I saw The Dark Knight the other day. (Great movie, by the way.) Between trailers for such drivel like Death Race and Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 (2!), I managed to see one of the most exciting trailers I've seen in a long time.
Don't fully understand? Well, the book is some of the best $11 you'll ever spend.
Hey, Andrew, this has nothing to do with your tattoo.
Uhhhh.........
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Video Games. Show all posts
Monday, July 21, 2008
Saturday, June 7, 2008
More Pictures! More! Mwahahaha!
Okay, I've been in a picture-posting mood lately, so I'm going to keep posting some! Why? I dunno, I've been in a visual mood lately. Maybe it's because I've visited two art museums in the past week. Or maybe it's because I've finally broken down and purchased a new digital camera. It's a Norcent DCS-1050, which was only 85 bucks and got decent (enough) reviews. It's not that my current camera is bad, per se, but it certainly has its limitations, namely the fact that is uses a CompactFlash card and is really bulky...restrictingly so, in fact, for someone who doesn't carry a purse. I give it credit for working well for many years (having served my sister before me), but I figured I should experiment with something new; see how that works. I should be receiving this new camera fairly soon (in fact, it's already a few days late). Anyhoo, in the meantime, here are some other shots that were taken when I was showing off my crow shirts.
Look at my face! Look at it! There's murder in them eyes! Or...something! (Just a quick aside, I've been told by several people that I have big/wide eyes. I'll let you be the judge.) I found this picture so hi-larious that I'm actually using a close-up as my desktop picture.
I find the vertical nature of this one quite charming and perhaps even a little artistic. I just wish that I could have shown off more of my shorts (which are brand new some of the ones I took from the big piles of clothes on move-out day).
And this is me making a really cheesy face (there are some that are even cheesier; so cheesy, in fact, that they shouldn't be shown!). Almost like a sendoff to my old camera. "It's been good, kid. We'll always have Comic-Con."
Now, some other pictures! Not of me!
First, you know how I said that my addiction du jour is the game Mass Effect? Well, I thought I'd show off my character. In the game, you can choose your character (Commander Shepard)'s first name (I chose Solomon, since I obviously think it's a cool name), personal history (I made it so he grew up on a colony that was attacked by alien slave traders; everyone he knew and loved was slaughtered), and military history (he was on a mission when his squad was attacked by horrible aliens. All of his friends and allies were slaughtered. [Wow, tough life]). You can also choose what their face looks like.
I decided to make the character look like a more badass version of me, with a shorter goatee (I would have made it longer if possible) and a scar (hell yeah!). This is a result:
Ironically, despite the ever-angry look on his face, my character is actually considered a moral and military paragon. So that's good. When I do my second play, through, I'll be a woman and follow the path of evil. Since, as we all know, women are proven evil.
Finally, sometimes RAs will put on stress-relief programs where people are encouraged to "act like 5-year-olds". At these programs, they almost always have coloring books. Now, I take a decidedly...different approach to these, as you can see in the following:
G'night, folks!
Look at my face! Look at it! There's murder in them eyes! Or...something! (Just a quick aside, I've been told by several people that I have big/wide eyes. I'll let you be the judge.) I found this picture so hi-larious that I'm actually using a close-up as my desktop picture.I find the vertical nature of this one quite charming and perhaps even a little artistic. I just wish that I could have shown off more of my shorts (which are And this is me making a really cheesy face (there are some that are even cheesier; so cheesy, in fact, that they shouldn't be shown!). Almost like a sendoff to my old camera. "It's been good, kid. We'll always have Comic-Con."Now, some other pictures! Not of me!
First, you know how I said that my addiction du jour is the game Mass Effect? Well, I thought I'd show off my character. In the game, you can choose your character (Commander Shepard)'s first name (I chose Solomon, since I obviously think it's a cool name), personal history (I made it so he grew up on a colony that was attacked by alien slave traders; everyone he knew and loved was slaughtered), and military history (he was on a mission when his squad was attacked by horrible aliens. All of his friends and allies were slaughtered. [Wow, tough life]). You can also choose what their face looks like.
