Game Design 2 Journal #2: Don't fix what isn't broken

Bioshock 2. 2k Marin had a chance to take a ball and run with it.

Some say they didn't.

Some say they did.

Why the disparity? Bioshock 2 looks great, plays great. What's the problem?

Some would quote it lacks the twisty plot of the first game, some would argue the underpowered main character. We're playing as a Big Daddy so..ergo...shouldn't we be BADASSES? I agree. The depiction of every other Big Daddy is, despite their lack of plasmids, terrifyingly violent and destructive. Not even the end of the first game conveyed the true presence of these behemoths and Bioshock 2 fails as well. Louder footsteps. Sure. The drill? Perfect. But my health is impossibly low, I don't have a sense of weight...there's some inconsistencies. It feels like they got close enough.

Those criticisms were the cake. The icing is this argument: It was bad that the game play was too much like the first game.

I call mega bullshit on this. Let's look at a VERY recent example of an excellent sequel. Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 2 had a glaring flaw. The world and story was excellent, perfect even. But the battle system had some major hiccups in it, as well as the elevators, inventory and the powers you could rank up in. These problems had a souring effect on an otherwise perfect game. The sequel addressed those issues expertly, and left the rest of the game alone. It played out like a Bioware symphony. The stories, the lore and the world was consistent and beautiful once again, and the issues were smoothed. Bioshock 2 did the exact same thing. There was nothing to really "fix" with most of the combat. It was fluid, adapting, challenging and fun in the first game, despite the lack of dual-wielding plasmids and weapons. They fixed the hacking, the harvesting, the...aha...they messed with the story.

Bioshock 2 has a far more linear feeling than Bioshock 1. The story is less about twists and turns, or shadows. You see the plot glaring at you like a bright light and you wonder why they're telling you this now. Why aren't they hiding this for later? But the world of Rapture is so rich with lore (the audio logs, the locations themselves and their inhabitants) that the main story starts to fade away. I found myself not really caring what new Rapture dictator Sophia Lamb had to say. I could predict it, see it coming. It didn't feel like the story of Andrew Ryan's Rapture. And that was a little saddening. I felt like I was playing a game that wasn't Bioshock: System Shock 2 in the Sea anymore.

Did that afford Bioshock 2 a sneer? A little bit. But no less a stellar score. The game delivered what I wanted, exactly what I wanted in most cases. When a good sequel comes out, the good changes are visible right away. They're big. However, the most important thing to remember is consistency of experience. If the player launches into a sequel and the experience feels...off...it's going to hurt the stride of the franchise big time. Mass Effect 2 did just that half step better than Bioshock 2. Mass Effect 2 COMMANDED my attention. Bioshock 2 I have a desire to play.

Sequels. Fuckin' tough.

Game Design 2 Journal #1: Games are not Art

I know we've had this discussion a lot, it's driven into the freaking ground. Are video games art? Roger Ebert has famously been quoted on the issue, originally denying video games as Art with an argument about "Authorial control," then in 2007 changing stances only slightly, comparing all games to sports and saying they cannot be "high art." Even Hideo Kojima, famously lauded for creating what some would call a work of art, Metal Gear Solid, admits games are not art. From Kotaku:

Hideo Kojima said: "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

I agree. But that's not the end of the discussion.

Art takes on many forms, from sculpture to the fine brush strokes of Van Gogh. It can be installation art, spanning many weeks or hours of time, or performance art that only exists while the performers deem it. You can Google "art" and get pictures, pictures of sculptures, videos of those performance art shows. Museums are, by and large, public and available for the viewing of great art. You don't pay to see the art, you pay to upkeep the building it is in. Now we get into the real meat: art can be bought and sold, value is placed on it by the artist and then a patron who finds it to their liking comes and picks it up. Art is unique. Even an artist that's made 1000 handpainted toilet seat covers uses a unique stroke or two each time. There is a sense of ownership. Art, though given value, has worth that can be assessed before it is bought, and exists as a singularity. There can be only one!

Video Games are mass produced, cannot be judged before being paid for (we hire people to review games for us, playing advanced copies so we can decide if we want to take the risk on spending 65 bucks), and is not unique. We all have (barring defects) the same game. Unlike art, the inability to judge and critique a game before it is purchased makes buying games risky. We wouldn't consider buying a painting a risk, when we can see and appreciate the whole thing before it is purchased. Video Games also lack that personal sense of "mine", like Kojima said "...A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame."

From that, we also glean the purpose for making games: to make money. Games are designed to sell like hotcakes, they're intention is to make money. Sure, you can make artwork for money, but video games are implicitly designed to make money. They have careful, government regulated prices, can be taxed and returned...etc. There is nothing personal in buying a video game that the GAME is providing. If Halo 4 comes out, and you're the biggest Halo fan in the world, Halo 4 has meaning to you. But Halo 4 doesn't know you, and doesn't care about you...the single. Halo 4 has a community, a large group of people with expectations ready to dive down the throats of the developers and rip their hearts out if Halo 4 isn't awesome.

There's a far higher stigma of "Must be successful" placed over video games. "Indie" games, games that are available for free or have no publisher, could be considered art. But it's not possible to call "Shadow of the Colossus", "Rez HD" or "Modern Warfare 2" art, when we examine them against my statements above. The bottom line is: if your game is art, it had better be either free, or there better only be one copy.

Game Design Journal #5 -or- Categorizing Game Designers

When it comes to categorizing the "Experiencisticalism" that I've sort of coined, I absolutely cannot place it on a chart comparing it to other types of design.  Here's why:

It's too fluid to be categorized.  If a narratologist doesn't create "Holy shit" experiences their game is boring.  If a ludologist doesn't do it, their game is boring.  All game designers use this style whether they think they are or not.  I just tend to focus on it, and bounce between styles depending on what the game needs.  

The reason I drew a big circle encompasing the triangle because it's not on the same level as other styles.  Not ABOVE it by any means but not held to the same categorization as the others.  Making a game without considering moments that will entice the player to keep playing is a recipe for disaster.  Your game could have the tightest controls, the best story, the greatest purpose, the awesomemest graphics...but if there's not meat in that bun you're wasting time and money.  ExperienceasticHolyShitism is everywhere.

I feel that in trying to categorize and label myself through online tests and surveys I move away from what I really am as a designer.  Design itself is a fluid art, an ebb and flow of many ideas and types and designs.  If Hideo Kojima can make Metal Gear Solid, then turn around and make comedy with it, and about it, and make several successful spin offs, then what does that make him?  All the games play different, place different emphasis on story, some have virtually zero purpose...but every game has gamers coming back for more.

Design isn't solid, not for the true greats at least.  If it was, we'd all be making the same game over and over again, and never really excelling.  As we learn more about making games, and work with our friends and peers we will break down the boundaries of our design types rapidly.  People inspire people way too quickly for them to not be affected.  By labeling someone, you limit them in your eyes to what you expect of them, and you limit them in their own mind because they know everything they do will fall within that label.  But, when we realize that each and every person in the room has the potential to create their own form of design, and that they usually will, we can begin to explore design from many, and much more open minded standpoints.

