have hope. I have to. And anyway, the responses I get on it mean a lot to me."

She then launched into rapid fire comments--she just got done telling me she's not a veteran, but for all the opinion, experience, and stress in her voice, I certainly wasn't feeling like I was talking to someone who isn't a veteran. She started talking about burnout and how in all parts of the game industry, including games journalism, one is exhausted quickly. "One frustrating thing is games journalists have to play a lot of crap for their jobs, and so they write about crap, and the game-makers never wanted to make crap in the first place and are now stressed to learn that their games are crap in our eyes; crap begets crap and misery begets misery." Sometimes, I thought, crap begets crappy writing. I thought she thought so too.

"I think part of it, too, is that people don't realize games are still stuck in the 'toy' mindset," I said. "They're still toys in the eye of the public, and we can safely always think that--there are entire companies who make games as toys. I have a friend who develops mostly Disney IP. I hadn't seen him in a while and asked him 'So, what have you been making?' 'Well, we just finished out last project,' he said, and started tensing up. I didn't feel he needed to tense because I really liked him, so I pushed. 'Well, what was it'? 'Don't laugh,' he said--"

"Oh, what was it, Hannah Montana?" Leigh interrupted.

"Haha! Yes! Exactly!"

"SHUT UP!" She's having more fun and learning that we see things similarly; she's starting to sound more like herself and less like someone who is forcing herself (out of necessary habit, I'm sure) to sound androgynous. Oh! That reminds me...

"Yeah, it was crazy," I explained. "He just got so defensive before he even told me, but I explained I understood. He then let himself get excited and proud about what he'd done."

I continued, "Oh! Before I forget, speaking of toys...I have a question that I'm going to ask you and I know you hate being asked questions because of this--"

"Is it about being a woman?" she said.

"Ah...yeah. But wait! It's really a question that you are best qualified to answer, because the question is about women in general. Um, okay. So N'Gai and you and I'm sure many others think the age factor is part of why gaming has the status it does. However, I was thinking that the gender gap is part of it, too. You can't deny there is a gender gap, especially in the industry's workers..."

"Nope, I never have denied that or said anything to that effect," she said.

"Right. Well, I was thinking part of it is because women just consider them toys. Only like, scary ones. Women may groan when they learn that someone who is dating them really loves sports, but at least they know what that entails. But guys who love games, not so much. So I have a theory, but I'd really like to talk to someone qualified, as no one cares what a man thinks."

"Makes sense," she said.

"Okay, so...why do women hate games? I've even seen them denounce them in public and in journals and newspapers and...well, everywhere."

"Well, I'm not entirely sure, since I don't agree with them."

"Oh."

"But you know, I've certainly had girl friends, and I've heard lots of them talk about them. They don't seem to bother to learn more about games because they consider them unfeminine and they worry about it because it's messing up their men."

"Messing up their men?"

"Yup. Definitely. And when I meet new women, the majority are put off by what I do for work. It makes many people, especially women, uncomfortable; they don't find it interesting. Kills conversations. I mean, once people get to know me, it doesn't bother them so much, but all the time when I'm meeting new people...I have hard time even finding people who accept that what I do is a career."

"They don't even accept your job?" I say.

"Nope."

"Wow."

"Yeah."

So the story goes. I talked to her for a while and found her to be one of the most interesting people I'd met online or off, games journo or no. A charismatic woman who can carry her charisma online and off, is interested in games and sex in games, and has strong opinions while remaining civil and (here's the hard part) able to keep the conversation interesting if anyone disagrees. Yet, all that by itself won't net Leigh a legion of adoring male fans (the only kind available), and she knows it. Game enthusiasts are harsh critics and demanding of the other parts of life, too. No, she has to write well, too, and write she does, in spades. Thank goodness for that, because, perhaps unlike most other writers, she's aware that as a woman, she is a needed voice when the discourse between "gamer" and "fogey" emerges.

Because of the vacation, my wife and I take out my dad for Father's day that evening. "Dad," I say to him, because he's long been interested in technology and the Internet, "what would it take for women to be interested in video games, or a specific video game?"

2008-07-21T09:13:00.004-06:00

Someone linked a video on a Game Journos discussion today. I didn't know something could be so funny and depressing at the same time.

The only thing I know that I should do is simply insist on writing only for paying outlets, but that's shrinking, especially in game coverage.

Are we going back to a dark age of writing that is similar to the 17th and 18th centuries, where the demand for and quality of writing is poor and market and governmentconditions do little to provide pay to the few writers who do otherwise?

It seems people accept poor writing anywhere these days: business, advertising, magazines, books, and especially the Internet. Crappy crap out there. I remember reading a certain well-viewed game writer's stuff and thinking "man, his writing really is shitty and I have no reason to be discouraged. I can write better than that." So I simply assumed I should be published, since that guy is. And I then I got a few assignments.

But man, there are very few to dole out, especially in games. Oh so few.

Why I don't like E3

2008-07-16T12:03:00.002-06:00

1. For all the reasons everyone else doesn't like it. It's declining in quality, not serving the desires of consumers and press, etc.
2. It means that anything I'm doing is delayed or put on hold for more than a week, like some holiday season that is more European or Indian in style than American.

I guess I'm mostly upset that I didn't realize number 2 and prepare accordingly, so I'm irritated about it. An article I anticipate writing for a certain publication would be done by now, but someone in a different state simply doesn't have enough time to grant me a pass into a building in Utah that would give me material to write 1,000 words. I really need that article on my resume so I can be more persuasive when I pitch. Also, I applied at a couple of places that really need writers but they don't have time yet.

Don't get me wrong: if I were to have my ticket paid to California so I could cover it, I'd be glad to go, but that would mainly be because I'd get to meet up with certain people and because it would mean I've reached a certain point of success, not because "OMG new stuff I'd have heard about anyway".

Oops, I've been meaning to get around to playing that

2008-07-14T09:31:00.003-06:00

Since a point in 2007 there is one encouraging thing I've seen about games, and that is their status as an object of consumption.

In the industrial world, we have more food and more leisure time than ever before. Unlike other types of countries, industrialists spend their time consuming and evaluating their choices as consumers, and discussing those choices with friends.

"Did you try the new sushi place?" "Yes, it was way better than I thought it would be. Make sure you get the ninja wasabi harroken."

"Go see that action movie?" "Yeah, it sucked. He's getting old and should move on. The stunts were bad."

"Okay, I'll read that, but there are ten other books in the queue."

Books, movies, TV, all media: we treat them like a diet. Instead of stomachs, we have mental space and time. We only have room for so much, and we only wish to consume the best. This reveals much about our society and culture, but this is a blog about games, so I leave you to your own conclusions about consumption and markets in your industrial country.

The thing that I am happy about is that games are becoming part of the "media diet". The fact that media are treated like a diet saddens me, but the fact that games have gained respect from it does not.

I purchased Halo 3 and GTA IV, both games that I'm not terribly interested in, because of this rhetoric. I felt that even though I didn't like Halo 3, I felt it was my duty as a gamer who wants to get back into the games world to purchase it. I bought it the day it came out and beat it on heroic within a couple of weeks.

I had these thoughts resurrected when a good friend of mine lent me his copy of the Orange Box for the 360. He texted me to ask if I'd beaten Portal yet, and the fact I haven't played Portal yet is causing me guilt; it's something I've been meaning to do for months. My wife keeps forgetting that I wanted her to at least watch the beginning, and so tonight she will. She loved seeing Bioshock, and considering that my brother has been comparing my wife to GLaDOS, (squeaky, high-pitched voice that knows much more than it lets on), I really wanted us to see it together.

Tonight we will, and this week a burden will be relieved. I've been reminded and gladdened that games are now considered things we can't miss!

The mega interview journey, part 3: Kieron

2008-07-08T12:35:00.003-06:00

My second interview was with a writer from the blog RockPaperShotgun, a place that covers my favorite games format, the PC. Not knowing how to approach, I thought, “Well, they’re four game journalists and they’re all British.” So I tried my best to do what an intelligent British gamer would: I mailed all four of them with the subject “I request a sacrifice”. One of them replied in part with

"Hi Mr Walbridge

You have prompted a shadowy gathering of the RPS hive mind. I step forth, and give the answer. Imagine this in a voice that's very deep, and flames are spouting from my nostrils.

Anyway - pleasure to meet you. Sorry that Carless has talked you into doing work for his evil GSW. I fear and shun him."

That’s how I met Kieron Gillen. I chose to talk to him over talking to all four of the RPS writers because I'm not sure how to talk to four people at once at this point, and I'm still collecting my thoughts. Good thing I chose that way.

Like N'Gai, his being early in line set the tone for the rest of my interviewing. His being in the UK forced me to use Skype, a thing I'm grateful for. I also had some slight difficulty understanding him. The guy talks a mile a minute and he talks with excitement, enthusiasm, and anxiety. More than once he said "Oh yeah, your question," then answered the question. He seems comfortable speaking to me but also seems to be exerting a lot of effort in not jumping to conclusions about anything. The only thing he's actually conclusive about is RPS; he owns part of it, he feels he can represent it. But anything else? No. Perhaps it's a British thing, or perhaps it's because he's dealt with some harsh, unfair criticism.

“Why’d you make RockPaperShotgun when the four of you are writing at plenty of publications who pay you in English money?” I said. “It’s about the PC only. You surely aren’t writing only about consoles, are you? You’re making enough money, aren’t you?”

Yes, he tells me, they write about PCs. But some PC stuff needs more coverage. “Every few days we’ll discover something that people don’t usually see, and it’s a shame if it’s not exposed,” he explained. "I've been a games journalist for a decade at least. 13 years. RPS is an outlet for our PC stuff because we're not seeing people write about the format the way we want to."

“And how do you want it done?” I pried.

"You gotta understand—the editors I work for do give me a long leash. I just…I'd be lying if I were to say it doesn't bring me pleasure to have the cuffs off."

Unregulated? “It’s just part time. Games journalism doesn’t tend to emphasize the PC. But I do. So commercially and intellectually, making and working on RPS makes the most sense because it’s not something anyone else does. It’s especially something that American readers don’t see in approach in tone.”

And the other blogs? Do they get a label for style or purpose? And I don’t remember what he said, not only because he’s a fast talker with a foreign accent, but because he soon jerked me out of my chair: “Well, I wrote this thing called ‘The New Games Journalism’”…

I had read it a long time ago and hadn't gotten around to looking at it again. There are four writers on RPS and the one that I get just happens to be the guy I didn't know wrote "New Games Journalism." Oops. There already was a guy who loosely did what I'm doing right now in this very interview! He had made an attempt at clarifying the changes that occurred. Could I learn from it? I gently encouraged him to talk about it. I was awe-struck here was Mr. "I've been writing for 13 years, have my own successful space and am well-read and liked by my peers" feeling frustrated; he sounded like a man who felt that fate had dealt him failure and there was nothing he could do about it. I was digging up skeletons, picking at old wounds, resurrecting old fights, and he let me proceed. I'm not sure why he was so willing to talk about it, other than the fact we got along. He took a deep breath beforehand, knowing that anything he said about "New Games Journalism" to me was going to be added to the long-buried canon on it.

“The whole thing was not something I foresaw,” he said, exasperated. “It was more of a letter, really. I was speaking to my peers, not the readers, and so it ended up seeming condescending to some people. Most people thought it said ‘no reviews.’ People thought I was trying to change games journalism—I was simply trying to add to it.”

He also gave me an ultimate summary: “It helped precipitate the debate about what games journalism could or should be. It seems there were more pieces written about it than in the style of it. Some people got inspiration from it. I’ve had enough people tell me that to make me think it reached enough people and some of the people it was intended for.”

So no, (duh), he didn’t have a name or label for me; he was kind enough to concede hmm, yes, look at those similarities! But no more. "I didn't think it would get passed around so much. I had no idea so many people would read this thing and take it so seriously." We then calmed down--he talked to me more about games journalism as a whole and I begged him to tell me more about what I should do to succeed, and he obliges me.