I decided to make the character look like a more badass version of me, with a shorter goatee (I would have made it longer if possible) and a scar (hell yeah!). This is a result:
Ironically, despite the ever-angry look on his face, my character is actually considered a moral and military paragon. So that's good. When I do my second play, through, I'll be a woman and follow the path of evil. Since, as we all know, women are proven evil.Finally, sometimes RAs will put on stress-relief programs where people are encouraged to "act like 5-year-olds". At these programs, they almost always have coloring books. Now, I take a decidedly...different approach to these, as you can see in the following:
G'night, folks!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Yeah, so...
Hey, there!
Remember the game Mass Effect? The one I wrote that long diatribe defending?
Well, it was released for the PC this past week.
And it took me a day and a half to update the driver on my video card, but I got the thing to work, and I started playing the game.
And right now, I'm addicted.
Not to the "virtual orgasmic rape" simulations that the game offers (according to conservatives), but rather to dialogue trees. I'm addicted to freakin' dialogue!
Oh, and all the voice acting in this game makes me want to pursue some odd jobs as a voice actor.
But mostly, it's addicting. The hours just melt away. Which would be fine, were it not for school and sleep. But we'll get past at least one of those obstacles eventually.
*Sigh*...It's KotoR all over again.
(.....That's a good thing.)
Remember the game Mass Effect? The one I wrote that long diatribe defending?
Well, it was released for the PC this past week.
And it took me a day and a half to update the driver on my video card, but I got the thing to work, and I started playing the game.
And right now, I'm addicted.
Not to the "virtual orgasmic rape" simulations that the game offers (according to conservatives), but rather to dialogue trees. I'm addicted to freakin' dialogue!
Oh, and all the voice acting in this game makes me want to pursue some odd jobs as a voice actor.
But mostly, it's addicting. The hours just melt away. Which would be fine, were it not for school and sleep. But we'll get past at least one of those obstacles eventually.
*Sigh*...It's KotoR all over again.
(.....That's a good thing.)
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Hey, Got 25 Minutes to Spare?
I wanted to do something a little different today. So I decided I'd let you watch me play a bad video game.
Seriously.
...Hey, come back!
This is actually something I've wanted to do for a while. On my primary video game-related website, Kotaku (who've I've referenced before) there is this one writer named Mike Fahey who has an occasional feature called "Fahey Talks at the Game" in which he plays a game (usually a bad one) and...talks at it. As though you're in the room with him. Aww... If you want a sample, I think the best of the bunch are the ones for Ninjabread Man and especially Nancy Drew - The White Wolf of Icicle Creek.
As I said, I'd like to do something similar. Hence, I am debuting my own occasional feature entitled "Andrew Talks to the Game" (notice my creative lawsuit avoidance?). Unfortunately, I don't have a full on camcorder like Fahey does, and my digital camera can't focus on words worth a hoot, so I'm reduced to using my cell phone camera. It does an admirable job, for what it's worth. Still, as it's my first time doing this, I'm still a little rusty.
So, if you have a good 20 minutes and enjoy the sound of my voice, give it a go. If, on the other hand, you got sick while watching Cloverfield...best pass this one up.
(Let me know what you think in the comments. I have a few ideas for future games, but I'm also willing to take requests.)
Seriously.
...Hey, come back!
This is actually something I've wanted to do for a while. On my primary video game-related website, Kotaku (who've I've referenced before) there is this one writer named Mike Fahey who has an occasional feature called "Fahey Talks at the Game" in which he plays a game (usually a bad one) and...talks at it. As though you're in the room with him. Aww... If you want a sample, I think the best of the bunch are the ones for Ninjabread Man and especially Nancy Drew - The White Wolf of Icicle Creek.
As I said, I'd like to do something similar. Hence, I am debuting my own occasional feature entitled "Andrew Talks to the Game" (notice my creative lawsuit avoidance?). Unfortunately, I don't have a full on camcorder like Fahey does, and my digital camera can't focus on words worth a hoot, so I'm reduced to using my cell phone camera. It does an admirable job, for what it's worth. Still, as it's my first time doing this, I'm still a little rusty.
So, if you have a good 20 minutes and enjoy the sound of my voice, give it a go. If, on the other hand, you got sick while watching Cloverfield...best pass this one up.
(Let me know what you think in the comments. I have a few ideas for future games, but I'm also willing to take requests.)
Friday, April 25, 2008
You Know The Internet Has Corrupted You...
When you can see this...
...and turn it into THIS!!!
(Note: No, I didn't just make that today; I've had it for a while. Had I the time to actually make something like that, I would use it to write a real post instead of just filler. Hi-larious filler, but filler nonetheless.)