The chart that holds my style (Experiencismalisticology), and other styles in it looks like this: A big round table, at which all styles are sharing a meal of discovery and innovation, inviting new members to sit with them all and enjoy the lovely day on planet GameDesign.  If it were anything other it just wouldn't make any sense to me.

I feel rebellious, of course, writing this in my game journal, as it criticizes the very class I'm taking...but if I can't do this at Columbia College Chicago then I feel I may have made some misconceptions about the school along the way.

Bangorang,

Joe Locastro

Space Marine Psychic Soldier X

I am tired of first-person shooter games featuring a cookie cutter main character. I can see why some would need to, and I can understand given a context of fighting soldiers and what not you'd need to have a character that fit the bill, but I raise this counter argument.

Name the main character of Pariah. Good, now name the main character of F.E.A.R.. Excellent. Now, name the main character of Half-Life 2. Well done.

Gordon Freeman is lauded as one of the best examples of the FPS protagonist in gaming history. He's a non-military man, a physicist. We as a gamer connect to him better, he makes more of an impact on us, I think. One other great example is Riddick. "Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay" is considered one of the best Xbox games ever made. Riddick isn't a a trained military man, but he is naturally talented and his world is much more interesting than one filled with super soldiers and the like.

Give me a game where the protagonist actually seems more human, maybe even cheerful at times? I'm tired of all this "My name is Blah-dy McBlahperson, and I know the truth/I used to be like you/I remember when it started."

Maybe I'm flowing a lot of hot air, but we've got a lot of room to grow as designers right now, and we need to take advantage of it. The new game coming out of Hi-Voltage Studios, "The Conduit," sure looks interesting and all, pushing the Wii to it's graphical best, but the story/aesthetic looks so boring/done/trite that I'm really not interested in the game at all. I feel like all I'd need to do is watch a video of someone playing for 10 minutes, nod at the great graphics, and go play something else. I'm sure I'll play it eventually, but they could have done so much more with story and development and character, but instead it looks like an amalgam of "Psychic Soldier Battles Aliens from Dimension X". I'm more interested in Capcom's Dark Void, and I've only seen a few screens/videos from it.

A note to any developer trying to press the limits of graphics and graphic capabilities on consoles: Don't let the story lag behind. Tacking on a story that's full of particles and normal maps won't leave a mark. Take the time to fill the world. It needs love too.

Game Culture Assignment #1

Quote of the Assigned Reading: "When you read, you are always reading something in some way." -James Gee, page 1

I find Gee's decision to play a more "Adult" game called "The New Adventures of the Time Machine" hilarious. Considering I've never heard of the game, and that Deus Ex was out at the same time.

My impressions of the reading were tainted, at first, from a comment made by a girl in class that the book was "terrible...awful" etc, etc, ad infinitum. That's a powerful statement. Things like that tend to sit unfavorably on me because it

means no matter how hard I try I will already have just the thinest of opinions impressed on me as I enter the book. Well I'm happy to report she was right.

The book was written by James Gee. James Gee, although not openly admitting it at the beginning of the book, was not and probably still is not a gamer. I can walk onto a race track, pick out a car and drive it, and write a book about driving a racecar but I am not a racer. I am a person writing about being a racer, with language I have gleened is language racers use. These are foreign words like apex and drop shifting, drafting and cylinder heads. Sure I know the definitions of them all, why not. I know what they mean and how they apply. But I'm not a racer. I don't have one very, VERY crucial facet to my being that represents true understanding: instinct.

Gamers have gamer instinct. Here above is a screen capture of the game "The New Adventures of The Time Machine" that Gee played back in 2000 (Gamespot gave the game a 3.1, the press average was 5.3, and the developer no longer exists). After reading this, and talking to my roommate who also read this book, we both agreed that despite Gee not having gamer instincts, MOST critical writers lack the instinct of their subject. I digress. Gee didn't impress me, and hasn't so far. I guess we will see what is going on in his mind the more I read this book.

------------------------

The game I have chosen to play for my study is Tales of Vesperia. Now why did I choose this game? Good question. Here's a detailed list of reasons.

1. I do not really like the Tales series of games. I was never really good at them and I got stuck in Tales of Symphonia and became embittered to the series. I think this game is a chance to open my eyes a tad and feel that freshness wash through. I am pretty excited to be playing it.
2. It's new. I like old games, but in being critical thinkers I feel it just as important to look forward at what's being played now as to look back. Tales is new, came out last week. It's Xbox 360, it's pretty, it's co-op...it's a forward thinking game. I want to be at the front of something.
3. I want to test myself. I don't want to write a plot point-by-point. A lot of game journals are just that. My journal will not be. I will try weekly to come up with some way to tie an experience of playing the game into gaming theory itself, in order to generate some interesting articles and not diary entries.

So...here I go journeying deep into the world of Tales of Vesperia. We'll see what happens when I come out the other side. The game is critically acclaimed. My friends can play it with me, and so far (Of the two hours I've played), the game itself is pretty much a blast. Gotta keep on keepin' on.









-----------------------------------------------------

Fallout 3 kicks its drug habit

So, Fallout 3 has been making waves. Personal waves thanks to it being Fallout 3 (I just reinstalled Fallout 1 and 2 in honor), and global waves thanks to its mentions of drug use. The game has been falling apart in the hands of international censors thanks to the inculsion of ingame drug use, and its portrayal. Australia specifically was going to ban the game all-together from its shores, but before they could Bethesda Softworks cleaned the game up. There are no more references to real world drugs in any build of Fallout 3.

Good idea? Probably. A case of unfair censorship? Nope. Countries can do what they like. Citizens will still get the content they seek. If Australia doesn't want players shooting up with real world drugs that makes perfect sense to me. It's rough to admit that media has to still fall victim to censorships but this is specifically INTERACTIVE media. Someone playing the game, someone profoundly stupid, may very well indeed assume that a drug in the game that cures what ails you is perfectly reasonable to use IRL, so to speak. They will likely die, and Bethesda Softworks will likely be sued. So I can perfectly understand the reasoning behind it, Bethesda. But I applaud you for trying. Too many tight hands on the creative process of games stifle world elements like that. I am not condoning drug use, but we didn't need it for the updated (and terrible) NARC, and we didn't need the graphical blurs of Manhunt 2.

Then again, turning on the news...I guess we do.

E3? What the hell is that?

So the Electronic Entertainment Expo is this week, all week, and just like last year it seems to have only half interested me. Anyone who's been gaming at all for the past five years remembers the pictures, the news stories, the G4TV coverage, the booth babes, the glitz and the spectacle of our favorite designers and games unleashing themselves with unabashed bravado and pomp upon the throngs of waiting fanatics. Now it's more of a "summit", with industry only going in to seminars and press conferences. Less panels, less glitz, more about the business itself. I don't think if there was a sweepstakes for tickets now I'd even sign up.