I ask him if many people get to talk about games in this kind of way, or if people are feeling lonely in the land of games writing. "Actually, I've always had someone to talk to about games," he tells me. "But I know that for many others, that's not the way it is."

He's got plenty of friends and has no label for me, and I don't blame him. Combined with N'Gai, I have now had two different kinds of warnings that I'm barking up the wrong tree.

I'm grateful he still mentioned my article here on RPS. The tagline? "Michael Walbridge talks to assorted games writers trying to find a scene name. I just tell him the one he shouldn’t call it. For God’s sake, not that."

The mega interview journey, part 2: N'Gai

2008-07-03T20:47:00.003-06:00

N'gai was the first writer I interviewed, but not the first person I contacted. On the first day I started asking, which was June 6th, N'gai responds with "Can you do a phone interview at 4pm EST...i.e. in 20 minutes?"

Um.

I realize that it's Friday. He's a busy man, he happened to be in his office, and he has about an hour left before his work week, if it has any semblance of normal standards, is over. In short, I get lucky, and I also don't have my questions because I assumed that I'd have the weekend to write them. Guess not.

So I don't have a way of recording phone calls. I still wonder how a good way to do this would be--not everyone will agree to Skype. They may have better things to do, and they may not be interested in using a headset.

I called him in what seemed an instant later--the last time I felt like this was when I called up a girl to go on a date, a feeling I thought would never resurface in my lifetime. Who the hell do I think I am? I could talk to some of these other people, sure, but an editor at Newsweek? As my very first interview that I'm doing in video games land? When I just have one commentless little first article on a column at GameSetWatch?

"Hi," I say. My first question is incredibly stupid, yet I don't realize how laughably bad it is until weeks later; I'm still embarrassed every time I remember. "So uh, how do you pronounce your name?"

"Guy," he says. Stupid Sprint service blind spot in my stupid apartment! "Excuse me, what?" I say politely.

"Guy," I hear again.

Shit. Well, I'd better get on with it--I can find out how to pronounce it from someone else. I can do that thing where I never use his name in the conversation, and he'll never know. He's an extremely polite fellow; in what little time I had for imagination I thought that he would sound like a New Yorker, with all the speed that implies that every word being said is worth money; and your money, too, so let's get this thing the hell over with.

But that's not what he sounds like--he sounds like he could be from the Midwest, or maybe California (he went to Stanford, I learn); I don't know where he's from, but he sounds very relaxed, and this relaxes me, despite what happens next.

“What is Level Up for, exactly? Why do you write?”

He was gentle with me. “Well, I’m curious to know what you think it’s for.” He sounded almost like a preacher who was trying to convert me--I'm not really sure where he's going with this. My interview skills are already being tested; I have to learn to talk with this Gai, not just interview him. Thankfully, I'm good at talking and bullshitting, or at least think I am, so I answer with some semblance of confidence.

“Uh…I would guess it’s a blog to discuss games and the game industry from different perspectives,” I gulped. Something like that--non-committal and without possibly conflicting with whatever he would surprise me with. Yeah, that'll work.

“Sure,” he said. “The short answer for why I made it is: to write about what interests me.” I was disappointed with this answer at first, but he elaborated: “I write about the art and craft of games. I’m aiming to writing intelligently about the games business with the knowledge and feel that what happens at game companies is affecting what we get to play.” He also spoke of trying to add more variety to his blog, “mixing in some essays about people, problems, trends, and a little bit of culture and art.”

Looking for a story, I said “What about these other blogs I’ve mentioned? Is there a common purpose or mission or method? Can the writing you’re all doing be labeled?” He mentions something about indie film and New Black Cinema and I have no idea what he's talking about, because I know don't know about those things.

I had to remember that more than almost any of these other writers with a heavy Internet presence, N’Gai has traditional, “regular” experience, and that hit home very hard by the time I was done. “It’s a lofty ambition to change coverage of games,” he told me. “I don’t think my writing could affect that. I’m just trying to fill it with interest.”

Oh! I get it. He's a journalist, after the old sort. He mentions one of the few things I already know--he has been writing since 1995. Level Up is an extension, a piece of his vast and superior multifaceted career (my words, not his). I remember something Leigh Alexander said to him on her own blog: that she views his position as the ideal place for her to end up, but that she doesn't begrudge him--he's earned it.

I take it in that direction, asking about coverage in the mainstream press. I treat him like a regular journalist and he gives me some juicy tidbits about journalism as a whole.

"Printed publications are shrinking and in the middle of layoffs, so the first area to go is the entertainment and arts section. And in there is video games. How high a priority are they going to place them? It's harder to convince editors that games merit coverage."

Awesome, and simple, and something I could have figured it if I'd thought about--game coverage struggles in the mainstream publications because (duh) mainstream publications as a whole are struggling. "We should be thankful we've got what we have," I think.

I still press the issue: why are games not desirable to be covered? What problems are there with game writing? He had said the traditional models are broken, after all.

Continuing with the issue of general difficulties in the publishing industry: "Less space contributes to reductivism; much space is used to compare games to other media. But it doesn't reveal enough. What we also usually see is a game's plot summary, what things the player can do, and how similar it is to other games."

There are exceptions; he dishes to me about some other publications and pieces and tells me what he likes and dislikes about them, and he talks to me about the state of the industry; as a professional he tells me it's all technically on the record; I know that he'd probably rather not see a quote about him talking about some other publication the next day, so I simply convey I'm interested in it but not for the sake of my article. This makes the interview extend to about 35 minutes.

Toward the end, and knowing he will be best qualified to answer, I introduce a new topic: "Do you think this is generational? Like, it's simply because most editors are baby boomers?"

Again, he gives me an opinion that is the most realistic and perhaps most depressing and encouraging at the same time. He says something different from what most of the other people I interview say.

"Sure, my editors are mainly boomers, so they have a harder time understanding. But it's my job to write well." He adds, "I have editors who indulge me--they did on GTA IV and MGS 4." I pause, distracted by the uninteresting fact that these games use different symbols for four.

Oh, right. But "no"?! Games aren't generally more accepted, played, talked and thought about by people between the ages of 10 and 40 compared to people between the ages of 40 and 70? Why? Why? "I agree. There's a lot of bad writing about games out there, but still, don't you think that some good writing about games is rejected due to simple differences?"

"Time won't fix it," he warns me. "There are editors you could call 'young fogeys' who don't know games. If they don't know, they don't know. It's my job as a writer to make it interesting."

I think on this. For the Xth time, he enunciates slowly and pauses so I can write. He gets that I'm not using a recorder, even if I probably should. He's a professional, he understands the older style of journalism I'm trying to do that he used to. Young fogeys? I'd have to agree, especially if that young fogey is a woman. I remind myself to ask the only woman I'm interviewing and indeed, the only other one who at this point has confirmed that she will interview, about what she thinks about the other divide. And I think for the Zth time: this guy is a professional, and definitely knows what he's talking about.

I gush as I thank him. He reminds me (okay, now he's definitely giving advice on how to write this) not to let his opinion color the whole thing as I write it, but it's too late. I've already had some conceptions shattered and I can't help but take a new approach when I talk to Kieron Gillen 5 days later. Any questions about games journalism are questions about journalism as a whole.

The original email I sent to N'Gai, with my wide eyes beaming, reflects one thing only: how I felt at the time I started this piece. By the time I was done, this was not the approach I'd taken when interviewing everyone else, even though I sent similar emails to everyone else.

"I write one of the columns at GameSetWatch. I'd like to do a piece on "intellectual" gaming websites and I'm contacting some of the people who make them. I was wondering if we could chat. If you are exceedingly busy, I'd be happy to just send a few questions along and get a few pat answers. If you're willing to talk, I'm open to Ventrilo, phone, Aim/Xfire, Gmail chat, email, etc.

Example question: what you would even call Brainy Gamer, SVGL, Level Up, and similar blogs? Do they merit a classification?

Let me know if/when/how you are available. It's not an extended interview--I'm going to talk to as many as I can and get some material from a variety of places, so it won't be putting you or Level Up on the spot. The format is casual/newsy with quotes from different figures and places.

Thank you,
Michael Walbridge"

The mega interview journey, part 1: how I got to writing the damned thing

2008-07-01T11:27:00.008-06:00

Prior to setting up the Game Anthropologist, I’d only been paid money for one piece of games writing. I applied to write at GameSetWatch because I like the kind of writing done there. As I mentioned earlier, two of the first columns I read and loved are Chris Dahlen’s Save the Robot and Leigh Alexander’s now retired the Aberrant Gamer. I also mentioned that I discovered a sort of blog chain.

Despite their similarities, there seemed to be no formal recognition or label of the type of discourse they were engaged in, something I now think is mainly the result of two things: the spectacle over New Games Journalism, and the fact that it is mostly private and personal stuff with varying agendas and no money or official governing body involved; in short, they were blogs, and no one considers a group of blogs a community. Instead of only making my own observations, I realized they knew better than I did and that I should get their opinions.

The main reason I interviewed 7 people is because the column is about communities, and because I wanted to make sure I wasn't getting the opinion of someone in the minority. For however intelligent all these writers are, I had no way of knowing for sure what they agreed on. They'd have surely been pissed had I described all of them, labeled them, and said what they thought and what they disagreed and agreed on without talking to them. So I absolutely had to interview a number of them if I were to represent a group of people. I did talk to some people who said things no one else said and said things that basically no one else thinks (that I know of). For example, Leigh said "game criticism" with a hell of a lot of confidence; would the interview have gone well if I kept asking "Gee, is that what everyone else thinks?" Wouldn't have worked. And I did ask that question in the basic sense, but only one or two times, and only about the broad focus of the article and the basic questions I had regarding why these spaces existed, what they were for, what similarities they bear, if their methods warranted labeling, and if they were communities and not just casual publishing space. To ask it about every single response would not be an effective interviewing technique.

I had some criteria for the all the people I interviewed which is simple and self-evident: they had to 1. have a personal blog space of some sort which is separate from their official title, they 2. had to be frequently linked and part of the network I'd found, they 3. had to write about games in this different style I yet had no name for and 4. had to be successful in writing about games in some other successful venue or venues.

There were exceptions, but only minor ones. N'Gai's space isn't strictly his, it's Newsweek's; still, he runs the thing and it was his idea to even set it up. He can definitely count. Shawn Elliott is not someone I'd have thought to ask, but his podcasts are legendary, he thinks differently, and N'Gai said he may be interested--with N'Gai's recommendation, talking to Shawn was too good an opportunity to pass up. He also has a blog on 1Up, which gives him a space that is somewhat similar to N'Gai's. Michael Abbott isn't a game journalist, but he definitely fits in with the rest of them on conversation--and technically, he does get paid to write about games as he's doing Brainy Gamer as part of his sabbatical (he will do a presentation on it to his Wabash College colleagues this fall, as I understand); and anyway, if he's teaching a class on it, he's definitely a professional who is talking and writing about games and getting paid for it. And anyway, having some variety and slightly outside perspective helps when it's coming from someone who writes at a very successful, very mainstream publication, someone who resides at and has lots of experience at a traditional games outlet, and someone who is in academia.

The very first person I talked to was N'Gai.

Deluxe Update, Mountain Edition

2008-06-26T11:51:00.002-06:00

So I've been back for about a week, but the whole going out of town thing put me behind on the most ambitious thing I've done to date. Word to the wise: an interview is not as easy as it looks, and if you do 7 of them for a column that is only supposed to be about 1,500 words, you will be overwhelmed.

I actually had the stupidity to just write about each of the 7 of them in order and think I could fit it in. I got through N'Gai and Kieron and was at about 1,100 words. It was then 10 in the evening and I realized that I had to start over. It was definitely time to play some TF 2.

By the end of today I will have completed it with a different approach that covers all 7 as a group instead of paying attention to each of them individually. However, all of these people I interviewed had some very interesting things to say, and the story of how it all went for me is one I still wish to tell, even if only to myself.