...and turn it into THIS!!!
(Note: No, I didn't just make that today; I've had it for a while. Had I the time to actually make something like that, I would use it to write a real post instead of just filler. Hi-larious filler, but filler nonetheless.)
Sunday, March 9, 2008
A Brawling Good Time
So, last night I picked up a copy of Super Smash Bros Brawl for the Wii, which I'm sure is going to be the system's star title.
And you should be grateful that instead of playing it, I'm taking the time to tell you that I'm going to be playing it.
The game was released at Gamestop at midnight, but in the two hours prior to that, there was a small tournament, which is apparently part of a much larger, nation-wide tournament (touted as the largest ever; a likely claim).
32 contestants (including myself and two of my residents) participated. The tournament was set up with the initial starting characters (that is, no hidden unlockable characters), and we each had a minute to beat our opponent.
Included in the cast of players was this fellow whose a local legend; a guy from Unit 1 who basically is supposed to best in Berkeley. He is, without question, a total douchebag. He is extremely arrogant, condescending, and belittling of all things he doesn't consider "competitive." He even announced during the tournament that "This tournament is lame. There will be another one tomorrow that'll be more competitive and better." Meaning, the game will be stripped of anything that makes it random (that is, anything that makes it fun). He is my antithesis when it comes to this game. I play for the pleasure derived from playing. He plays only to win. Actually, I'm sure if you went into it, he plays only to beat people. One of my main hopes was that he lost.
Originally, I was intending on playing a character called Ike, but them about a quarter of the people chose him. Not being one to follow the crowd, I decided to pick a completely unique character called Olimar. Now, Olimar plays vastly different from all other characters in the game (it would be too tricky to explain all the ways). Apparently, he's good, but just really hard to use. And he's never appeared in any of these games before. And we were playing with a completely unfamiliar control scheme.
So basically, I had no idea in Hell what I was doing.
Combine that with my already average (perhaps slightly above average) playing ability, and I figured my choice was as good as a concession.
Yet - somehow - I made it into the top 8, surpassing my residents (who I consider better than me) and that jerkish tournament player (who did nothing but complain after he lost in the second round).
I was eventually beaten, because I was a little too slow, but I had fun. And you know what? That's what the point of a game is.
(Oh, and just so you know, the winner moved on to the regional championship, and also got this absolutely hideous trophy).
So that's what I did.
Now, off to play some Brawl!
And you should be grateful that instead of playing it, I'm taking the time to tell you that I'm going to be playing it.
The game was released at Gamestop at midnight, but in the two hours prior to that, there was a small tournament, which is apparently part of a much larger, nation-wide tournament (touted as the largest ever; a likely claim).
32 contestants (including myself and two of my residents) participated. The tournament was set up with the initial starting characters (that is, no hidden unlockable characters), and we each had a minute to beat our opponent.
Included in the cast of players was this fellow whose a local legend; a guy from Unit 1 who basically is supposed to best in Berkeley. He is, without question, a total douchebag. He is extremely arrogant, condescending, and belittling of all things he doesn't consider "competitive." He even announced during the tournament that "This tournament is lame. There will be another one tomorrow that'll be more competitive and better." Meaning, the game will be stripped of anything that makes it random (that is, anything that makes it fun). He is my antithesis when it comes to this game. I play for the pleasure derived from playing. He plays only to win. Actually, I'm sure if you went into it, he plays only to beat people. One of my main hopes was that he lost.
Originally, I was intending on playing a character called Ike, but them about a quarter of the people chose him. Not being one to follow the crowd, I decided to pick a completely unique character called Olimar. Now, Olimar plays vastly different from all other characters in the game (it would be too tricky to explain all the ways). Apparently, he's good, but just really hard to use. And he's never appeared in any of these games before. And we were playing with a completely unfamiliar control scheme.
So basically, I had no idea in Hell what I was doing.
Combine that with my already average (perhaps slightly above average) playing ability, and I figured my choice was as good as a concession.
Yet - somehow - I made it into the top 8, surpassing my residents (who I consider better than me) and that jerkish tournament player (who did nothing but complain after he lost in the second round).
I was eventually beaten, because I was a little too slow, but I had fun. And you know what? That's what the point of a game is.
(Oh, and just so you know, the winner moved on to the regional championship, and also got this absolutely hideous trophy).
So that's what I did.