E3 was for me, as a fan, the biggest event of the year in video game industry land. I wanted to be there, to play games and see the latest titles and meet booth babes and get my hands on swag bags full of amazing and wonderful things. It took me two days to realize E3 had started this year. My Google Reader account is chock full of stories pouring in from press events. I read through them and some have me generally excited (The Wii's new motion control accessory, Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox360 and the new Portal title coming out on Xbox Live Arcade) but I miss the glamour. These days, I watch all I can from the Tokyo Games Show to get that feeling again. It hasn't lost it's shine and it's sparkle yet, it's still a massive party about video games. So let's break it down:

I feel that E3 has lost it's effectiveness in generating fan interest. Instead of instant interest and a desire to watch and be there, it's more about breaking news that the fans can appreciate later as the products roll out through the course of the year. As a result, coupled with companies pulling their appearences at the show, E3 is quickly becoming less public and ergo, less effective on a consumer level.

Geeks don't get out much. That's why we play games in the first place. We enjoy being inside, we enjoy watching our TV, our games, our DVDs. Don't get me wrong! A lot of hardcore gamers get their sun, get in some biking and outdoors activities, me included. But I prefer a good chair and a good game for my afternoon exercise. E3 however made me want to get up, call my friends, go over and watch the coverage while we played some Power Stone 2 (I always called playing as Wang Tang) and drank Code Red. I wanted to know that exact moment when a new game was announced, or a new accessory, or something major. It made me excited. Maybe I'm older now, but now I settle for ending my late nights with perusing Reader and catching up, smiling at some of the fun stuff, sharing some of it, and not reading the rest. It doesn't "get my noodle going", to steal a phrase from a Kraft marketing campaign for macaroni and cheese.

I talked to Tommy Tallarico a little while back and asked him about his thoughts when it was announced that E3 was no longer going to be a big show. He said that it was good the industry was consolidating the show, saving money and focusing the show on getting the news to the people who could spread it more efficiently: the press. At first I agreed, and after working in the industry I can see the benefit of this. Save money instead of buying a major, massive display and party favors. But sometimes people need that show, that spectacle. This is the second year in a row that I haven't noticed E3 had begun, and as a member of the industry, that's no good.

I think that E3 should maybe pull a hybrid maneuver. Have a big floor show, maybe not quite as big as last time, during the week, with press events behind the scenes again. Fan appreciation in the industry should always stay high. People are sacrificing their lunches, their movie tickets and their alternative activities to buy your product, the least you can do is dance a little for them. Putting out the game with a triumphant "Here it is" is one thing, but before it's out give'em something to drool about. Something they can hold. A plastic sword, a demo disc, a coffee-mug, a t-shirt! Some fresh screens and an interview with the marketing managers isn't really going to cut the mustard. An important move in any relationship (be it man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or company and consumer) is anchoring: having something physical that says "Here is a sign that I appreciate you." A hug, a touch on the shoulder, a free Sonic The Hedgehog stuffed animal.

And so E3 presses on into the week. I'm not going to be reporting on every little thing that happens, but I may make some comments on them if they really interest me. My main lament is the lack of the shine, but I'll live. We all do. And TGS this year should be fun to watch.

Be well, my friends,

-Joe

But will it sell? -or- How the Industry is stomping on the vision

Microsoft + Rare.

Microsoft + Bungie. (DEFUNCT)

Activision + Blizzard.

Take Two + a harem of suitors.

EA + nom nom nom othr compny ar taest gud.

The age of the big company is upon us. Look back at our history. In the early 80's so many companies existed, making so many crappy games that it flooded the market with offal and tripe, games that were made in a period of weeks hoping to be major cash cows. This is just one factor that resulted in the video game crash of 1983. Too many companies, too many games, too many deals, not enough of the good stuff. The good stuff being quality games and systems. Luckily we moved past it and into the era of "steady consoles."

"Steady Consoles" gave us developers, instead of pure publishers. People dedicated to bringing games to other people's consoles. Sadly this still somehow resulted in games like Y0! Noid (read: licensed-for-the-sake-of-being-licensed games). But what I'm driving at is we had developers, independent ones making us some real gems like Earthworm Jim, Toejam and Earl, Lost Vikings (Anyone remember a company called Silicon & Synapse?) and even as far as licensed games go, Cool Spot!. This period is starting to finally fade, ushering in what looks to be a darker future.

By darker I don't mean it's time to hang up the gloves, I mean that creativity is being shelved for profits and deliveries. The video game industry is fast approaching one of the most lucrative investments in America. GTAIV was the largest multimedia release of all time. Some people get a whiff of that and see instant profit. Gaming is $18 billion dollar a year industry (that's games, consoles, accessories and all. Still, they sell $8.6 billion just as the discs by themselves. Thanks Kotaku). Larger companies are keeping their eyes on game schools and small teams and buying them up, assimilating them into a pool of talent that gets grossly misused half the time. It's become a situation that does not favor the independant developer at all, when the big dog publishers loom over them.

There is one company that seems to be attempting to get things right. Gamecock, responsible for Dementium: The Ward, Insectiside and upcoming Velvet Assassin, lets developers keep their intellectual property, opting for an approach that stimulates creativity and artistry in game design. This is magnificent. It makes me want to shout from the roof tops. Gamecock is not a big company by US standards, but they're doing things right.

An example of doing things wrong is the current green-light process of some major companies. The criteria for a big developer to green-light a game is pretty lame:

• Has there ever been a game like it? Funny thing is, if the answer to this question is no, the project is less likely to be accepted. If yes, see below.
• Did it make money? If the answer is no, say goodnight. If yes, proceed.
• How can we make it like X without making it X? Look around. Look at what new games are coming out. A lot of them fit this mold.
  
• So, we make it x. Which isn't enough like X to be a clone. Congrats, project is green-lit.

This mode leads to games that aren't bad by any means, but they're not a stretch either. The only other easy way to green-light a game would be a sequel or a contract/license. Maximize return, minimize risk. Release a ton of small games to pad the bills until the big ones hit. Need some money? Make a Brain-Age clone. Make a collection of mini-games. Instant cash.

The industry is slowly becoming one run by businessmen. Business men know money, but do they know creative process for gaming? Do they know a good game idea or do they know a lucrative game idea. Making a game based on trends of the industry is one thing, but after a while the waves of those trends get stale. Games need to come in and shake things up. Even Mirror's Edge, the new EA avant-garde, is reminiscent of Breakdown, Namco's arcade-esque FPS. Innovation is waning, and the desire for return is on the rise. PS: DICE is a swedish developer that EA owns. No points for American ingenuity there.

Maybe all my ramblings are the ramblings of an over-worried developer. Maybe the industry is going to use this talent they're swallowing up and not just trying to ride revenues from big name titles *cough*GTAIV*cough*. Maybe the sky will open up and the hand/tentacle/appendage of {insert deity of your choice} will reach down and bless us independent developers with the ability to produce our games in an environment that says to the artist "We appreciate your abilities, go ahead and use them to their best!", instead of "Act clever, so we can buy you."