So what am I going to do? I'm going to post what they said on this blog. But not all in one post, because man, longest post evar. Also, I'm going to summarize my thoughts on the journey I took. I talked to them across a period of about 3 weeks. It's been a long 3 weeks.

Also

2008-06-11T14:01:00.002-06:00

I'm mostly out of town and mostly not connected to the Internet for the rest of this week and the next.

Self-abuse in game playing

2008-06-11T12:38:00.011-06:00

What unhealthy things does someone who works in games do when he is messed, stressed, or depressed? Sex? Alcohol? Caffeine? Some other drug?

For me at least, it's play video games. Ironic, because I've been talking or writing about games all day, probably on a monitor, and and I take a break by staying on a computer and playing a game? The lines between work and play are confusing, and even more so for games. Not old news. So when do I get a break? Isn't there some sort of Sabbath or sabbatical, a day of rest, if you will?

How can we rest from video games? Perhaps the only way is if there is something else in your life that is also important. If there isn't, or if what is temporarily loses its hold, perhaps they can have too strong a hold.

My first piece for the Game Anthropologist was about DoTA. It's a great game. I was unhappy with the results of the article, though. After a temporary increase in DOTA playing, I remembered one reason why I got involved with other games, and that is that the text-based denizens of battle.net are one of the most savage breed of jackasses ever encountered.

Let me explain this a bit more. In an MMO, you can /ignore someone. On XBox Live or PSN, you can mute them. In most shooters, you can mute, and there's little time for text. Tactical, long-respawn shooters (Counter Strike, Call of Duty's search and destroy mode) can also reveal gaming's mire, but sometimes the team is coordinating. Sometimes there is commentary on the existing players. The round will end, and all who are dead and alive will be together again. And anyway, the dead and living can't communicate.

In Battle.net, you can squelch, but many use tricky names. And for some reason, in DoTA, when you squelch, it doesn't always work (or stay working). If you check the chat log for anything you missed, squelched chat occurs.In DoTa, when you die, your respawn time is anything from 5 to 90 seconds, leaving time for players to do nothing but say whatever they want. The living communicate with the dead. Observe these two:

Open closer inspection it is not shit-talking, "I'm gonna own u" rhetoric we are hearing (though I also have a shot of that same orange guy saying that). It is teammates being unhappy with each other. While dead. And talking to the other team (which I was on).

I've been discouraged for a number of personal reasons and it's been impairing my ability to work and be happy. One of these is that my video card finally burnt out and I had to use a spare. The spare is not as good, and Team Fortress 2, the place I could go and play play instead of work play, was not so relaxing, as the card is struggling to handle it. I also didn't get to interact much with anyone of quality, the way you can in WoW or TF 2. I didn't even get to interview Icefrog, DOTA's current head of state, one of the few people involved who is a decent human being.

So I've been playing more public, non-TDA DOTA matches, which the card can handle. And it's discouraged me. It's made me lazy and more hateful of games while enslaving me. I'm not sure how this happened, but it's fascinating to me. I didn't realize until a week later, after I was bitter.

We talk about games being therapeutic, educational, beautiful, aesthetic, or enlightening. We also talk of them as being cheap, derivative, or boring. But it occurred to me in the last two weeks that sometimes they can be devastating, depressing, destructive and discouraging.

It doesn't matter how good a game is--if the people there make you feel worse than you did when you started playing, don't keep hoping it will get better.

This guy is right, even if he is ironically unaware as he uses his ally's IRL name. I don't deny that "IRL" is more real than it is online, but I have to insist that what we do together digitally is more real than we often give it credit for.

The truth about platforms

2008-06-11T11:43:00.003-06:00

You know, this is the new best description of the current situation. I couldn't have done it better myself.

And no, I'm not kidding.

Achievements: telling us how to play and why

2008-06-09T11:12:00.002-06:00

First Valve and TF 2, now somewhere else that is...big. It seems that the lasting legacy that Microsoft brings is not going to be Halo or its spawned ilk, not some other game or franchise, and not any new technology or innovative hardware or gameplay.

View it and weep.

(I heard this was from the World of Raids forums, but I can't see it in there anywhere. Someone typed in " /achievements " in the Wrath of the Lich King alpha server. Oy vey.)

The crazy thing to me is that much of this is already trackable, before they had the achievements.

A safer review system

2008-06-06T13:29:00.003-06:00

And by safer, I mean for both readers and producers of content. There have been complaints by readers regarding the completion of games--they think every reviewed game should be completed. Such a demand is ridiculous and doesn't show much forethought.

What's also causing some head-scratching, a month after GTA IV's release, is that it's not quite the game we thought it was. That's not to say it's bad, or we're upset we got excited for it...it's just that we all wrote about it without getting to understand it as well as we've liked, and now there's a crop of followup-writing that essentially says "Now that it's been out a month and I've played a lot further through it, I have mixed feelings."

So, perhaps "we write what we see" is something that shouldn't only apply to pre-release, but to release and post-release as well. Some games age well, like wine. Others don't, even if they're great for the first two weeks. I did the main story for Mass Effect in 20 hours--after I beat it, I took it in for credit and haven't missed it since. I'm glad I played it; but I don't need more time with it. And it gives me little nostalgia.

Oblivion, on the other hand, was a game I highly regretted selling and had to repurchase. And it holds a larger portion of my memories and heart.

Maybe I'll discuss that more later.

Valve: "There's nothing wrong with the PC as a platform. Also, can someone else please do a good job of saying this?"

2008-06-02T13:13:00.003-06:00

I'm a huge TF 2 fan, so it of course follows I'm part of the Steam and Valve legion. Last week Valve held a small press even t in which Gabe Newell and others spoke on the PC as a gaming platform. The contents of this meeting reveal Valve's atypical view of responsibility to gaming as an industry and medium, rather than just simply their investors.

You'll of course need to read the whole thing; I'm not here to tell you the only important parts. I hate secondary news writing that consists of a writer condensing a writer's condensing of an event. What's that? Press releases? Digital news can't possibly be done that way?

Okay, so the best part is how Valve has admitted that they have become the unofficial champions of PC gaming. They did not ask for it, and they say so. They could be cocky about it, and yet, in this cock-driven industry where there is a rare opportunity for justified cockiness, they take the responsible route. Instead of saying "we shouldn't be the champions, don't stick this on us" or "okay, we're awesome, put more games on Steam!", they say "Well, we're part of it, and intend to keep championing PC gaming, but there are other people who should be here with us."

Way to take the true high road, Valve--not deferring responsibility nor taking all glory, but taking some of both when expected to and inviting others to do the same. The industry could use more of this.

First table scraps

2008-05-29T13:43:00.003-06:00

I've sold my first, yet unpublished article to Gamasutra; emboldened by that, I decided to pitch a column I'd been thinking about for months to one of Gamasutra's sister sites, Gamesetwatch.

I love the dialog and content there and I'm honored to be one of its columnists. Right now, "alternative" video game discussion seems centered around three things: games journalism and the relationship amongst consumers, journalists, and game devs/publishers; the content and making of the games themselves; and the relationship between video games and other institutions and media.

The phrase "we play" usually means the same thing as "we read", something we go into rooms and do alone and then talk about later, like a book club, only with an atypical, non-Oprah-watching demographic. Then we go home, play some more, and come back to the water cooler to talk about it again. The "interaction" part isn't the only unique part of video games. There's another part that makes it different from all the rest, though, and that's the fact that some parts can only be done with others. The "interaction" is sometimes people, not just product.

The Game Anthropologist will still be about games, but ultimately, it will be about the people who play them.

World of Warcraft and Sex

2008-05-27T12:05:00.006-06:00

Today I got something humorous from my wife. It reads:

"I love you.

What are you doing today? Writing a book? Looking for a job? Doing laundry? Washing the counters, stove, refrigerator, and floor? Playing video games (not [World of Warcraft])? Reading a book? Writing articles? Blogging?"

The first funny thing is the not-unjustified insinuation that I could be expected to be doing any of these things while she's at work. Second is the fact that I couldn't be playing WoW without her. Third is the fact that I am indeed allowed to do any of those things while she's at work, including playing video games, as long as it isn't World of Warcraft.

I thought for a brief moment about it, though I hadn't until this email: yes. Yes, I am looking forward to her getting home so we can play together. Then I realized how riotously funny that must seem.

Baby, I promise that WoW is only about you and me. It's just, uh, I do need another 70 or so pieces of rugged leather. And we already spent 2 hours on that damned yeti quest in Winterspring. And it's a gold a piece on the Auction house. Maybe I could...?

Bad at Graphic Design, and Like, Graphics and Spying

2008-05-15T13:49:00.009-06:00

I'm a big fan of Team Fortress 2. I've written a piece on it for Gamasutra and want to write more on it in the future for a column I'm hoping to join. Also, I've become acutely aware of the lack of graphics on my blog.

One of the most telling things about a TF 2 player is his collection of screenshots. While in the throes of death, the game throws bits of life which, as far as I know, represent the first and only masculine scrapbooking system, each scrapbook a thumb print that represents unconscious, primal, even Freudian perspectives in the scrapbook-maker's soul.

My own large library of photos is a bookshelf I am truly familiar with, tomes that don't represent what I want you to think of me but what I really think about. So what do I think about? For one thing, I just want some regular, "OMG kickass" type shots to prove my scrapbooking is worth looking at. The first thing we can learn from these shots about Etelmik is that he is starved for attention.

Speaking of your attention...

This is one of my favorite standard up-close-and-personal shots.

This is obviously from a server with the melee overtime feature. I think when that happens, strategizing is stupid and you should just enjoy it for the brawl that it is. Of course, we can see here what happens if your team doesn't enjoy that philosophy and the other does.

I've long been of the opinion that pyro is the second-hardest class. This guy makes it look easy.

Snipers have done this to me more times than I want to think about.

This pic represents my spy failure too, but man, what a view.

New attempt to "fight" PC piracy

2008-05-06T14:39:00.002-06:00

PC piracy is blamed for a lot of things, especially poor sales on games. Including bad ones.

However, a game we know that won't be bad, Mass Effect, is going to go to the next level in anti-piracy: periodic CD Key checks.

So uh, how about those of us who may want to play it when it's not online? I guess if your computer can run Mass Effect you likely have a persistent connection or can get one soon, nyet?
Comparisons to Starforce are inevitable. I'm glad I got my kicks on the 360, where I could resell it. And not have to worry about offline play.

Levels of game morality

2008-05-05T15:35:00.002-06:00

Instead of simply how realistic a game is, and what kinds of events happen to occur in it, we could analyze and even rate them by their morality systems. As a casual understudy of human development, I must remind all interested in games and their censorship that development isn't simply a matter of intelligence or spatial abilities and contact with reality--it's the development and expansion of our moral capabilities.

In order to simplify, I'll couch it in term of protagonists, their objectives, and how they meet those objectives.

1. Non-character games. Puzzlers, Geometry Wars, non-personal games in which moral issues are basically non-existent.
2. Good guys doing good things. Same as above, only doing things that aren't questionable. Diner Dash, puzzlers with characters, Professor Layton, etc.
3. Good guys beating bad guys with good things. Again, puzzlers. Also, good vs. evil only with non-violent resolutions, or resolutions not involving death. Old Nintendo Franchises.
4. Good guys beating bad guys with bad things. Action-movie material. Old Nintendo Franchises. World of Warcraft.
5. Neutral/bad guys who have the choice to do good or bad things, but the morality of the choices are obvious. Mass Effect, Bioshock.
6. Neutral/bad guys who have to do bad things or are tempted to do bad things. Morality is not clear cut and must be deduced; the game will not make the morality clear for you. Army of Two, tangents in certain RPGs, Grand Theft Auto Series.
6. Bad people who do obviously bad things. The game only progresses if you do something obviously morally wrong. Super Columbine Massacre RPG is the only meaningful one I can think of.

The problem is that people put GTA in category 6, not 5. The problem is also that none of these are inherently bad, but that we often need to hear from players and reviewers before we know about these systems. Also, those ignorant of video games are unaware of these systems and thus must agonize over the games when it's obvious that they shouldn't have to.