Now, off to play some Brawl!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Cop-Out: A Thought-Provoking Video Game Video!
Now, often I'm not to keen on just posting YouTube videos for their own sake. However, today I'll make a small exception (in part because I'm stupefyingly busy this week and can't give you anything decent at the moment).
However, a little setup.
This is from a video game called Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I've mentioned it before a couple of times, but it bears worth mentioning again. If you enjoy Star Wars and you enjoy computer games, you owe it to yourself to play KOTOR and its sequel. Yes, they are...engaging (I probably spent about 200 hours between the two games), but you can portion them out over a long period of time, like a good book. And they play like a good book. A good, interactive book. With compelling stories and deep characters, the two games are excellent, and I'm sure you could find them for less than 10 bucks a pop (they're quite a few years old at this point; I played them when I was a college freshman, and they weren't fully new then, either).
In any event, while you're playing in the game, your non-player-controlled party members will interact with you and occasionally (and sometimes more interestingly) with each other. Since everyone has such a fully developed personality, it's interesting to see how they clash as the characters develop their relationships.
In any event, the clip you're about to watch is, for me, the moment I remember most out of the entire 200 hours I played either game. And it's not a battle at all. It's just a couple lines of dialogue. But those few lines spoke volumes to me.
Besides the player-controlled character (who mostly remains silent) the characters in this video are Carth Onasi, a flag-waving pilot of the Galactic Republic who fully believes in it, and wants nothing more than to protect people from the evils that threaten it. The second is Jolee Bindo, a "gray Jedi" (that is, a Jedi who has left the order but has not fallen to the dark side). In fact, Jolee didn't believe in either the light side or the dark side, taking a very relativistic stance. He ended up leaving the Jedi Order because the High Council did not punish him for making a mistake that caused the deaths of many. He lost faith in the Council's wisdom at that point. In my opinion, he's one of the wisest characters in the whole of the Star Wars universe (even more than, say Yoda).
Anyway, what Jolee says in this clip really speaks to me, especially because of all the rhetoric we hear everyday. Basically, you could replace the word "war" with "election", "economy", "technology", "society" or what have you, and it would still be relevant. And that's why it stood out to me so much, even after these years.
So, any of you have thoughts on the matter?
However, a little setup.
This is from a video game called Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I've mentioned it before a couple of times, but it bears worth mentioning again. If you enjoy Star Wars and you enjoy computer games, you owe it to yourself to play KOTOR and its sequel. Yes, they are...engaging (I probably spent about 200 hours between the two games), but you can portion them out over a long period of time, like a good book. And they play like a good book. A good, interactive book. With compelling stories and deep characters, the two games are excellent, and I'm sure you could find them for less than 10 bucks a pop (they're quite a few years old at this point; I played them when I was a college freshman, and they weren't fully new then, either).
In any event, while you're playing in the game, your non-player-controlled party members will interact with you and occasionally (and sometimes more interestingly) with each other. Since everyone has such a fully developed personality, it's interesting to see how they clash as the characters develop their relationships.
In any event, the clip you're about to watch is, for me, the moment I remember most out of the entire 200 hours I played either game. And it's not a battle at all. It's just a couple lines of dialogue. But those few lines spoke volumes to me.
Besides the player-controlled character (who mostly remains silent) the characters in this video are Carth Onasi, a flag-waving pilot of the Galactic Republic who fully believes in it, and wants nothing more than to protect people from the evils that threaten it. The second is Jolee Bindo, a "gray Jedi" (that is, a Jedi who has left the order but has not fallen to the dark side). In fact, Jolee didn't believe in either the light side or the dark side, taking a very relativistic stance. He ended up leaving the Jedi Order because the High Council did not punish him for making a mistake that caused the deaths of many. He lost faith in the Council's wisdom at that point. In my opinion, he's one of the wisest characters in the whole of the Star Wars universe (even more than, say Yoda).
Anyway, what Jolee says in this clip really speaks to me, especially because of all the rhetoric we hear everyday. Basically, you could replace the word "war" with "election", "economy", "technology", "society" or what have you, and it would still be relevant. And that's why it stood out to me so much, even after these years.
So, any of you have thoughts on the matter?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Fighting Demons of Deception: The "Mass Effect" Story
(NOTE: Get comfortable. Make yourself a cup of hot cocoa. You're going to be here a while. A looong while...)