-Joe

And then there was the Wii...

Note: I've become addicted to Google Reader, as well as playing Dungeon Siege II. I need someone to play with. Sorry again for latency in posting, but work demands my time, and I haven't had time to really put together a good editorial. I should do a review of some games...tune in this weekend.

----------------------------------

"Game Party", "Game Party 2", "Carnival Games", "Pong Toss"...the list goes on. Casual Gaming used to be a world of Pop-Cap games on your PC (Peggle, Bejeweled...etc), but it seems like people got a good whiff of the Wii's brand of casual fun and suddenly developers EVERYWHERE are crapping out games like the aforementioned. Why? Because it's easy to throw down a sneezy handful of mini-games and call it a release, that's why.

Looking at the time and energy going into these titles it seems like companies are taking their talent and saying "Alright now, let's take the few of you that aren't yet or already did work on our next big fall title and have you churn out one for the kids." I honestly have never considered buying, renting or casting a gaze on Game Party or Carnival Games, much less the upcoming titular titles Pong Toss ("Beer Pong" in a non-orwellian universe) and Major League Eating. Major League Eating.../headdesk /headdesk /headdesk.

Also coming into the Wii's court are games like last years Soul Caliber Legends, Skate It, Link's Crossbow Training (fun game, all said and done) and even a graphicall toned down port of Ghostbusters. Soul Caliber did poorly, Skate It is a walking gimmick...it makes me feel like the Wii is the last system people look to when thinking about NEW games. However, the Japanese still seem to love it. Platinum Games has MadWorld (pictured) coming out, Suda 51 gave us No More Heroes, Nintendo is churning out much new content for it. It leads me to this:

Do American companies see the Wii as a viable platform for a new title, or as an afterthought platform better used for ports and mini-games?

Graphically the Wii falls short, processor-wise, Internet-wise. All in all it's not the powerhouse the PS3/Xbox360 is. That oomph, that extra step seems to be what American companies want in their games out of the box. American audiences are quickly becoming an HD audience. HD with a nice 5.1 system and no time for measly "component" cables. The Wii is getting the brunt of this discrimination with the onslaught of afterthought games. I hereby christen the genre: Afterthoughts.

I see American companies throwing out afterthoughts left and right. Some people (myself included sometimes) may see this as good old fashioned Americanism. Is it fast, sexy and bigger than life? No. Is it apple pie? No. Then we don't have time to waste on it! Small teams, small games, little victories and critical failures says to me that some companies straight up don't give a hoot. To be in the age where gaming is beginning to crack at the hinges (Innovation vs. Graphics) and not to take advantage of half the playing field is lunacy. Eventually graphics will look so good we can't distinguish them from real life. Then what? Better graphics? The Wii is getting started early, pulling a Dreamcast if you will. We remember how that ended, and this string of casual, budget titles could spell the end of the Wii's American credibility. It will become that trend that so many analyst are predicting it is, and that's sad.

I want to challenge developers out there to consider the Wii FIRST when looking for inspiration. The gimmick was there at the start with motion control, it quickly died down into a steady period of decent Japanese exports hitting our shelves. We need to look at the system the way they do: Use it to it's creative potential, not just it's graphical or processing potential. I feel like if one company really tried marketing a serious game on the Wii, it'd turn a few heads. I don't mean games like Rock and Roll Adventure, I mean something fresh, maybe even a little avant garde. Ubisoft seems to be heading down the right track, from up north. Let's get on the ball USA.

Time to get fresh.

-Joe

Can Ratings save our children? Nope!

A lot of the press lately has focused around legislation for games. GamePolitics.com has been a good read as well. There was that bill in NY about labelling all games sold in the state with clear ratings, and the teens who were arrested while purportedly acting out a real-life Grand Theft Auto scenario (and the stir that's caused). And let's not forget my previously mentioned Conn. Senator Gayle Slossberg's accusation and backpedal about a rape scene in GTA.

...looking at it like that nearly all the news in the past week has probably been based around GTAIV in some way.

To my point: The ESRB. EC for Early Childhood, E for Everyone, E +10 for Everyone but probably better for people over 10, T for Teen, M for Mature, AO for Adults Only. These ratings seem like they cover good ground. Something for everyone. M rated games, in most states are illegal to sell to anyone under the age of 17. Strict store policy at Game Stop. M rated game? Check their ID no matter their age. Obviously this can't keep them out of the hands of misinformed parents, so I propose a second set of impositions on poor store clerks:

1. Tell the parents what's in the games. If you let them know of the games actual content, they may feel more informed themselves about buying the game for themselve or as a gift.
2. Actively help them find a game in the store from the time they walk in. 9/10 people will shrug you off, but at least you will have tried to avoid a case of "You let me buy my son this game, and it's full of tripe and offal!"

The ratings board is there for a reason, obviously, but no amount of marking a box of cigarettes has ever stopped humanity from smoking them. I'm not a fan of censorship, by any reasoning, but I think kids under the age of 17 should not be playing M rated games. Logging into Xbox Live and squaring off against an 8 year old in GTAIV speaks volumes to the quality of parenting in today's shopping world.

The legislation that NY just passed seems like a great idea to me. I just hope that it doesn't swing around and somehow turn into a seven headed hydra.

Let's see...if I was a gaming law what would I be?

Any persons looking to purchase an M rated title must be a) able to operate a motor vehicle and b) pass a basic intellectual apptitude test. Any persons found buying M rated titles for younger persons will be flogged about the head with rolled up newspapers while the enforcer chants "Bad! You were very bad today!"

Ahhhh...to dream.

Storytime. I was working one day at GameStop and on my way into work I passed a one-legged homeless man in the parking lot. This is kind of status quo for Chicago. He was asleep, so I quietly let him be. At work, a kid comes in looking about 15, wants to buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I ask for id, he has none, he leaves. He comes back in, closely followed by the one-legged homeless guy. They start browsing. My right eyebrow draws slowly upward. They walk to the counter, and my manager Chris steps forwards. The one-legged man tries to buy GTA for "his nephew." Chris says that he just saw the man sleeping in the woodchips next to Walgreens, and that the kid was not his nephew. The man insists he was just waiting in the car for the kid to buy the game. Chris doesn't buy it. The kid gives up and leaves the store, one-legged man in tow.

Good times.

-Joe

Racism in Resident Evil 5: a Halfrican's take.

Sorry for the latency in posting, been working nights lately, doesn't leave much time for thought.
That's why this post is coming at 3:30am on Thursday morning.
BUT...I PRESS ON!!!

---------------------

First, watch this video. It's the Resident Evil 5 trailer from last year. It's the video referenced in most of the articles to follow.

Now, let me draw your attention to this article (which links to an article with a video attached) and this one too, and finally this one. Give'em a look. (And once again Kotaku, my humblest thanks for giving me stuff to read. Where I work right now, the firewall filters "games" as a meta subject, so only some news sites get through. Word to you.)