If we must make solid, governing ratings, we should do more from the morality systems inherent in the game world and the potential and inevitable actions of the characters, not simply by what material exists.

Why Americans Hate Video Games

2008-05-02T11:04:00.004-06:00

The Escapist recently published an article about the "media myth", which is really an article that says "So many people hate video games, and it's fascinating," followed by "we can't blame the media for it, it's really due to culture", followed by "this is what some video game industry people think."

The salient quotes express what's surely been said before: everyone fears what they don't understand, older generations always frown upon that confounded immoral rock'n'roll racket, etc.

We've not really hit upon the point though. It's still highly frowned upon by many who are younger than 30, by left and right, and by many men, for example. The hate is not a young vs. old, left vs. right, or even a women vs. men thing.

The cultural belief is broader than this, and we can see it illustrated clearly in a Guitar Hero or Rock Band contest. Imagine (or remember, more likely), if you will, a "Rock Band" playing in the mall or Best Buy. What do we commonly see? Most likely a kinda-long-haired, t-shirt-sporting young man and his cohorts, with liveliness distracting the other shoppers. An incompetent drummer, perhaps. People acting like they're playing music when they're not. The most common criticism of people who spend any amount of time on Rock Band or Guitar Hero is (chant it with me now) "learn to play a real instrument" or, if someone already knows "I can play a real instrument." Anyone who plays is supposed to take it as wisdom and counsel about how to live the true American way and always be producers of content or producers of something in the economic world and other another fun American maxim that gives us our awesome maximum of 2 weeks vacation a year: in the land of freedom, you're free to have fun, but really you should only have fun if you earned your right to first.

Americans don't like it when people play, pretend, relax, or goof off or have fun. It's not allowed. And video games are the exact opposite of those principles. It's why the haters can't articulate a good reason for it. When a good reason is lacking, personal feelings are involved, and in this case, the feelings are the subscription to those American values. Some people have realized that this sacred American ethic is not unchallengable, and is not without flaws. So, they continue to play video games. And amazingly, many of them still produce content and work hard. And marry, and make babies, pay taxes, vote, and other amazing, American-endorsed concepts that aren't supposed to work with video game playing.

It's the American ideals of work and play that lead to a heavy lack of vindication of the medium. Moral issues aren't meant to be explored--the world was already explored, and when they did, they found America--so we're here now, entertain us, but don't do it with video games, because they, more than any other medium or activity, lead to passive, anti-American terrorist non-producers.

Got it? Video games = laziness = non-American. And here you thought America had run out of things to agree about.

GTA IV is out today

2008-04-29T13:25:00.002-06:00

Sometimes I hate the English language and being white. We frequently need to come up with new terms so we can classify and categorize, rather than experience.

Take Grand Theft Auto IV. It's out today, and, like certain other big titles from last year and this year that end in a "4" or "IV", I'm not particularly interested in playing it. However, it seems that each year there are one or two dozen games that are "must-plays" for the year. In order to have kept up with the times and the industry, you need to have played these games. Haven't seen "Juno"? Even if you didn't want to see it, to not have seen it somehow induces a guilt-trip for practicing cultural anarchy. "Oh, didn't see Juno, huh?" (What, you don't like movies? Do you sit in your room and play video games and write all day or something?)

Such is GTA IV. The open-world thing isn't new to me, nor is the concept of awesome graphics or voice acting, but it's a cultural phenomenon. I can afford to not play much Smash Bros. Brawl. It's an update. It's just a game. I can pretend I've played just by having played Melee on the Gamecube. But every so often come the Commander Shepherds, the Desmond Miles', the Gordon Freeman's, the GLaDOS' of the world. GTA IV's protagonist is Niko Bellic. Games with real characters.

Like Halo 3, this is a game I'm not excited about, but if I own one an XBox 360 and I don't play it, I'll be left out and have my "gamer" card taken from me.

So let's see, the game I'm reviewing now will get me 25 bucks in credit...

Kids! I Don't Know What's Wrong With These Kids Today

2008-04-28T11:46:00.004-06:00

A couple of weeks ago I did something I don't normally do: I played WoW during the daytime. Usually I play when my Muschie is home, everyone else is online, and cell phone minutes are free: evenings and weekends.

I have a friend I've known since I was 9 years old who still lives in town. He is getting married soon, and introduced his wife to WoW. She is not nearly as into it as he is, but she was willing to play if we would get on an Alliance server that some other friends from her hometown are playing on. Me, my friend, and Muschie have been raised Horde tough. Muschie was gracious enough to be willing to go Alliance for this girl (hmm...sounds hot).

My friend already had a level-36 character when we started. I was 8 levels behind Muschie. The only reason I can think of that I played was to catch up a little so we could do some instances together.

After playing for half an hour, someone I don't know asked me if I wanted go to RFK. Strange request, but why not? Over an hour later, the group is about to start, and one of the people in my party says he's eleven years old. I am not too excited about this news, but decide to be chill about it since the kid's not given me any problems. Aware of the irony (I'm 26, unemployed, and playing WoW in the daytime), I say "Why aren't you in school?" Spring break, I find out. Oh, and guess what?! Two of the other kids are on spring break too! In fact, it seems that all four kids in my party are in elementary school, two of them being eleven years old.

I couldn't believe it. "You're kidding me, right?" I asked. "You're not really 11 years old, are you?" I'm asking this because they're unbelievably mature and polite and their spelling isn't actually that bad. Not even a "2" for a "to" or a "u" for a "you" emerged on screen. I remained silent. "I'm the third most popular kid in my class," one soon explained. "I would be second, but I let my friend be second." I smiled. "How do you figure that out?" I said. "Do you all take a poll?"

Refreshingly, he laughed and said he didn't know. Other miracle is that even though I'm specced as a balance druid at level 30, no complained thatI can't heal (I can--the restoration or healing spec actually doesn't help with healing at this point), which has happened more than once when I've tried to go to Gnomeregan, and everyone followed proper rules of etiquette for marking enemies, distributing loot, and handling mistakes and bosses.

The run was a breeze. We were a little bit high-powered for the instance, but much could have gone wrong. I gained a lot of experience. I tried to figure out what was so strange about it; kids who were polite! On the Internet! Guarantee a kid that he'll get away with something and he'll almost always do it, right?

Maybe, since they were all 11 and had WoW accounts, it's because of a higher socioeconomic situation with a stay-at-home mom and good parenting. While encouraging, I think it may have been for another reason. I've worked with kids before and I have studied human development, and I remembered something: kids between 8-11 or 12 can often be easier to work with than teenagers who are 13-19.

And that knowledge makes this experience my crowning anecdote for a case against the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: maybe it's not a matter of the Internet causing people to become ruder. Maybe the normalcy of the Internet has made life online just an extension of our real lives. And people who are scam artists and jerks aren't that way because of anonymity, but because that's how they are anyway, and the Internet and anonymity is just an opportunity to act in a sphere with no consequences. After all, stick a teenager in the middle of a party complete with drugs, alcohol, and a lot of strangers, and you'll get a similar result--a whirlwind of obscenities, attention-whoring, and destruction.

Eliminate the word "gamer" from your vocabulary

2008-04-03T12:26:00.007-06:00

"Gamer" gets 51 and a half million Google hits, which is more than John McCain and Hillary Clinton combined.

The most common discussion involving the word involves the following:

What is a gamer? (Usually becomes an argument about who deserves to be called one, as if it's an honor)
What kinds of gamers are there or how should we classify them? (Usually gets weak grunts of approval and humorous anecdotes about furries)
Does such and such a category really apply? (More interesting, usually ends with a call for extinguishing or redefining the category)

The two common answers to the first question are either "someone who plays games", which comes from a prescriptive dictionary, or "someone who prefers to use free time playing video games more than anything else", adopted from popular usage within and without gaming circles. Well, this doesn't give us much to work with. It doesn't actually define much of anything.

I'm a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) and I can identify with the next step that was taken: adoption of the word "gamer" as an almost holy moniker of sorts. For those not in the know, Mormonism's largest denomination, the one with the missionaries with the little black name tags and that have control of Utah, etc., is the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The word "Mormon" comes from the Book of Mormon, a book they believe is additional scripture to the Bible, which makes them vastly different from other Christian denominations. "Mormon" became an epithet, an insult against people of that religion. The days where it became a slur are long gone and it is simply the name that has gone throughout the world. And we don't mind too much: you're not being insulting, and the word literally means "more good", anyway. So, throughout the common masses, what you hear from Mormons is: "Well, we call ourselves Latter-day Saints, but no, Mormon's not offensive."

Gamers did the same. "Gamer" was probably an insult that rose from gaming's prepubescent beginnings and the rather primitive need to classify our classmates. Even if it was a gamer who invented it and it wasn't originally an insult, it soon became one. There is no doubt that the word gamer had acquired a certain negative stigma (first link NSFW or your ears).

But like Mormons, gamers adopted the name as a sort of official title, one that is automatically supposed to mean something when there's nothing to see. I've looked, and I've gamed over 20 years, and I've been committed to more than one kind of gaming scene, and there is nothing that is guaranteed to make a gamer have something in common with another gamer besides the fact they both play games. It's almost like meeting someone from Tanzania and saying "oh, that guy's from Nigeria, don't you have something in common with them?" (I've seen that happen, and the answer was "no".)

So I propose we eliminate the word gamer. If you're not convinced, please follow me a little more. If you play games seriously, you likely want general recognition that games can be art, that games are going to be the 4th great storytelling tradition (oral, written, and film being the preceding three), and that there is nothing wrong or weird about playing games. But by using the term "gamer" so religiously, you are saying there is something special or unique about it, and it won't work. Not only is it unaccurate and elitist, it's harmful and will tell everyone who doesn't play that we are separating ourselves from them, which is not what we want.

Do people who primarily like TV, film, or books have such a designation? Moviegoer? That's only used once, and for a purpose that's entirely different. TV watcher? Yeah, but they have no common ground. A reader? I've never heard that used before, ever. Even if it were, what would it mean? Someone may read a lot, but one person may read mostly historical nonfiction while another reads romance novels. Remember the argument about grandpa playing Yahoo Bridge and Hearts not being a gamer? The real reason we say this is to make a statement about games themselves. Literally, though, he is still a gamer. Someone may call romance novels trash, but the person is still reading. "It's not literature," your professor or Barnes and Noble cashier will say. But they won't say she's not a reader or that it's not a book, will they?

And of course Hearts and Bridge don't represent anything great in gaming, either. But by now the discussion has already moved on. We're discussing the merits of the games themselves now and what they mean. If we want people to respect gaming, keep the discussion on the games, not the people playing them. Because gaming isn't usually done in public, the only people non-gamers can think of are the awkward teenagers and recluses that are an embarrassment to all they associate with. Again, not what we want.

It's time to move on. Drop the word gamer. Don't say "I'm a gamer." Say something else, like "I game."

XBox Flash mails unexciting mailers--yay

2008-04-01T08:03:00.003-06:00

Anyone who owns a 360 and Live account that's associated with an email address he actually uses will have received an email linking to this about 5 minutes ago.

Looks like they're coming out with yet another board game on Live (whoopie), a new peripheral, and an obviously lame new XBox console, the "Recon." It's like the Halo one--new skin, same sin. Will it have a falcon in it, you ask? Who knows and who cares?

So

2008-03-31T12:44:00.002-06:00

I've been trying to figure out what I want to do with this blog and I think I finally have something figured out. Funny tidbit: the first game I reviewed, Fury, was later reviewed by someone else and for some reason my boss put that one up instead. I just discovered that for months, the most recent post was saying my name is Chris Chester and I wrote that review. Neither are true.

I did edit it though, as I am the editor.

First game review

2007-10-09T09:37:00.000-06:00

Over at Snackbar Games, where I edit some of the ~~junk~~ awesome stuff that they produce, I got the opportunity to do my first game review. It's not too exciting ("The review, or the game?" you ask. "Neither," I say.) But it's a first for me, and I'm proud to have done it, especially because it wasn't Bioshock or some other game that everyone wants to write the review for.