You know, there are plenty of non-controversial video games in the world. In fact, I bought two this week and am thoroughly enjoying them both. However, aside from some pointless review, that's not interesting enough to post on here. Besides, I think it's a valuable service to my readers to provide a explanation of a story that they probably have no idea about. That's why whenever I seem to post on the subject, something's going down.
And this one, it's a doozy.
So, there's game that came out last November on the XBox 360 called Mass Effect. It's made by BioWare, the same company that made the excellent, excellent Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. Mass Effect has been likened as the spiritual successor to those games, and so I'm waiting anxiously for it to come out on the PC (it hasn't been announced that it's coming to the PC, but trust me, it will eventually). The game has garnered almost universal acclaim and has been said by many to be one of, if not the, best game of 2007. So what could possibly be controversial about it.
Well, you see there's relations in this game.
Sexual relations.
Lesbian sexual relations.
Interspecies lesbian sexual relations.
Ruh-roh, Raggy!
However, before you visit the stables to find a high horse to sit upon, let me assure you upfront, it's really not that bad. In 21st-Century terms, I'd say it was actually done with quite some dignity. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Onto the story!
Chapter One - Cybercast News Service
So...Cybercast. Ever hear of them? Of course you haven't. They're a conservative (and trust me, you'll see a pattern here) news and opinion website. On January 11, one of their correspondants wrote an article on Mass Effect, entitled "Sex in Video Games Makes Waves Through Industry." Now, even though I'm likning to the articles, I don't recommend you click on them, because all that would do is generate traffic and, thus, encourage them. However, I'll give some nice juicy quotes, straight from the article.
"Explicit." What does that mean? According to Dictionary.com, it means "fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal." In other words, leaving nothing to the imagination.
Now, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to show the exact scenes that are causing this controversy (that is, the entirety of the controversy). Now, there are some definitely-intimate things going on, so this may perhaps not work-safe, but it's really...well, I'll just let you judge:
(Note: I am not in favor of stupid post-coital remarks.)
So there you go. That's 2 minutes and 33 seconds (half of which was spent in conversation) out of a game which can last from 30 to 60 hours. That is the total amount of sexual activity in the game, and it's not even a guarantee that you'll see it (as it only occurs after lots of specific relationship development with the computer characters).
And would you say that was explicit? Hell, I've seen more explicit things on NBC Primetime. Really, it's about as PG-13 as you could get, pornographic only in a world where there's nothing but silhouettes.
2. Does she have any facts to back up this claim?
I'll admit that I don't see many TV ads - seeing as I don't watch much TV - but I'm pretty sure they're not promoting this show on Kids WB. What I do see, though, is the Internet, and I have not seen one iota of advertising for the game that has targeted it for minors. If they had even brought up one example, I would have been satisfied, but I guess that was beneath them.
If you'd like the stats, only 14% of video games sold are rated "M". 49% are rated "E" for Everyone, 32% are rated "T" for Teen, and the remaining 4% are "E10+".
Really, it's just a bunch of talk with very few facts to validate any of what they're saying. It's almost like...it's almost like they've never even played the game. But this is the conservative news site Cybercast! Surely they wouldn't be so careless!
Really, the only beneficial thing to come out of this article was a hilariously satirical Photoshop (on Kotaku) adding a new option to the after-the-deed banter.
So, we get off that train, only to hop onto another...
Chapter Two - Kevin McCollough
So...Kevin McCullough. Ever hear of him? Of course you haven't. He's a conservative author and columnist on conservative website Townhall.com. I would provide you with a link directly to his article (written January 13), but it appears as though it's been taken down, likely due to too much traffic and/or heat. I don't remember exactly what it said, so the quotes I'm going to give you came from other sites. However, the article was entitled "The 'Sex-Box' Race for President." While I would love to compliment him on his clever wordplay, it seems some perverted Japanese company beat him to it. Oh, and how exactly does this play into the presidential race?
I like the assumption that the game goes straight into lewd territory the moment you finish the character creation. I also like the assumption that all gamers have 54" LCD TV's to watch their "persons" hump in...format? What the hell does "format" mean in this context?
(Note: BioWare is a Canadian company.)
Now, as you can imagine, there was quite a stir amongst the gaming community. So much so, that the article was floooooded with comments. Thousand of comments. And this is on a website that, from what I've seen in my scan of it, normally has 20 - 50 comments an article. Now, I'm not going to say that everyone was entirely civil; nay, there were quite a number of completely uncalled-for comments in addition to the ones which adequately described to Mr. McCullough how he was wrong.