I'm only half black, half white. While I joke this gives me no racial leverage whatsoever, I feel very much ingrained with certain desires to understand my race. This issue of Resident Evil 5 being a racist game has given me a chance to look towards my representation of myself as a game designer. I don't really think I run the risk of being considered more one color or another depending on my blog here, but maybe in some peoples eyes I do. The point of the blog though, is RE:5 purpotraying racist imagery? More importantly, are they doing it on purpose?

This is an excellent article to start with. It's Dyske Suematsu's take on Japanese people and their interactions with other races. The Japanese people seem to have the magnifying glass on their race in two ways: One as xenophobic, homogenous people who tend to overlook the fact something they do may come off as PC towards other races and Two, as people trying to be fashionably/interculturally in touch for various societal reasons. This would lend a hand in explaining why RE:5 could get green lit by a Japanese company, when an American company would open the game with Chris Redfield saying "I'm in a totally non-demoninational country with people speaking a language that can't be tied to any region and skin that's just BARELY off-white let's ROCK!"

The setting of RE5 looks, to me, to be genuinely terrifying. I applaud Capcom for setting the game in a society where the very idea of the zombie may have originated from. It's risky, but it's good. The people have dark skin, it's true. The teaser video linked to in that article isn't exactly flattering either, no. But it's good. RE5 looks horrific. I know as a charcter Chris will take NO pleasure in what he has to do to survive, and to prevent the spread of this epidemic to the rest of the world. But from the videos, pictures and the like...there's no way to tell unless you know the series at least a LITTLE. And sadly, a lot of powerful people don't.

The subtext of the RE5 screens is NOT the point. Someone with the eye of the politician and activist will see a militant white man killing evil black people, who are all evil because they are black. They overlook the story of the game, and sadly they always will. There's a politician right now INSISTING there's a rape scene in GTAIV that awards points. There is no such scene in GTAIV. The inhabitants of RE5 are not inherently evil. I don't know what parasite or virus is infecting them, but if it's anything like Las Plagas infected ganados from RE4, they're animated puppets with bugs in their brains from some evil corporation. Oh, and hardly anyone raised a tiff when Leon went to Spain to kill half the population. In the everlasting war against political incorrectness, don't pick your battles. If it messes with your race, make sure youre there when it messes with someone elses, or don't fight at all.

Moving on, the game took criticism for this portrayal, but did they change their tune? NOPE. Thank goodness. The game moves on, unhindered by the ranting and raving of an upset American audience. Some folks in Japan may have raised cain, but I think that when the game comes to Capcom USA, there maybe somes serious problems in store for the company, press wise. I'm not too worried about it, really. I think the initial issues will die down or float on by but there will the the one or two people who think the game needs banning/boycotting. I'm going to preorder a copy.

Breaking it down:

Should Capcom censor the game: No. There's nothing to censor.

Should they avoid this subject matter: No. The Resident Evil series has always been about the abuse of power, corruption of science and the manipulation through destruction of the HUMAN RACE.

Should America ban the game: Goodness no. If we ban this game, Saint's Row 2 better get cancelled and we better never see another GTA.

Should politicians and activists read and investigate before speaking thier mouths off: Yes. Or they risk looking like mis/uninformed idiots.

If I were to summarize the opinions of many, in a way I think is appropriate: Violence against one is unacceptable. Violence against many is equality. And that's ridiculous.

RE5 is the continuation of my 2nd favorite series in videogames. If I was a designer on the game, however, I would make sure during gameplay to let people see the other side of the coin BEFORE showing them the hell that Chris is descended into. Show them a village where there's life, love, happiness...or even one where there's paranoia, fear, panic...but make sure before we see the enemies as the monsters they become, we see them first as the humans they were.

-Joe

PS: Take a look at the new trailer. The people are portrayed as the monsters they've become, the abominations of Umbrella Corps. They've taken on a less human look, and as a result I think this magically makes everything okay. The magnificent double standard strikes again, I bet.

Sacrifice in Design

You're a designer.
You make a list of kickin' rad game features.
You talk to the producers.
That list is cut in half.

Such is fate. But during my time working for a major company in Chicago, I was witness to the ongoing back and forth between a game's desired features and direction, and the time/money it would take to implement them. I was involved in only a few talks of design, and scolded for some, but all in all it boiled down to sacrifice. So as a designer, it comes down to this: What is the core of the game, what is the fluff? Cut the fluff, keep the core.

By all means it isn't a bad thing to want to have a plethora of features to a game. The scope can ramp up on you, higher and higher till suddenly you have programmers shaking their heads and producers tapping the calender where it's marked "ship date" and "final certification." A careful hand of balance will guide you through this time. Find out what's good, what will make it still have that touch it needs for the gamer to know it's a unique experience. No two games should ever be too alike, even in the case of sequels. Controls may stay the same, but the experience should change so the player has a reason to enjoy the game over the old one, while also appreciating and loading up the old one from time to time.

So when you're playing that game, and you think about all the great features in it, cry and lament that there were probably pages of pages of extra features that didn't make it, and pray for a sequel.

Video Games as Art...another know-it-all-blogger's opinion

Writer Soo-Mahn wrote an article a little while back, that was much lauded and linked to about this topic. I loved the article, that cited Earthbound, Ico and Mario as good examples of games as art. He very effectively explained the transition a story has to make to become a compelling game, by giving players choices.

I want to forge my own path on this road. Here's my thesis:

Video Games, like all art forms, take a person with keen sense of vision, emotion, evocation and imagination to translate the written word or the formless thought into an enriching experience both engaging to the mind, and compelling.

Games have Designers for a reason. Designers are supposed to control and manipulate the game before the players eyes. They look at the situations in the game (any genre) from the eyes of the artist, and the eyes of the viewer. While some artists merely make art for themselves, a lot of artists take their audience into account when creating. They want to sell paintings. Designers are the same. They need to craft an experience that will hold people's attentions, draw them in and amuse their whimsy for at least a while. Whether the game is Shadow of the Colossus or Grand Theft Auto IV, two games from two entirely different ballparks. The Designer holds the brush, and with it they try their best to paint a picture worth seeing (More on Designers and sacrifice later...). I want to talk about the picture itself for a little.

The game as an artistic creation must be looked at from a few angles. The above article points out that a good game will typically offer the player choice. Instead of a movie/play/book where A always leads to B, in a game A could lead past B to C. The player will decide what goes. I think this is a great point, but there is so much more to a game as art. It can't just be left at that. Leaving it at that makes Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books art. Which some really are! But I digress. The look of a game, past it's actual game play flow, is essential to defining a game as an art form.

Take for example the Clover Studios creation Okami. Easily one of my top 5 video games. Beautifully made, amazing to play. Compelling story, sights, sounds...it's really a cream of the crop title. Is it art? Indubitably. The game from start to finish has the mark of the craftsman on it. The mark of an individual who knows the world through the eyes of the gamer, and knows how a game needs to look, as well as play. Every scene from Okami has care in its design. There isn't a single moment of that game that doesn't look like it could be taken aside to be a painting. The same goes for games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ninja Gaiden II in their own style. The hand of the artist is all over those games. The hand of the artist is imperative to anything being truly called art.