Halo 3: love it or hate it (aka: It’s the Multiplayer, stupid)

2007-09-26T12:32:00.000-06:00

So, I bought Halo 3. For me and me alone, and to no one else that knows me, this was a controversial decision. I previously thought I would rather have purchased TF 2 and a year’s subscription to Live (I haven’t paid for it yet) instead, but I may have to put TF 2 on hold (calm down, it’s only for budget reasons.)

However, I recanted. So many people were buying it, playing it. I was awake, and at 1:00 A.M. I realized I missed the presale. I felt like I had betrayed someone—something. Perhaps a higher (or lower) power insisted. I can’t put it any other way: I felt it was my duty to get this game, and the duty was to something greater than I am.

Oh right, hesitance. No, really, I truly was conflicted on the matter, because I played FPS on the PC long before it mattered on the console. I’m talking Wolfenstein 3D and Rise of the Triad, here, folks. (Hey, check out the requirements on those babies.) I know this question is old, and people roll their eyes at it, but seriously: why would you think that a first person shooter is better on a console? Hell, the unimpressive Quake 4 was better (on PC) than Halo or Halo 2 (PC or console). On the computer, with a mouse, you have much finer control. It’s much easier to aim exactly where you want, and it takes more skill, too. You can customize how sensitive the mouse is. You can sit closer to a screen, and be more immersed. Also, your characters are more flexible. You can move more easily. You can dodge. You can escape. In Halo, once you engage in combat, running away is difficult or impossible. It’s clunky. It’s predictable. It’s more boring to watch.

Still, on cross-platform releases, the console version always sells better. Why are there more people playing console games? I purchased Halo 3 because I wanted to know why. I have to understand my people, the varied community of gamers, and to do that I have to understand how a genre that was originally intended for a mouse and computer transitioned to a less smooth, less controllable, and more successful version. “Good game, better marketing” was an answer that seemed to only partially explain it.

The frequent discussion patterns I see regarding Halo 3 usually proceed as follows:

“Halo is awesomely awesomer than awesomeness.”
“But PC games are better.”
“But it is Halo—it is inarguably good. Look at what everyone gave it in review—all reviews of it are good, from all kinds of outlets.”
“Right, but PC games are better.”
“Everyone is playing it, and all who play it have never changed their minds. They have kept playing it, and not abandoned it, not for Gears of War, and certainly not for any PC shooter. How can millions be wrong?”

“Most of you, if not all, have not played on the PC. All PC gamers have also known that PC shooters are better, and most, if not all, have not changed their minds. They haven’t abandoned it for any console games, and never will.”

Halo 3 is a big game. It’s a big marketing effort. And how people respond to it, both collectively and individually, is indicative of something that is, fundamentally, more cultural than it is of what they think of a game, genre, or platform.

Halo is not nearly as successful in Europe or Asia as it is here. The unspoken questions are American ones, to be sure. “Do you play it because everyone else does?” “Do you play just because you played the others?” “Do you refuse to get it simply because it’s big?” “Why do you play it or not? Why? Why?” Often in response: “Why are you asking all these questions, and why is everyone feeling so pressed to answer them?”

The reason it goes this way is because FPSs are generally not artistic, nor appreciated for their storylines. There is no ancient higher law of art to appeal to—we’re talking about a new medium, with no boundaries or rules made yet. We haven’t really seen it yet.

I played Halo 3. I liked it. In fact, more than I thought I would. I doubt it will be a better multiplayer game than Team Fortress 2. And I know why the argument proceeds the way it does—because PC gamers know a mouse is much more fun to use than a controller. They’re right—if you’ve played on the PC, it’s better. And I know why console players will keep playing it, even if they don’t—because they can find people to play with. Because they can much more easily transport 4 controllers, a dvd, and an xbox to someone’s house than to get 8 guys to bring keyboards, mice, and computers with monitors, with space to put them all in close proximity on a network that can support it.

PC FPS players play the game for the sake of the game. Console players play FPS games for the sake of the sociality. Halo will assign you a game and server with non-ridiculous settings, and you don’t have to find the server yourself.

For now, console wins. Gamers don’t know how to organize themselves. Economic, social, and technological issues are a factor, and it’s staring us in the face. In the future, as PCs and TVs blend into the same thing, we may have these worlds collide, and when it does, it will be beautiful. For now, we must settle on having our PC aristocrats and our console bourgeoisie.

Snobbery about multiplayer games

2007-09-20T12:08:00.000-06:00

The news of Bioshock's lack of multiplayer and the brevity of the campaign mode in Halo 3 have resurrected debates that signal the new rising generation's snobbery—instead of being finicky, proud, and elitist about music (like our parents were/are), we're getting that way about video games.

It seems that most of those in their 20s and most of those who are teenagers are divided on the issue of what makes a game worth buying: its single player or it's multiplayer. While the debates have continued, it's not been highly examined how we got here. If a game was good, it was good. That was it. Now there are preset requirements. Games that would have been considered brilliant are now sometimes immediately shot down for lack of an arbitrary standard—Bioshock for not having multiplayer, for instance.

So, how did we get here?

I'm 25, so my early memories are from the 8-bit NES, not from the N64 or Playstation. Back then, there was little in the way of multiplayer. Multiplayer was an interesting diversion with 4 -player games being a rare and delightful novelty. Most of them were primarily single-player or co-op games, private, masturbatory experiences in which we would sit alone in a room and feel the orgasmic chill of beating up bad guys, finding treasures, and conquering evils both medieval and modernistic. We didn't have great multiplayer, and we didn't have any reason to be too competitive, except within our own inner circles.

There was a quiet revolution that allowed for transition, though, and no one realized the ramifications at the time. Within a small time period, some excellent games came out that were quality for both single and multiplayer. The PC had Warcraft II, Diablo, and Starcraft. The N64 had Starfox 64, Mario Kart 64, Bomberman 64, and last but not least, Goldeneye and Perfect Dark.

A younger generation grew up with games that usually had good multiplayer. Lots of other people played them. Small tournaments and bragging matches ensued at college dorms and other social circles. Competitive gaming started to gain a foothold. And this younger generation didn't know much, if anything, before the world of single player. Games were not masturbatory experiences of glory wherein good conquered evil; they were playing grounds in which one contested for glory in real life.

Some people appreciate both sides. Some of us played Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat in the arcade, where the glory of winning was ahead of its time. Some of us knew a satisfaction from the skill that doesn't simply make one good at games, but better than someone else at them.

And now there's a division. The "hardcore" used to just mean "play a lot"—now it usually means those who seriously want to be the best. It's a title that will likely incite more debate, but the real question isn't "are you a serious, casual, or competitive gamer" but "how and why do you play?"

The Wii, for all its success, does not match up well with either of these mindsets. The Playstation tries to match both, and the Xbox is mostly catering to multiplayers. The PC is anyone's game. Right now the only thing that ensures gaming survives is money. If a game is good on single or multiplayer experience it will capture a segment of the market.

But why groups play the way they do is not examined—at least, not from the view of the entire scope of gamers. While some people have done columns on the type of gamers, and plenty have written about themselves, there is as yet no one who has really chronicled exactly why the collective mass of gamers play games, and how they organize, and how those who are members of more than one camp deal with it.

I'm going to, though, because I want to know if it's possible to play competitively with other 20-somethings and be allowed to take a break and play for relaxation, and if so, how. Because right now, it can't be done, and I want it to be, and I want anyone to be allowed to. If academia, politics, religion, music, or other areas of society have clearly drawn lines (or lack of lines), then video games and video-game-playing, should, too.

This just in

2007-09-14T13:14:00.000-06:00

I got this email while writing the last post. I wrote them ten days ago.

"Hello,

MySpace will not restore deleted accounts. If you deleted your own account, please create a new account and note that if you wish to remove it, the deletion is permanent.

If your account was deleted by MySpace, please review our Terms of Service in order to better understand our community rules. If you wish to create another account on MySpace, please heed these rules in order to avoid future deletion.

If this does not address your issue completely, please press "Reply" and provide any additional information you feel is relevant.

For the most up to date messages about MySpace, subscribe to the MySpace Help blog! You get updates almost every day! Go here to subscribe.

www.myspace.com/myspacehelp

Hope this helps!

Thank you,
MySpace.com"

Tom--I hate your website, and I hope that it, or anyone who may acquire it and leave it as is, fails miserably into bankruptcy.

What a piece of garbage.

Why I chose the Xbox 360

2007-09-14T13:13:00.001-06:00

As was previously reported, my wife bought me an Xbox 360. A choice like that was difficult, and I will explain why I chose it.

Basically there are three systems to choose from. One that is affordable, doesn’t have good Internet connectivity, doesn’t have a big library, and is impossible to get. One is available, recently had its price reduced, has no community, and it’s library isn’t doing well. Oh, and it costs 5,500 dollars. The last one is in the middle of the price range, has a big library, has a huge community and cheap awesome downloadable games, and sometimes breaks.

I took my chance on the last one. At the moment, Nintendo is winning on the market. (“They’re practically printing money,” BAWB once said.) But Xbox has won over my demographic.

Oh, and I have 2 friends with a Wii, but none with an Xbox. You could say I’m doing it for the team. This is one of those rare times when there is no clear answer. Which is the best one? Depends on how you play. I’ll get to that later.

Busy weekend, Part II / Part Happy

2007-09-12T16:15:00.000-06:00

My wife often gmail chats with me while I’m at work. One day I received the following chat from her: “I'm SO EXCITED FOR YOUR BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

My birthday is November 25^th.

Then she says to me:

“I mean:

I"M SO EXCITED FOR YOUR BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I can't wait.

How can you stand the suspense?”

She wants to get my present, she says. She just can’t wait any longer. Absolutely can’t wait anymore. I think, “okay, she wants to get me something. I’m down with that. That’s cool.” It’s not entirely a surprise—she couldn’t take it any longer and we opened all our Christmas presents on the 13^th. We’ve told few people about that.

But the thing was, I couldn’t really think of what she’d get me. A game? She wouldn’t be excited about a game. Plus, the few that she knows about aren’t out yet. Maybe it’s something else. I’d think it may be clothes, but she knows that I wouldn’t be as excited about it. (At Christmas, I got her all toys, she got me all clothes. Guess we should have reversed it?)

She says she’ll be getting a good deal on it, too. Nope, still don’t know.

This last Friday I pick her up from work, and on that day she had informed me we’d be going out to get my present. She tells me we’re going to Circuit City. The only reason I don’t think it’s odd is because it’s got some deal, or whatever (turns out the promotion was over when she got in).

Now, Circuit City. This is exciting. It has to be something I want. It’s a toystore. Circuit City and the like are toy stores. I’m getting a new toy. What could it be?! What would she get me? The only thing I know that she knows what I want are some unreleased games (I think), and maybe a DS, and eventually an Xbox 360. But there’s no way she’d get me a 360—she likes watching TV sometimes and she had stated she doesn’t really want to get a console. In fact, she emphatically said no at one point, when I wasn’t as interested in it.

We arrive, and it’s awkward—she doesn’t want me to see it yet. So, I give her the car keys and go in to Target. The Electronics department is located ironically right next to the entrance; I browse through the systems and titles and I get excited and nervous. What is she getting me? What if it’s a disappointment? What if it’s more than I can comprehend? I then grab the little note she gave me to read while I was in Target:

“My Love,

Before we do anything today, I just want that you know that I really do SUPER love you.

I am so excited to do this little thing for you today. I just can’t wait. I really do hope that it will be as exciting for you as I want that it be.

I just love you and I want to make you happy.

So today, let’s just relax and have fun celebrating you.

All my love,

[Muschie’s real name]”

“Little thing” makes my heart pound—that’s Muschie-speak for “huge thing.” It’s a 360! It has to be! But how could it be?! This doesn’t happen! Why does she tease me! I play a lot on the computer, and the console is even more dominating! Women don’t BUY XBOX 360’s FOR THEIR HUSBANDS 12 WEEKS BEFORE THEIR BIRTHDAYS WHEN THEY ALREADY ARE A LITTLE TIRED THAT THEIR HUSBANDS PLAY A LOT OF GAMES!