So, with his toes of his left foot gently tickling the back of his throat, what does this man do? He sticks the right foot directly below the left in his follow-up article "Life Lessons: Gamers 'Rights' to Lesbo-Alien Sex" (see what he did there?). This was his chance to make amends, to admit that he had no idea what he was talking about. Let's see how he fessed up.
So, things kept rolling along. As you may expect, his eloquent words did little to appease gamers worldwide. People wondered why he would continue to bear-bait people like this. One proposal (likely, an accurate one) came from webcomic Penny-Arcade who basically thought that it was his ticket out of obscurity. Because really, the guy is a nobody. Sure, he's written a book, but aside from his liberalism-fighting, he's never done anything.
...Now, there is an ending to this one. McCullough had an Internet Radio show on which he spoke with several gamers about the issues. And, surprise, he learned that he was, in fact, wrong about things, including the fact that ratings actually do things (the percentage of minors successful in purchasing M-rated games dropped from 85% in 2000 to 42% in 2005, and it's likely lower now). He also learned that not all "Gamer-Nerds," as he originally called them, are slobbering idiots who want to sodomize children, but are normal people who care about these issues as much as he does (perhaps more-so, seeing as they actually do research). And so, after 4 days of complete turmoil, the guy - still against the game - admitted that he was wrong on a couple of his original points, and said (in bold lettering, no less),
Oh, wait.
It's not over yet?
*Sigh* Here we go...
Chapter Three - Fox News
So...Fox News. Ever hear of them? Of course you...have?
So, this is the big one, as well as the most current (that is to say, ongoing).
You know what? No introduction. Watch the clip.
Now, my point-by-point:
1. Again, "SexBox". I think all these conservatives have all the same joke writers - bad, unoriginal joke writers.
2. "A new game...is leaving nothing to the imagination." These people must have small imaginations. Very small.
3. "It features full, digital nudity. Imagine!" I thought we didn't have to, lady! Still, you've seen the clips yourself. I would hardly classify the partial nudity in the game as "full nudity."
4. "The person playing the game can decide exactly what's going to happen between the two if you know what I mean." Yes, because it's so simple to control a cinematic cut-scene.
5. "The game is rated M for mature, but critics say the game is being marketed to kids and to teenagers." ONE EXAMPLE! THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR! Lord almighty, how hard can it be to validate a single sound-byte.
6. Geoff Keighley is a very nice man, and considered the best video game journalists the industry has ever had (and is considered by many one of the best journalists in any field currently). The anchor flippantly refers to him as a "video game expert" (which even sounds contrived) and for the rest of the interview, he's treated like some kind of weirdo. I like how he keeps a stiff upper lip for the entirety of the segment he was in, but you have to feel bad for the man.
7. "Pandora's Box has been opened." Really? Pandora's Box? Those three minutes up there equate to Pandora's Box?
8. "Unless you're hovering over [your kids] every second, they're going to find ways to see this stuff on the Internet." Is she even still talking about Mass Effect? There's plenty worse things on the Internet, lady. A little intergalactic lovin' is the least of your problems compared to - oh, I don't know - child molesters and the like! Just a thought. And you don't have to "hover" around your kids every minute, you just have to be smart about what they have access to.
9. "Let's look at the statistics. Who's playing video games but adolescent males, not their dads." And the stereotypes begin! Yes, Miss Lawrence, let's look at the statistics. The beautiful statistics, which say that they average gamer age is 33. Minors make up only 28.2% of all gamers, whereas 47.6% are aged 18-49, and 24.2% are above 50. Also, a greater portion of the video gamer pie (31%) is taken up by women aged 18+ than it is for male minors (20%). So, given a random sampling or a perfectly heterogeneous group, it's more likely that an adolescent male's mother (or at least older sister) is playing a game than the adolescent male himself. I love statistics...real ones, that is.
10. "You don't see women as being valued for anything but their sexuality." Does she know that in the game, in order to reach these couple minutes of sexuality, you have to go through hours of dialogue, learning the innermost secrets of the characters, what they want to achieve in life, and having to respond in a way that creates a kinship with them? No? Okay, then.