If I had designed Ninja Gaiden II, it would have been different in fundamental ways. Because I did not, and Itagaki did, it is an Itagaki. If I re-painted A Sunday Afternoon on the island of La Grand Jatte it would have been different, and not just because I'm bad at pointillism. In that sense, every game is an original work of art by the people who make it, who hopefully put care into people's perception of it.

Art is based off of experience, linear or not. The experience of seeing a beautiful painting by Jack Vettriano mimics the experience I get playing Okami when I've succeded in making the trees blossom, or in Grand Theft Auto IV when I witness Niko trying his damndest to succeed in a world ready to make him become the devil himself. Video Games give you the experience of experiencing, which may not make any damn sense at all. But if it does, I'd like to pretend it means that merely because you are there, making choices and participating, it'd be like walking among those people on La Grand Jette, talking and smiling and playing just as I do in my imagination every time I see it in person.

I hope more designers realize this, and take this into account. Games need to be an experience for the gamer, in a good way. Don't hold their hand, don't coddle them...but give them something that they can take away, and something to draw them back. All good art leaves a mark on the soul, and the medium of games should do no less.

So let's do this...PS3.

((Foreward: I saw "Don't Mess With the Zohan" tonight. Dad, don't take Mom to see it. You'll love it. Love -Joe))

I said a year ago that when Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out, that will be the time to finally own a PS3. I think I am right. First off, I admit a bias. Metal Gear is my favorite series of games (just above Silent Hill and Resident Evil). I want the game quite badly. But time to put that aside. Here's my bullet points:

• The library of the PS3 has grown enough to include some intriguing exclusives/incentives. Folklore, Motor Storm and some of the nicer looking games on the system like Burnout and the upcoming Final Fantasy titles need homes. As the library grows deeper, and the new games seem to have leveled out quality wise, it's safer to own one.
• We all know HD-DVDs are extinct, so why not buy a $500 blu-ray player? Sure beats a $1000 one, especially considering that more and more people have or are getting high-defition televisions.
• Home. Read my blog on it.
• The Sony Effect. It's a term I made up for when a Sony system suddenly gains momentum and becomes a thing of joy. I feel that it is about to kick in with the PS3.

And so it is the eternal question: Do I save up money for a new computer (About $1300 for the one I want) or get a PS3?

Late Nights #2: Addiction to the Machine

Big thanks again to Kotaku.com's editor-in-chief Crecente for reporting on this interview.

Dr. Jerald Block

I read it and hit some disturbing parallels, and coupled with an experience I had today it was rather startling. I will elaborate, but I will begin with the story.

I'm in the break room down here, playing Okami while a few interested eyes look on. First of all, I'm playing at 1:45 when the imposed "Video Game Allowed Hours" are from 9am to noon and 3pm to 6pm. I'd forgotten this, and I was high as a kite on my painkillers, so I didn't really care at the time to check the clock. Video Games help me focus while I'm trying to ride out the effect of the drugs, which I find unpleasant and tiring. If I focus on the game, I don't get tired and I feel much better. I tried reading once, but my eyes can't focus on the words, it's damn near impossible. So I played a light hearted, fun game with beautiful visuals.

In walk the two biggest antagonists of video gaming I've met so far. One of them comments in a very passive aggressive fashion, breaking the silence as people watch the game "Is there a reason we're playing games outside of the video game time?" Of course in my Bad-Ass-Vision I turned my head and listed every reason why we were playing outside the time, which boiled down to why video games are better than television (See my list at the end of the blog), followed by calling her a less-than-PC word: -expletive deleted- (hint: it would have rhymed with bunt). But I promptly, wordlessly shut the Wii down, went to my room, got out my friend's TV, and resumed playing. I wanted to relax and my butt was killing me from the stitches.

The reason I share this story, is for the look she gave me. It was disgust. Aversion and honest abhorrence. It was the look someone gives a meth addict, or someone hitting a bowl in front of them. It was a look you give someone you pity the habit of. "Am I addicted?" I wondered. "Am I really incapable of enjoying myself/relaxing without a controller in my hand?" The answer is a resounding YES...but is that a bad thing?

It comes down to one point: It's subjective, purely. For me it's not bad. I stay fit, active and in decent shape for my age. I also game like the dickens. The majority of my free time is spent gaming or thinking about gaming or writing about gaming. It's my life, it's what I do. In reading the interview with Dr. Block I realized though, that I share some qualities with the people he sees. I attach myself to my hardware, I develop a relationship with it. When my computer almost broke a few weeks back I damn near cried because I was worried I'd lost my files. When my Xbox was giving me the red ring, I felt like I was looking into the blank stare of a lost lover. I felt true loss. Now, I quickly rationalized the situation and took care of business, but I think a lot of gamers my age, younger and older for that matter, have had that moment where they feel like they've really lost something if their hardware is inaccessible. I need the ability to get on my computer/gaming console at the drop of a hat, or I feel twitchy, nervous...almost like a man missing his next fix. But in my blindness, I see no problem with that, as long as I live an otherwise balanced existence. Which I feel I do.

Dr. Block points out EvE Online, which is my #2 MMORPG. I love the amount that the game draws the player into the world, if you can swallow the depth of the UI and gamerbase. I sympathized with the man who'd lost in-game assets. I really did. As an "addict" (And I agree with Dr. Block, I HATE this term but am forced to use it) I felt true sympathy for his case. I really hope he's alright.

And so that leaves me here, typing on my gaming blog, listening to the Gorillaz, about to get out my DS and play a little Pokemon Pearl. I'm an addict and proud to be one. I think that people who are addicts are are NOT proud, should seek balance in their lives. Find something to offset that thirst for the game. For me it's writing and making movies. For them, it can be anything at all. If we urge those who are "addicted" to seek to regain balance in their lives first, then maybe people won't be ashamed to step forward looking for a "cure." We're not ashamed gamers because we don't want a cure, we're ashamed to be gamers because we love the disease.

These terms vex me. Henceforth I shall never refer to gaming as a disease, nor an addiction. Dr. Block, if you read this, I'm going to make that my promise to your work and your patients. I used it in this article to illustrate my point, no futher! And so now...I sleep. Goodnight, world.

-Joe

PS: And here's a site called Mothers Against Video Game Addiction for more "adddiction" reading pleasure from the other side of the fence.

Satan sez "Game on, kiddies! I'll see you all real soon!"

------------------------------

WHY VIDEO GAMES ARE BETTER THAN TV (Miniblog by J.L.)

TV is entirely input. Show, commercial break, show, commercial break. This is input input input. It's documentary, scripted event or worse, "unscripted reality television" followed by a series of words and images designed to get you to spend money in some way, rinse, repeat. This is boring and terrible. Considering the only quality amount of programming is one usually for about an hour a day, if that, there is no reason to channel surf these days. You sit, you soak it in, you gain a little here and there (sticking to Food Network, Discovery Channel and Current TV), but you exercise a very miniscule part of your mind.