After 15 minutes of quiet desperation, she retrieves me and we drive home. When we park, she makes me pop the trunk, where she’s put the gift, and I go inside. I go in another room, and she takes the gift in. She makes me close my eyes, and leads me to the couch, and on the couch is an Xbox 360. Elite.

I haven’t cried in a while. Nor have I been as excited. When I was 5, my bro and I got a Nintendo out of the blue—no birthdays, no Christmas, nothing. At 25, I got an Xbox 360 out of the blue for my birthday 12 weeks before the fact. It's like my life is starting over.

She also researched to know that the 360 elite is the most desirable version. And then we got a few games. And she bought an extra controller.

”I asked everyone at work about it,” she said, “so that I’d know to get the right one.”

“Wow. How’d they react to that? Someone had to be freaking out.”

”Yeah. Charles, the only single male there, likes video games. He was like, ‘Dang, wish I could find one single woman like that.’ I think it bothered him for the rest of the day, or maybe the week.”

I feel that Charles and I may be kindred spirits. The biggest difference between us is that one of us has a wife, and she bought him an Xbox 360 for his birthday.

Thank you, love. You really have no idea what it means to me.

New Neskimos Songs

2007-09-12T13:35:00.000-06:00

In the last week, the Neskimos recently updated their song list.

F-Zero Port Town and Dr. Mario Fever are my favorites. Awesome.

Busy Weekend, Part I / Part Sad

2007-09-11T10:12:00.000-06:00

I've mentioned before that Muschie and I are den leaders for a scout troop. A modern rite that boy scouts participate in is the Pinewood Derby. Three days ago our troop and other troops in the immediate area participated. Our assignment was to give the best design awards. This was a perfect fit for us, as we aren't good with our hands (well, except for my micro and her knitting) and don't know anything about the derby, and consider ourselves more aestheticists than we would mechanics.

The day starts off on a stressful note, because I neglect to hurriedly purchase some cookies for the boys' consumption (I said there would be 1,000 cookies already and thus we didn't need to spend the money, but the real reason is that I had a rare opportunity to get this done and so I made us barely on time). I am dreading the occasion, and Muschie is enthused, though perhaps bludgeoned by my sucky attitude.

We arrive exactly on time to a church gym containing a table with drinks and 1,000 cookies, some parents, a lot of boys, a few little sisters, and a guy on a microphone, obviously not a parent, threatening bloody murder on any boy scout, parent, or boy scout's little sister who dares to mess with his track that is over 18-feet long and has an electronic sensor that detects who finishes 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. He also will “charge five dollars” for each time someone touches it.

We curve around the back of the gym so Muschie takes a look at the cars to get a look at all of them before they start racing. A lady in charge tells me to go into the kitchen to get the important documents (the awards). I discover bags of mini-sized 100 Grands, and one them is open. I take four of them. Muschie gets angry when she sees me munching.

This thing was 2 hours. It was terribly and oddly competitive. It's been that way for so long in some circles that Pinewood Derby competitiveness is now even clichéd. Children and their parents (mainly dads) rise in triumph, slump in defeat, and wring their hands in agony.

Speaking of dads—I've learned there are two types of dads, essentially. One is the kind that is aggravated, and will break the rules and put the car on the track when his son should. He is urgent in his step, and it is desirable to avoid him because you don’t know what he could do if he gets set off.

The other kind of dad will completely support his son's design-concept, help as much as possible while letting his soon do as much as possible, and not nay-say if he knows the design isn't the most feasible in the engineered sense. We noticed some dads were simply happy that their sons did so much work on the cars in the first place. I salute those dads.

At the end, we distributed design awards; I got to use the microphone and call out "Best carving—David Noobolski!" and other such nonsense. A few were pleased, but most knew that it was inferior to what really mattered—winning. Except that we don't want to go next year. There are always plenty of third and fourth-places.

One car we saw was yellowy, with little brown specks on it, and I thought it looked like an banana with little remaining shelf-life. We gave it “Most Unique Design”. On its first race, it only went halfway down the track. The disappointment on the face of the boy who made it could make an army sergeant cry. He had to race four or five more times, the way everyone else did. As with all the cars, the results were the same.

That’s the hardest thing—watching these kids be reinforced by notions of victory and loss when it’s a place that they should be happy to get “Most Original Design.” Some are happy with such awards, but for our banana-loving friend, he knew what was most important—winning.

He wasn’t the only one who was crestfallen.

Upcoming filmmaker

2007-09-07T08:51:00.000-06:00

One of these days this blog will be recognized for the awesomeness of its writing and of its frequenters.

There's a movie on his website that he's never told me about and that, to my knowledge, hasn't been shown to many of his friends. I'm sure other people have seen it, but there's been no discussion or recognition that I know of and it's really good. Anyway, his name's Thirdmango and there are two movies here. My Brother Aaron is simply some amazing keyboarding skills, and God Hates Me is the beautiful little gem that gives me hope that he'll be making quality film someday. That's him with the big hair. Make sure to watch until the end. The site's a little slow--man, who'd you get your hosting with, Jon?

So, I'd forgotten about this movie until one day I was listening to a random CD of Muschie's. The Full House theme song came on and all of the sudden I thought of this movie, and it was a very funny, private moment for me. I don't want it to be private, so I thought I'd tell you how funny it was, TM.

My avatar

2007-09-05T11:29:00.000-06:00

My skills at digital creation are minimal, at best. However, I have a small amount of pride regarding my avatar. I use it at Penny Arcade and at Snackbar, where I am currently an editor of most of the stuff they churn out. Really, it represents the sentiments of my feelings about a certain word that, when used without anger or hostility, always makes me laugh.

In all its glory:

Netflix movies presents: The Juror

2007-09-05T08:07:00.000-06:00

My wife, Muschie, has a Netflix list that covers us for over the next year. Somehow, at some point, she gets on certain kicks. One of these is Alec Baldwin. We had Malice show up a few weeks ago, and yesterday we had The Juror. (By the way, is IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes better for linking movies that you don't know about?)

I won't give an overview of the plot, because you can find it elsewhere. I rarely get drawn into movies, and even though this was a bad one, it still drew me in. Part of it is that Alec Baldwin's character wasn't so vanilla as Demi Moore's as the protagonist or Anne Heche's as the friend.

I think the way in which he was crazy and his style of evil was unique enough to keep me watching. Even though the movie is more or less predictable, it at least leaves you interested enough to wonder "how", even if not the what. The end of the trial occurs 75 minutes into a 115 minute movie. That part of the movie could have been shortened, but overall, when Baldwin bites the dust, there' s a certain satisfaction to it. If you're checking out common 90's thrillers, give this one a whirl, but remember that it's mostly forgettable.

Disappointment

2007-09-04T08:50:00.000-06:00

This weekend we taught a primary class (LDS code for "Sunday School for the kids"). Before we broke for class, we were at Sharing Time (LDS code for "all the kids in one big room managed by a handful of women and maybe a man or two".) There was a simple game wherein a lady had a bag with slips of paper on them, with good and bad deeds on them. The kids were told to give thumbs up and thumbs down when the deeds were read. They were enthusiastic about getting it right. "Copying your friend's homework." Ooh, that's bad. How about the next one? "Giving someone a hug." (I'm not making this up, that was the actual phrase.) "Okay, let's be quiet," the lady up front says. "Let's just use our thumbs, okay?"

The next one we got was "be reverent." The response: "YeeeeaaaAAAHHHHH!!!" The loudest yet.

In other news, we've been having some trouble with a few things that we have no control over, so I decided to lay low and concentrate on adding Myspace friends. I was a little down, and just starting a click-fest. Click click click. I needed to do something that wouldn't shoot the gun prematurely, but would still get something done.

Then Myspace deleted it, and I'm trying to get them undelete it, but I don't think it's going to happen. And we had some good friends, a lot of them, and comments, and by the way, have you noticed there are other video games sites with 4,236 friends and they didn't get deleted for spam or whatever?

I lose at the Internet.

For all your aches and pains

2007-08-23T09:05:00.000-06:00

Man, I want a console.

The last console I got, and I’m embarrassed to admit this…is an N64.

To be fair, I got a new computer in late 2005, and I also updated its video card and RAM. I’ve been playing PC games, but not console games. I’ve never played on the Wii Network or on Xbox live, and I’m torn as to which I would really want. I’m not going to get a PS3—I don’t have the dough and it doesn’t have the games yet.

It’s been ten years since a new system. It’s time for an upgrade. Which to get and how do I afford it…

We're coming to suck your blood give you video games

2007-07-31T09:42:00.001-06:00

I've mentioned before that I work for PowerUp Games.

All the official announcements in official PR PowerUp language will be put on the Myspace page and Myspace blog. This blog is about me, not PowerUp Games. However, I work for Powerup Games, and in accordance with my culture I identify myself a lot by what I do for a living. Occasionally, you'll be hearing about PowerUp, like right now.

So, work. Brad (my boss) is on vacation, but I really, really need him to get back so we can change the copy on the website. I'd been adding friends on the PowerUp Games Myspace page and then I saw this beautiful bit of copy on PowerUp's homepage: "Get one of the most powerful game systems at least on this planet (like you didn\'t already know) and Blue Ray, a whole bunch of other amazingly powerful stuff and two teraflops of floating point performance. That means a whole lot of flipping fun. And other prizes and toys to make your friends jealous. Sign up and win today!"

So anyway, we're giving away a $599 gift card and all you have to do is sacrifice one of your emails to the spam gods or whatever and you're entered. I don't want too many people to see this copy (more particularly, without reading what I have to say about it), because as a gamer, and someone who is now writing to gamers, I am constantly reminded that you can count on gamers to not hesitate to blackball anyone or anything from the community. That is, if something is completely ridiculous, someone won't hesitate to laugh. Vehemently. I personally don't want PowerUp Games to be the kind of idea that started out well, then was obliterated by the criticism of the Internet's denizens, the kind so withering that high school students receiving the same type of criticism later go on to be regulars at the university counseling center. I mean, since PowerUp Games (technically) funds my ability to eat, sleep, and play video games all in the same place, I want it to succeed. Also, I think it's a damn good idea, one that will at least make a big impact on a corner of the gaming community. See, the people who play games and the people who make them don't interact very much. It's usually something like this lovely graph that I did not make using a free and basic Microsoft program:

In case it' s not clear: the rectangle represents the game publishers and developers, the oval represents the potential buyer. The rounded rectangles are the thought processes and decisions of the buyer.

The thing to notice here is that the gamer, or buyer, didn't say anything to the company before the game was made. Once it's made, it's made. But not if they interject before it's made. That's what we're hoping to do. Plus, many times a good, innovative game doesn't sell well, and if the word gets out that a game PowerUp Games is featuring is going to be phenomenal, you'll hear about games you may not have otherwise. This will make everyone in the equation happy.

That's what PowerUp is going to do, and that's what I think about it. We're coming very soon. As soon as we get the details worked out with some companies and we actually have the games, we will start getting our name out more, and things will get more interesting.

Until then, I'm going to try not to think about what "two teraflops of floating point performance" means.

Little things

2007-07-30T14:39:00.000-06:00

There is nothing quite so satisfying as when your wife says that it's most important that she use her transmute up, THEN make the cheesecake before we go eat dinner at my mom's house on Sunday.

It's funny what will brighten up your day.

Sitting all alone in a dark room

2007-07-18T13:35:00.000-06:00

The recent Manhunt 2 posting got me thinking about what gets gamers together and united for a cause. As a married male at the age of 25, I'm well on my way to being out of the gamers' loop for a variety of reasons. First, everyone my age is working or doing some other activity that isn't video games, and those that are playing are a bit younger than I am, and I have little in common with them. So, there's no one to play with. I can't afford many games or new systems. I managed to get along without games for a over a year once, but they are a part of my life again.