11. "It's a man in this game deciding how many women he wants to be with." How does one encounter suddenly become basis for calling the main character (who can be male or female) a gigolo of sorts. That statement was completely inaccurate, and Geoff thankfully points that out immediately.
12. "Cooper, have you ever played Mass Effect?" "N-n-no." ................*Facepalm*
13. I like how when they show a screenshot from the game, they have an unnecessary large black box around the alien's butt, as if there was anything there but slight curvature.
14. "Geoff, I went on the website for the game to do 'research' and when I tried to go on it there was a little popup that had me enter my age and so I thought it was a scanning process and so I thought 'God, this is gonna take forever' and I enter my age and BOOM you're in! That's a pretty easy screen to get past." World-class journalism there. As far as the "screening process" goes, how difficult do you want it, woman? Do visitors have to give their credit card information to see the site? Honestly, I'm curious to hear how she'd improve the system.
15. Geoff: "One of the great things about Mass Effect - people who've played it know this - is that it's sort of a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Story and the game doesn't force you down any situation. You could actually play through the entire game without the sexual situation ever happeni-" Lawrence: "Yes, and the young boys are going to be choosing not to have sex, that'll be what they choose." This is where I get a lot of my respect for Geoff. Had that woman interrupted me - in a condescending way, no less - I would have gotten royally pissed off. Plus, she makes it sound like 10 year olds are the only ones playing this.
16. "It's not a simple choice. You don't turn on the game and it says 'Do you want to have sex or not?' It's with the evolution of a relationship with characters and the fact that this game has incredible artificial intelligence, and you can actually fall in love in this game, and it's just like modeling a form of your life." I think this one statement digs at the very heart of the controversy. Most of the people who have been criticizing the game have treated it as though it were just a sex simulator. This is basically Geoff's last attempt at reason. The response...?
17. "Darlin'..." If I said I would have been pissed off before, this would have put me over the edge. What an utter lack of respect and professionalism.
18. "I gotta go with the research, and the research says that there's a new study out by the University of Maryland that's out right now that says that boys who play video games cannot tell the difference between what they're seeing in a video and what's in the real world if they don't have a real experience." Yes, Miss. Lawrence does her research, and she gets only the most recent research, right? Well, I scoured the University of Maryland for any study related to video games at all. And, to Miss Lawrence's credit, there was one. It came out in 2005. So much for that whole "new study" thing. The study, which you can read about here, basically says that students find video games to be essentially harmless. Now, these aren't elementary students. Hell, these aren't even high school students. These are University of Maryland students! Where did Miss Lawrence see anything about "boys who play video games." Hell, they only interviewed two students, and one of them was 19-year-old girl. The only talk in that study about the "damaging effects" of video games (which I will admit, to the non-vigilant, there can be) was always in reference to previous studies. That's some damn good research there, Miss Lawrence. Bring up one three-year-old study with ambiguous results and completely (mis)interpret them to suit your final comment. Well played!
19. "Who can argue, possibly, that Luke Skywalker meets 'Debbie Does Dallas' is a good thing? It's not, it's just not good, and I'm definitely not going to let Mass Effect in my house." Thank you, bespectacled random guy. But, since you bring up Star Wars (the original ones, rated PG), don't you think there was already some, y'know, raunchy stuff in that (like, basically everything related to Jabba the Hutt)?
20. "Once you bring it into the house...our kids aren't always supervised...they let themselves in after school, and what do you think they're going to do when they get there? 'I want to play my dad's video game.' And that's dangerous." If that's your problem, hide the goddamn game disc! Problem solved.
21. "I'm not sure why it didn't merit an 'Adult Only' rating which is the highest rating a game can have. This board that rates them all needs to have their head examined." For all intents and purposes, "M" is the highest practical rating a game can have, and because games rated M are pretty much sold to only those over 17, it's pretty much Adults Only. The issue with the AO rating is that the three console makers (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) have a strict "No-AO" policy, meaning that a game cannot be sold if it is for Adults Only. Hence, an AO rating is an effective banning in the United States. Very few games ever get it, and if they do, they often tone down whatever their issue is until an "M" rating is procured. The exact same thing happens all the time in movies. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was originally rated R, but was toned down just enough to get the coveted PG-13 rating. The ESRB has done an excellent job in my opinion, almost to the point of "overdoing it" (they have a warning about "Alcohol Usage" in games; ain't that adorable?). Someone may need to have their head examined, but the ESRB is doing fine.