Video games DEMAND OUTPUT from the user. You must focus, you must coordinate your hands and mind, you must train your eyes and reflexes. If you do not gain skills as a player, the story does not end. There is no forward movement without your input and direct participation. In this way you are tied to the outcome. There is less direct advertisement, and unless it's a poorly made game the story will be written with an attempt to engage you as a player/participant in the scene. This is, and will always be, more interesting/engaging/enriching and innovative. You must be involved, you must engage the game. It doesn't suggest it, it demands it. And it rewards you with some mental (and sometimes physical!) exercise.

The ONLY TWO downsides: time and people. Most games take longer than your half an hour sitcom and are one player ordeals. This leaves everyone else (who may or may not like watching a skilled player play) out.

So go out, make some friends that like to pass the controller around and enjoy a good session, and hang out with them. It sure beats watching TV.

Episodic Content or The Game That Never Ended

• Half-Life 2
• Mass Effect
• GTAIV
• Penny Arcade presents: On the Rainslick Presipice of Darkness
• Sam and Max

These games and a few I'm sure I've missed have something in common.
They're episodic.

Episodic games have taken on the upswing, as developers can create content that will be downloaded to people's machines (PC and console alike, thanks to the advent of consoles with hard drives) that will add content directly and seamlessly to the game experience. This is the new "expansion pack". EverQuest has a goodness GRACIOUS gosh darn ton of expansion packs, that add realms and items and classes and more to the game. Previously reserved for the PC crowd, console gamers (See: Joe Locastro) are now able to enjoy some of that tasty content.

Looking at that list of games though...there is one very important distinction I need to make before going on. Sam and Max and Half-Life 2 are episodic games, but require purchasing of entirely new discs/files seperate to those you already use to play the game's expanded content. Mass Effect and GTAIV will add the content to the game world itself, ala World of Warcraft. It helps that those two games are sand-box worlds, where the player can choose their path through the world, while Half-Life 2 and Sam and Max are linear adventures. A linear game can't really add content to the world, they have to add more world to gain content and even then, it typically has to be handled separately to keep the integrity of the game nice and high.

THAT being said, let's first focus on Mass Effect, Oblivion and GTAIV, games where adding content means micro-transactions and not trips to GameStop. By creating episodic content for that kind of game, the bridge between sequels can be gapped. Such is the idea behind Mass Effect's added missions. Give the gamers something to whet their appetites for the true sequel. This stretches the experience out. Maybe it's only two-three hours of game play total but it's there, it's something. It means that games like GTA and Mass Effect will still be heavy sellers, and the title will continue to generate revenue for the company despite its long shelf life. This is a big money maker, and a great way to give people a reason to keep spinning the disc, so to speak. I for one would have gotten my jollies on my two play throughs of Mass Effect and called it a great game, but now that I can DL more content, I'm on more and more playthroughs, just to access it and enjoy it as much as I can. The same will be said for GTAIV. Companies are utilizing hard drives to their fullest, and their best potential, as a storyteller's archive.

Next, we go to games like Penny Arcade's new RPG, and Half-Life 2. Half-Life 2 took some flak for their episodic content being too long between episodes. Some would argue the nature of episodic content is in regularity and stability of a release date. The term episode itself denotes short length, fast development. Half-Life 2 Episode: 1 and 2 were only about 3-5 hours long each, but they were fun and fast diversions. Episode 2 came packed in that shiny Orange Box with Ep. 1 and Portal and TF2 and HL2, so that was a great deal. Sam and Max is brought via Steam for fair prices, and the story of Sam and Max spans a few downloadable segments. This method means one decently sized team of people can put out games in a few fast months, for gamers to enjoy, while a larger team at the same company works on some big releases for the sweep seasons.

Episodic content of both varieties means the gamer wins, as well as the companies. We get our characters in situations faster (even if it's shorter) and the companies get our 20-30 bucks to breathe in while they make their plans. The ONLY way episodic content would fail is if they charge us full prices ($30-$40) for episodic content, or if they take too long to develop the episodic content itself (See: VALVE...). So consider getting some of that Mass Effect goodness, and look out for the GTAIV content that'll hit Q1 of 09. It's a ways off, but I'm already excited.

MGS4 Watch: Konami's house, Konami's rules?

Got two articles for you.

EGM Refuses to review MGS4 thanks to limitations (via Kotaku)

Kojima Productions responds to complaints about MGS4 Review limitations

Thus begins a moment I've foreseen and slightly feared...the age of "Cinematic Balance"

The Age of Cinematic Balance is a time where game designers will want to put as much beautiful story into their games as they can. Motion captured cut scenes, tons of great voice acting, minutes to ten-minutes of cut scenes and story to fill out and flesh out a deep, moving experience. This isn't a bad thing. This could be great. However there's an important obstacle in their way: the gamers.

From my personal experience, a lot of more casual gamers skip cut scenes, or want them to be short and sweet. If they're longer than three minutes and don't involve boobs or blood or bloody boobs, they comment on them. They become notable for their length. MGS: Twin Snakes had some beefy scenes, directed by Ryuhei Kitamura (Versus) and they were choice. I appreciated the break in the stealth action. A portion of my gaming peers however tended to get bored, or get up and get a sandwich at those moments. It's all personal preference really, and I see no issue with that! People want to game, I want balance, some people (especially those with more Japanese cultured inclination) love their cut scenes long and proud.

Now, Konami asked that reviewers not disclose several things:

-Install times
-Length of cutscenes (the ending in particular)
-Number of environments
-Opening "movie"
-Product placement
-(Plus a half dozen story-specific items)

They broke it down pretty well in their response e-mail, but Adam Sessler had a pretty good ramble about it. He pointed out that a good review will not spoil anything, but at least touch on things that will help people decide if the game is for them or not. If you don't like long ass cut scenes, you're entitled to know if a game has them. Save yourself some money if it's really that much of a hangup. If you don't like bloody violence (PARENTS), the reviews will let you know a game's rating and violence amounts.

I find install times trivial at best. If gamers can't cool their jets long enough for an install, there's a bigger issue there. Installs are a little doofy, but necessary for certain titles to run optimally. The fact Konami doesn't want it commented, based on Ryan Payton's repsonse, seems to be because if reviews focus on the frequency of it, and the length of the first one, gamers will decide the game isn't worth their time. However, once again, it's fair for the gamer to know about installs.

I find the bullet about product placement to be humorous. I hope Snake munches on tons of Calorie Mate.

Summing it up, there's two main points here:

1. Game Designers are going to be held under the gun, as technology allows for depth a drama, for maintaining respectable length in their non-interactive story elements. If they can't work it into the game itself (ala Half-Life 2 and Indigo Prophecy), they're going to get a little flak for it.
   