All video game players are often met with disappointment when it comes to their hopes and expectations for their gaming lives. Some gamers hope for a specific game, genre, company, or platform to turn out well. Some hope their preferred game becomes a success so that they'll have others to play it with. Some want to become good at playing them. Some want to make money by playing them. Some want to work in the industry. Some want the medium to become a legitimate tool for various purposes, which include but are not limited to political, functional, satirical, educational, and artistic. Some just wish that spouses, friends, family, and culture would accept them as a medium, and not just middle-class lazy leisure.

Unfortunately, most gamers have accepted the popular notion that regarding this lazy leisure, it's simply something the boys like to do to play. Like sports, but with fewer parties, no discussions at work, no legitimized special occasions that extend outside their immediate context like the Super Bowl, no talented players as celebrities, and no recognized leagues*, big or small.

They've accepted the notion that innovation in functionality and gameplay is simply inane when compared to the other things we use technology for. Like a phone or piece of software, but no buzz about how it changes our lives for good or ill, and little discussion on the potential or ethics of such technology.

The themes, characters, stories, and worlds of video games accept their labels as low quality and as coming from a lesser medium; good for a laugh or moment of nostalgia, but nothing more. Like novels, plays, movies, or tv series', only no awards, little or no academic scrutiny, and no recognition as having cultural value, and definitely given an eyeball roll at best if you mention a story (say, the story of Gordon Freeman) as interesting, original, and intense.

Fortunately, not everyone in society has accepted these opinions. Some disagree. Some prove them wrong. Others are already working to combat these notions. But it will take individuals and groups on all sides of the fence regarding every issue. Some aren't aware of just how low a status video games are accorded in these respective worlds, and to the casual gamer, I tell you that you must be willing to consider video games for their potential.

If you don't work in games or consider them important, there is little to do. For us common gamers, the only thing we can do is take the high ground. When it comes down to it, if someone mocks your love of, say, Gordon Freeman and his story, it is imperative that you not be ashamed. Because Gordon Freeman, like any other well-made character, kicks a lot of ass.

(*I recognize there are a lot of leagues and organized "esports", but none that are big news have gained stability. This may change in the near future, and The CGS has people hopeful, but I'm not holding my breath.)

I think I hate the news

2007-07-17T14:59:00.000-06:00

I regret being so heavily involved in journalism in high school and am glad I didn't learn more about it in college. There's so much selling. If it's not interesting, it's not interesting.

On the front page of Gamasutra today I read the following headline: Survey: 83% Of Casual Gamers Embrace Ad-Supported Games. I'm surprised that this many actually want to, and then I think: aren't they already filled with ads? Casual games are already filled with ads. The controversy now is over regular games having ads. Right?

The article just says "According to the latest annual global survey on casual gaming from Macrovision, 83 percent of respondents said they would be willing to watch a 30 second ad to play a game for free", and then goes on for another 299 words to say some more stats, who did it, and what some people had to say about it, all of which are very obvious things that no one cares about.

So I wasted my time. I just get tired of sifting through all the junk. Of course, I guess I should be nicer and focus elsewhere. I mean, I like Gamasutra. Yahoo, your days are numbered.

You Can Count on Blizzard

2007-07-13T11:44:00.000-06:00

Starcraft 2 may be the most anticipated video game in history. And not just in Korea. Blizzard made an unprecedented move by releasing footage that didn't just show units, but explained their special abilities and which units counter which, and why.

I'm not going to speculate about the units and strategies. Whoever you played in the first one is who you'll likely play in the second. There are a lot of new units, but at the same time—do orcs cast bloodlust?

What I will speculate about, though, is the timeline. To do this, I will look establish some points we can learn from Blizzard's release history of PC games. I will contend that Blizzard has been doing the same things for a long time and that from these things, we can predict a rough release schedule.

Blizzard philosopies

The first trend we need to realize is that Blizzard always has to top itself when making sequels. They’ve stated it, and they back it up with their release history. Everyone wanted Warcraft 3 to be Starcraft 2. Blizzard knew they’d need a lot more time. They tried to buy it with Starcraft: Ghost and Warcraft 3, hoping it would satiate Blizzard fans. Koreans still maintained a monotheistic faith in Starcraft and Starcraft alone.

The second trend to notice is that Blizzard does not commit to specific release dates. They know better, and are honest enough to say it will be released in a quarter instead of a month. With Starcraft 2, they haven’t even said which year it will be released. We have waited a long time between initial news and releases for all the games we hear about.

A third and often unnoticed trend is so important I must also point it out here: they make low risk, consistent and infrequent attempts to expand outside of their current franchises. They don’t want to be stuck making only Warcraft games. Or Starcraft games. Or RTS’s. They already know that the success of franchises, when milked too quickly, simply creates a hollow, average consistent success, one that doesn’t make for great games or great profits. Blizzard doesn’t want to be EA, with Battlefield, Command and Conquer, or Madden games coming out every 1.2 years. They want to make more money than that.

Blizzard’s pattern

Like movie sequels, so go video games—it’s hard to beat an original. Look at the timeline again: Warcraft 2, Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft Adventures, Diablo 2, Warcraft 3, Starcraft: Ghost. They used to want to be able to go A, B, A, B. With the exception of Diablo 2 (which wasn’t as successful a franchise as Starcraft or Warcraft), it never worked well that way. Look at the two failures: Warcraft Adventures and Starcraft: Ghost. They rushed too quickly to make something for Warcraft and Starcraft. Their games are too damn good to give them only one title’s breathing space. Try two, or in the case of Starcraft 2, three, with expansions for all.

When a Blizzard game is much more of a success than anyone (including Blizzard) imagined, they know they don’t know how to top it. Now that they’ve learned their lesson, what they do is let a franchise rest for a very, very long time while they hope to make another new success with new ideas, because new ideas are much easier to make succeed than old ones are. All they’re really doing is diverting your attention and grabbing your money in another way until they can give you the World of Warcraft they were claiming to have or the Starcraft 2 you really wanted. That’s why Warcraft 3 wasn’t like Starcraft, because people wanted it to be Starcraft 2. But only Starcraft 2 can be Starcraft 2.

With lesson learned, when they made Warcraft 3, they made sure it isn’t like Warcraft 1 or 2. Instead of yet another RTS, they released World of Warcraft because they knew that Starcraft 2 was the only RTS that anyone would be willing to accept, and Warcraft 3 would be the only non-Starcraft-2 RTS that would be accepted. This is why Warcraft 3 took seven years to follow Warcraft 2, and why Starcraft 2 is taking more than 10 years to follow Starcraft 1.

So this is what we can expect—since they’re still hiring key staff for the Starcraft 2 team, you can count on it being a while. People will expect to see Starcraft 2 at the end of 2008, then hear it will come out around April 2009, then find out it will be released in August, October, or December 2009.

And everything else, like World of Warcraft?

Other projects are harder to predict. Will there be another expansion to WoW? Illidan seems such a big character that there can’t be more material, but remember—if people are still playing it, Blizzard will keep making material for it. Kel’Thuzad (if you don’t know who he is, go play the single player WC 3 again) is in an instance, too, remember. The only prediction we can safely make is that it will be a very long time before Blizzard releases another MMORPG. WoW will be around for a long time. The price will stay the same for a long time. There will be many more patches, big and small. Also, Arthas is probably going to stop by.

Blizzard has shown us they’re not afraid to drop projects—there may be another announcement in there. The next game that isn’t Starcraft 2 will be a bombshell. Will it be the expansion into mobile gaming? Or will it be a new franchise out of nowhere, the way Diablo was? And will it end up coming out before Starcraft 2? I don’t know.

If you’re playing Starcraft 1 to “prepare” yourself for Starcraft 2, you may need to cool down. The terran section of the website won’t be opened this summer, nor the protoss one completed. We have at least a year and a half. Still, everyone agrees--“it’s about time”, indeed.

Manhunt 2: One Sorry Excuse for a Martyr

2007-06-30T15:29:00.000-06:00

Manhunt 2, unlike its predecessor, will be a footnote in college textbooks in the years to come.

The game seems to be eliciting two opinions. The first is “It’s disgusting, and I’m glad that it won’t be released, and by the way, I hate video games.” The second is “I’m sick of the government limiting my freedom of expression. [So] I want to play this game. By the way, I hate Jack Thompson.” Predictable responses from those outspoken on the matter.

Manhunt 2 is not simply gaining headlines because it is the first to be denied release in the U.K. by the ratings boards, and one of the first to be given an AO rating in the U.S., severely limiting its distribution. The limits it pushes aren’t just in the type of violence the game can simulate creating, it’s how you, the player interact with that simulation, with the Wii’s new control system factoring in this prominently. The hype of Manhunt 2 is focused around this improved interaction with your murdering character. The previews of it, before the bannings that generated so much publicity, show it planned to be controversial from the get go.

From a preview at 1up.com: “Gouging an enemy's eyeballs with a glass shard, gutting him with a sickle, sucking the life outta him with a plastic bag -- Manhunt's sadistic executions sure did get people's attention. Unfortunately, those gruesome acts also helped get the original game banned in some countries. Lesson learned, right? Pfft -- Rockstar has only cranked up the violence dial for the sequel. And as much as we'd like to say that the gore doesn't impress us (ya know, that'd be the politically correct thing), we couldn't help but want to see more. Some of the new tricks in this game include plunging a syringe into an enemy's heart, or chopping off his head with an ax and then tossing it to distract others in the area. Yet it's the wire cutters that win the prize here: If you perform a level-three execution (just like in the last Manhunt, the longer you wait before attacking, the more grotesque the death blow) with this weapon, you'll reach underneath the enemy to grab on to his family jewels, rip 'em off, and then stick the wire cutters into his back and tear out the spinal cord.”

From a preview at Joystiq: “There is going to be some perverse pleasure about playing this game on the Wii for many, many, reasons. The most obvious being that the Wii's control possibilities could be conceived of as being an interactive murder simulator, and then there's the amazing fact that Nintendo let it happen. But it's all up to the responsiveness of the controls that will determine the sick pleasure factor.”

From a preview at Gamespot: “Once inside the club, the first kill that we were able to pull off was one of the new environmental executions. These occur when enemies are standing next to something that can be used to kill them, such as a rope, a fuse box, or, in this case, a toilet. Our first victim was an unfortunate man in a gimp mask, who had his face introduced to a toilet in a number of painful ways. As well as environmental kills, there are puzzles that require you to dispatch people in certain ways. For example, to gain entry into the torture chamber, you have to show the guard a recognizable face. Predictably, this involves removing someone's head with an axe and then holding it up to the window.”

From a preview at IGN: “Consider for one moment that in Manhunt 2 you can, Wii remote and nunchuk in hands, use a pair of pliers to clamp onto an enemy's testicles and literally tear them from his body in a bloody display; and if that weren't enough, you'll take one of the poor victim's vertebrae along with his manhood. Or, if you'd prefer, you can use a saw blade and cut upward into a foe's groin and buttocks, motioning forward and backward with the Wii remote as you go.”
I am a gamer. I side with gamers. I recognize that the fight against video games is motivated by politicians’ desire for reelection and by the arbitrary standards of various groups and individuals who haven’t really considered video games and what they can potentially do.

It’s ridiculous that a movie can be as bad as Manhunt 2, all elements considered, and still be accessible at theatres by 17 year olds, but a game version will not. Psychological studies, whether you believe them or not (and the opponents of video games do), indict both video games and movies—you can’t get off by saying “oh, a movie doesn’t require participation.” A movie is very much a way of participating. Movies are a powerful influence. But film, as a genre, has finally achieved its recognition as an art form. After the majority of a century, people don’t ask “are movies good or bad”? They ask, “what makes a good movie or a bad movie?” Video games haven’t quite achieved that status yet. If they had, this wouldn’t have happened to Manhunt 2. I wish it didn’t happen to Manhunt 2—not because I like it, but because the real issues have now been thrown at the window and are serving the interests of business. And I’m not talking about Best Buy, Walmart, Sony, or Nintendo. I’m talking about Take-Two and Rockstar.

There shouldn’t be any surprise or uproar over any of this. There should only be eyeball rolling. After Hot Coffee, after all the lawsuits and bad press, after what happened with Manhunt 1, Rockstar persisted in pushing the limits. Take-Two sanctioned it. When it comes to balls, the pain being experienced isn’t by the poor fellow in Manhunt 2 or by Rockstar or Take-Two--it’s by us.

Is Rockstar stirring the pot yet again in order to help our cause of becoming a society that embraces video games, instead of tolerating them? No. They’ve fooled some of us into taking up Manhunt 2 as our poster child, our martyr for our cause. Some will buy it in protest, including some who weren’t going to buy it anyway. To any who do this: you are a tool, and someone is profiting at your expense. Other games have been similarly violent, but not as controversial, and therefore poor-selling, and Rockstar isn’t exempt from this rule. Rockstar is using the controversy to sell a game. That’s all they’re doing.

Take-Two called Manhunt 2 a “piece of art”. I’ve seen games that are a piece of art, and Manhunt 2 is not one of them. Rockstar and its games are not what people think of when getting into the subject of video games as art. A game touted for its ability to redefine how someone can simulate using a knife, phone cord, or pen for killing is not being considered for artistic merit, it’s being considered for its functional ability and entertainment value—and those are the people who want to play it.

Please, for the love of God (or video games, rather), don’t choose Manhunt 2 as your champion or martyr, fellow gamers. Please. This would make Rockstar very happy and the rest of us, if we knew what it meant, very sad. Buy it if you want, but don’t buy it because you are angry.

Do you want present society to eventually embrace video games? Do you want society to stop viewing games and gamers as objects of fear, which must be carefully monitored? Here’s a suggestion: don’t take up as your cause a game that prides itself on the precision with which it enables you to rip off the balls of your enemies. There are plenty of options that are more effective. Whatever happens to Manhunt 2, remember that.

Maybe some things shouldn't make the leap

2007-06-28T13:42:00.001-06:00

Did you see this? They apparently are planning on making a Warcraft movie.

I don't know what to think. The film producer, "Legendary", not something or someone I've heard of. Anyone able to find anything? I couldn't.

I'm skeptical.

The types of gamers you meet—part 3

2007-06-16T13:50:00.000-06:00

Crackhead

I derive the name of this one from the reference to World of Warcraft as World of Warcrakc. The Crackhead is a special, often disturbing breed. Like the elitist, the addict is committed to just one game. However, their play style is somewhat different.

The most common example of a crackhead gamer is one that plays World of Warcraft at least 40 hours a week. A raid takes priority over any type of social function. Work and family functions are scheduled around the game.

A crackhead isn’t considered addicted to video games—he is addicted to World of Warcraft. Or Everquest. Whatever it is he happens to play. He doesn’t necessarily consider himself a gamer. He considers himself a guildmate. He considers himself a teammate. He is emotionally and psychologically invested in the game he plays. Occasionally there is some crossover—elitists who are in fact crackheads, but rarely.

Those who are truly crackhead gamers are the ones that even elitists or renaissance gamers feel uncomfortable around. This guy plays games so often that even other gamers who play 30 hours a week and consider video games their top passion feel like the person likes video games too much. Sometimes other gamers are even intimidated by or feel pity for the crackhead, because the passion is shared but it is affected the crackhead’s live negatively (in the opinion of anyone who is not a crackhead).

Where they hang out: Azeroth, Norrath, Team server, Ventrilo, their rooms.

Examples of Games played: World of Warcraft, Everquest, other MMOs, and occasionally Counter Strike

What they talk about: stuff they’ve seen while playing games, people they play games with, something that happened while playing games, World of Warcraft videos they watched while flying on flight paths, guild politics, future patches, arguing about race, class, factions, bugs in the game they play, equipment they’ve recently picked up.

Domestic

Your domestic gamer is the kind that most people don’t consider a “gamer”, but plays games a good deal nonetheless.

Domestic gamers have little to no interaction with any of the above groups. For them, a video game is a solitary thing, not something that needs to be talked about or even done with other people. Like assembling difficult puzzles, perhaps.

Domestic gamers include moms, grandmothers and other seniors, and parents. Places of play include senior citizen centers, libraries, work, and home. These are people who play family friendly, low-budget, high-replay value games. They constitute a significant minority of the buying power in the video game market.

Whenever they talk about some supposedly impressive number about how many females or people over the age of 35 play video games, they’re talking about domestic gamers. To all the other groups above except Mr. DI, who doesn’t care, domestic gamers are not gamers.

Where they hang out: church, playgrounds, schools, bridge club, bingo, libraries, family amusement centers, and especially home.

Examples of Games played: anything on Yahoo!, Solitaire and other card games, Freecell, Minesweeper, Bejeweled 1 and 2, Chess, online games, whatever their kids are playing that is rated T and under (even WoW, sometimes).
What they talk about: kids, grandkids, work, school and PTA-type stuff, neighborhood and family gossip, politics, and whatever they are interested in.

The types of gamers you meet—part 2

2007-06-14T08:13:00.000-06:00

More types of gamers:

Renaissance

Your renaissance gamer is a category rarely recognized, even by themselves, but one that actually exists nonetheless. The renaissance gamer enjoys a variety of gaming experiences. This person may play Defense of the Ancients for Warcraft 3 occasionally in his free time and yet will play Tetris on his mobile phone at a long line at the office (something an elitist would never do—that would distract him and possibly compromise his l33t CS skills).

Your renaissance gamer is another who, at times, considers himself a true gamer. While he appreciates the elitist’s view of perfection, skill, and the quality of a specific game, the renaissance gamer tries new games, new consoles, and occasionally takes a break from the typical games he plays and “relaxes” by playing a low-pressure game on Yahoo! Games or by playing a vintage game on the old SNES he has hooked up (or the SNES emu on his computer)

Your renaissance gamer has tried almost everything and has mixed opinions. He holds no allegiances except to the fact that he enjoys playing games. Renaissance gamers rarely formulate into groups because they can’t become serious enough about the same game at the same time. However, a lot of renaissance gamers play World of Warcraft of another MMORPG in order to have a group to play one game consistently with. Still, many are solitary and play single player, multiplayer, old, new, console, PC, mobile phone, and handheld games all at the same time, or in a rotation.

Where they hang out: anywhere, but they are introverted, and spend a lot of time at home and/or on the Internet

Examples of Games played: All games, especially quality and high-sales games for the PC and console.

What they talk about: video games, technology, science fiction and fantasy novels, movies, funny videos they’ve seen on Youtube.

Mr. Disposable Income

Mr. Disposable Income is a rare breed that may increase as the years go by. A typical Mr. DI is a guy who was a casual gamer and has recently come into a sweet, lucrative job in business somewhere. Because of the need to feel up on pop culture, being able to relate to clientele, and provide entertainment for guests, he buys every single console on the market. He has a Playstation 3, an Xbox 360, and a Wii (he has connections). If he’s heard someone so much as sneeze a game’s name in a conversation at a party or on the subway, he owns it. Maybe, because he feels like it, he’ll own some game he hasn’t heard of. He hasn’t beaten many of them and he doesn’t value them.

Mr. DI is one of those guys who drops off a million games at the game stores so he can get new ones. He is also the first to sell his console on Ebay once it starts to get old. Or his computer.

This guy isn’t so much a gamer, per se, as someone who happens to own and occasionally play video games.

Where they hang out: Barbecues, work parties, regular parties, clubs, restaurants

Examples of Games played: See casual gamer

What they talk about: Marketing, whatever he does for work and what you do for work, networking, whatever the person he is talking to is interested in, kids, miscellaneous

The types of gamers you meet—part 1

2007-06-11T18:22:00.000-06:00

There are a lot people who consider themselves video game players, but the word “gamer” means different things to different people. Here are the different kinds of “gamers” you may meet.

Elitist

On the Internet, there is a narrow demographic of gamers who are elitists. They consider themselves the only true gamers, and any other form of video gaming is beneath them.

Elitists play very few different games, often no more than three. In fact, many only play one, citing their game as the one and true game of gamers. The only kinds of games holy enough for Elitists to commit themselves to are FPS and RTS games, or mods of the same The main reason they play games is to compete with other gamers, and anyone who does so for other reasons and they play it so often that their games often have a chess-like quality to them—the best opening move and best counter-move to the best opening move become universal standards. When a build order or timed grenade becomes out of fashion and someone continues to use said build order or grenade spot they are cited as n00bs, presumably because of lack of dedication. While they exist almost solely online—the success of Halo and Halo 2, along with XBox live, has led to EZs cropping up amongst console gamers.

Where they hang out: Internet Cafes / LAN centers, MiRC channels, battle.net, Xfire, forums of professional gaming leagues

Examples of games played: Counterstrike (either), anything with the words “Unreal”, “Halo”, “Quake”, or “Craft” in it

What they talk about: Hacking, cheaters, patches, balance of the game, mods, teams, replay videos, trash-talking, computer specs, gaming leagues, n00bs, why their game is better than some other game or all other games, and anything to establish how cool the individual person is.

The Casual Gamer

The casual gamer is your every man’s man who has played video games at one point or another. Your typical male under the age of 30 that lives in the United States has likely been to a Halo party, played a variety of consoles, owned a console, and played games at every age and in a variety of circumstances. However, this player has never played any game excessively, and he probably hasn’t played consistently with anyone online. He may have purchased a computer game or three, and he’s probably beaten a few games in his day.

The casual gamer has other interests, and can recognize the skill that more serious gamers possess when they come up against them. Some casual gamers consider themselves pretty good, having only played other casual gamers, for the most part. They rarely talk about games and they don’t consider it an important or top hobby; rather, it’s just another thing to do, like watching movies.

Where they hang out: all kinds of places. Casual gamers represent a broad base of people with a large variety of interests. They are almost undetectable.

Examples of Games played: Sports games, Halo, Mario Kart, Call of Duty

What they talk about: social life, sports, jobs, women, the current game’s match—while playing.

Stay tuned for part 2.

About me and this blog

2007-05-30T10:16:00.001-06:00

I’m known as Etelmik. Most people pronounce that as ETal-mick, but it’s supposed to be “uh-TELL-mick.” I can’t figure out another made up name that doesn’t sound like it came from Greek or Latin. I used to have a different moniker, one I occasionally use.

I am one of those guys in his 20s who goes around saying “man, I’ve been playing games for over 20 years. Ever since I was 5.” That’s when I got an 8-bit Nintendo, and ever since then I have had a keen interest in them. I once took a two-year hiatus from them when I lived in Australia, and another time I took a one-year hiatus from them when trying to reorganize my life. Only one more thing I can say about trying to quit: it’s not good to quit them completely if you’re going to resent others’ playing them and enjoying them. So now, I can go without them for a while, but seriously—I love my games.

The most recent console I’ve owned is an N64, which makes me a dinosaur in the world of consoles. At the moment, I’m not playing console games because I have recently moved and don’t know anyone to play with. Maybe in the future I’ll get back into it.

All gaming money was spent on a PC and accessories and upgrades. I own a modest machine that can play anything. P4, ATI X800 XL card, 2 gigs of RAM. I play WoW, CS: Source, Warcraft 3 and DOTA. I used to play CoD2 and UT2k4, and I’m excited about the Starcraft II announcement.

Blog

I’ve almost graduated from college and am currently working for PowerUp Games, a company that enables you to test beta versions of games and gives publishers and developers the chance to get feedback from gamers all over the globe. However, the opinions of this blog are mine and mine alone, not that of PowerUp Games.

I’m a gamer who is interested in a variety of topics. I’m interested in the future of the industry and the success of various consoles and companies. I’m interested in what will become of video games and their relationship to other media and to society. I’m interested to see if politicians will use them as easy targets to boost their reputations as men of change. I’m interested to see what will become of professional video gaming and its audiences. I am interested to see what people have done with games and what they mean to other people and what games are becoming to people.

In short, if it has to do with video games, I’m interested in it. If that’s you, stick around—and make sure to comment!