2. Reviews are designed to help the consuming gamer know if the game is right for them to purchase. Not just if the game is any good. A good game, to a lot of reviewers, is worth purchase purely based on it's merits as an experience (game play, art, music...etc.), however, for a gamer to spend $60 on a game, they need to know a few almost trivial facts about it. Developers ALWAYS have had NDA for their games reviews. Look in the past at games that weren't allowed to have their reviews out till the game shipped. But companies like Konami and I'm sure soon, a few more may pull this, need to realize that the reviewers job is to paint a spoiler-free picture of the game experience. The length of a cut scene, or the number of installs doesn't totally ruin the experience of the game, but it lets gamers have a nice heads up as to the games technical aspects. Total fair play.

Itagaki follow up!

So it seems (And MEGA thanks to Kotaku.com's frequent updates on this) that TECMO doesn't give a good goddamn about Itagaki leaving. Team NINJA is still there, TECMO owns the rights to Ninja Gaiden and DOA anyway, so I wonder...will his influence on the team as a whole leave their games feeling Itagakiesque? Or will they somehow evolve/devolve into some new form, bringing to light a fresh face? TECMO is now on my watch list.

I'm at my parents house right now, so my updates will have to come later tonight. I'm gonna go play Ninja Gaiden 2 and get some notes together on an entry about a company I love, and about PMOGs (Passive Multiplayer Online Games). Be well!

Tomonobu Itagaki resigns from Tecmo

Tomonobu Itagaki is leaving Tecmo

THIS is shocking news indeed. In my futile efforts to clean my room, I refreshed Kotaku.com and was offered this sad, weeping gem.

Itagaki was by no means at the top of my list, but his attention to aesthetic was up there with the best. Team NINJA put every thing they could into the look of their games, delivering crisp and clean sounding/looking cutscene and gameplay.

Ninja Gaiden was a rollicking and hard to play game, challenging and pushing player's patience and rewarding them with did-you-see-that moments. The Dead or Alive as a series has been around for years, delivering (amongst other more...buoyant things...) some simple and fun fighting action with great looks, and great settings. I personally enjoyed playing DOA4 with pals after a few silver bullets. Great way to spend a night.

Itagaki gave a great message to his game fans:

To All Game Fans

I truly feel sorry to all the fans of the games I have made. NINJA GAIDEN 2, which will launch on the 3rd of June will be the last NINJA GAIDEN I will create. I will also never be able to make DEAD OR ALIVE 5. I regret the circumstances that have forced me to leave Tecmo, where I had worked for so many years, and I regret the disappointment this will cause my fans.

It's sad to see him leave, but it seems like it's the best option. Someone like him won't stray far. Rest assured that either he'll go, or Tecmo will bump it's CEO within the next 48 hours. Without Itagaki, Tecmo has a little stride but with him, they've got solid, selling franchise. I'll try to keep my ear to the ground on this as best I can, but for now...time to clean my room.

If it turns out that things go sour for him...arigatou gozaimasu, Itagaki-sama.

Reporting on Games? DO THE RESEARCH!

First, the Kotaku Post that Leigh Alexander wrote that is really well done.

Then, the Feministing article in review.

It happens about three times a year. Someone who doesn't play games at all (and doesn't read the news) hears about something in a new game. I like to use Mass Effect as an example. They hear that there's a sex scene in the game.

I said there's an explicit sex scene.

I said there's basically alien-human porn in the game.

I said players can choose the size of their partner's breasts, and what positions to do.

...get my point?

The case above, from Feministing.com, proves yet again that not just non-gamers, but people who don't research their stories gain notoriety as their opinions of events in-game get covered by the news. We've seen it before. Gamers fought back. The critics backed off. Still, Mass Effect is a critically acclaimed game, and I am in-fact about to start my 2nd play-through if it tomorrow. Journalism took a hit with that, and credibility fell sharply for critics of games. Left and right people are called out for their glaringly inaccurate representations of a "childish" medium. If the reporting for the war overseas was this inaccurate, we'd have headlines reading "About 5 to 20 soldiers died in Baghdad...we heard, we weren't actually there" or even "Historical text contains underage sex, attempted and assisted suicide and worse, more on 'Romeo and Juliet' at 11".

If you're going to do news, do research. It's simple. People who get degrees have done research papers, they've found and completed thesis on varieties of subjects. When you're told to report or detail ANYTHING do the damned research! If I was told to go do a report the CMT Awards you bet your ass I'd be listening to Kenny Chesney, Big and Rich and Faith Hill all the way up to it, in order to at least have a BASIC understanding of the styles and sounds and names I was hearing. It's a simple thing to do.

Admittedly, I do not know Cooper Lawrence's stance. Maybe she wasn't primed on the interview, but it's likely she was told she'd be talking about an electronic game called "Mass Effect", and she just asked a friend what it had in it that was so bad, without looking up the game or at least the scene herself. If you're reporting on games, talk to game developers. If you're reporting on The CMT awards, don't listen to Ayumi Hamasaki or The Pillows. Elementary, my dear Cooper.

I hope that as the journalistic generation grows up, and my generation takes to the papers and television, at least SOME people have the steady mind to do proper research and investigation on the topics they're made to talk about. If not, games and gamers may never move from behind this negative stigma of being sex-crazed man-children with an insatiable lust for tits and violence.

...not to say I'm NOT but...you get my drift.

Late Nights #1: Why blog?

There's always that nagging doubt (a voice in my head I named after an ex girlfriend that constantly doubted me) that I'm not going to make it.

Game design isn't the kind of thing where you go to school for four years and poof, you're a designer. It takes talent, dedication, and an eye for what works and what doesn't. People can be taught that, some never learn it, and some are born with it. If I don't make it, cest' la vie. If I do, I want this blog to chronicle the struggle, so I have something to show that nagging doubt and maybe one day it will stop nagging me.

I dropped out of school to work at a major developer/publisher in the Chicago area. I worked there for nine months, working as hard as I could. I saw the process, I knew the hangups, the phone calls, the meetings, the expenses (especially the expense reports) and the trials and tribulations. I soaked it up. Best I could. After that experience I wanted to apply it, and apply it immediately. So I did, I took the steps. Right now I'm learning how hard it is to motivate not only myself, but a few other people who all have their own lives to live. Sometimes it feels like it's only my dream, despite their dedication. This of course coming from a two-years behind in school former paid intern with one game to his name (And not a very popular/good one at that).

This blog will show me where I went wrong, where things went right. I'm going to slip, and sometimes get personal with it. But that's how all good blogs are, sometimes. I'm not a machine (much to my chagrin, sometimes), and I want this to be as much a look at the industry, a look at the struggle as it is a look inside the head of someone standing at the junction of Never and Certainty. It's going to be a rough ride, but I always loved a challenge. I tell people all the time that I'm the kind of person who runs towards trouble. Well running your own company is trouble like I've never know, but it's rewarding. Sure, I'm staring at the carrot-on-a-string right now, but soon we'll be on a roll, and I'll be able to see if natural talent is worth a hill of beans in this world.

So thanks for spending this late night with me, I'm going to sleep. Stay tuned and stay with me, my friends. It sure beats playing "Space Fight!" on Facebook.

Be well,

Joe