22. "This made me feel old, watching this. Whatever happened to Atari and Pinball and Pac-Man?" ..........................................*Facepalm*
23. Some Guy: "At the end of the day, it's up to parents to control what their kids are seeing and doing and playing." Anchor: "It is. Unfortunately, it makes being a parent a much harder job." Yes, because being a parent is supposed to be easy. Why do I have the sick feeling that if I were given a kid right now, I'd still be a better parent than these people? Yes, you're kids can access things all over the place (it may be hard to download Mass Effect by phone, however), but that's just called "living with the times." Put some effort into your children, people! My parents did, and I turned out just fine.
24. I think the saddest part of this whole thing is that Geoff's words seem to have fallen upon deaf ears. He made a beautiful case for the game in the extremely short time he was given, and yet they all still act like it's just pornography.
Well, I guess that's Faux News for ya.
...But wait! It's not over yet!
Electronic Arts, who recently acquired BioWare, sent a letter to Fox News. I honestly can't blame them. After all, their quality game was completely trounced and dragged through its own filth in an unfortunately mainstream news station. You know what that's called? That's slander, children.
Basically, they requested - requested, not demanded - that Fox News corrected many of the errors that they made, including the ideas that the game shows full nudity and graphic sex and that it's been marketed to teenagers. The end of the letter, which I'll reproduce here, tries to reach out to Fox News' supposed good side.
But things weren't so easy. The producer of the show on which the segment was hosted had sent a single line text message to Brown, blowing off his whole request. Brown then commented that he wouldn't let the good people of Canada to have their work and reputation slandered, and that there would be a fight if Fox news did not come clean.
Finally, Fox News did make a statement, but not the one that EA wanted.
But what of Miss Cooper Lawrence? You know, that obvious feminist who condescends grown men and does research that would make Inspector Clouseau shake his head in disbelief. Well, you may remember that when she was introduced, she was noted as the author of the new book "The Cult of Perfection." Well, I wonder how that book is. Let's check out Amazon.
Heh.
At it's peak, there were over 500 1-star reviews. As of this writing, there are 382. I'm sure most will be taken down before too long. So far, Amazon mainly deleted those which included personal attacks on the author (name calling, threats, etc.). The rest is fair game. A lot of people are saying things to the effect of "If she criticizes games without playing them, I'm going to criticize her book without reading it," and "She's using her womanly body on the cover for no other reason than to sell more copies of her book. That teaches kids poor morals." In case you're wondering, no, I haven't written a review of the book. Though I do find myself smirking at the situation.
Which brings me to my final point.
If you have any sort of occupation which connects you in some way to the Internet, tread carefully when talking about gamers. Because - and I say this without pride nor malice - gamers own the Internet. It's essentially the same population. And with tools like Digg, news travels fast. Hence, action can be taken swiftly and brutally. It will overload your website's server, it will flood your inbox, and you can be damn sure all your books will have poor reviews.
So, are gamers just a bunch of thugs who will bully anyone who disagrees with them? No, no, no....well, yes, some are. But most are fairly reasonable. Here's an interesting thought: why don't academic institutions that post anti-gaming studies not hated upon (much)? My idea is that it has to do with credibility. These organizations did actual research and experiments to come to their conclusions. They didn't pull things out of midair.
Second takeaway point: when you're watching the news and you see these sensationalist stories, don't take them at face value. Often times, they're based on ignorance and speculation.
So, long story short: if you want to criticize a game, make sure you know what you're talking about! That's all.
Holy hell, that was long. Hopefully, you're still the same age you were when you started reading. I guess this counts as my beginning of semester thesis. In any event, I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the subject. Am I wrong? Have I been downplaying this sexual encounter? Do you have an example of Mass Effect being marketed to children (I'd really like to see one)? Whatever you have to say, sound off in the comments.
Laters.
***UPDATE 1/26/07***
So, at this point, Amazon has removed all reviews of Miss Lawrence's that were from people who have obviously not read the book. As of this moment, there's only 21 left (though, interestingly, they're still all 1 and 2-star ratings). Additionally, Miss Lawrence has come forth and apologized. Here's the story from the New York Times. (If you don't have a NYT account, I recommend getting one; it's free.) It's worth a read, mainly because it's pretty amusing for a newpaper article, with lines such as "The Internet hath no fury like a gamer scorned." In the article, Miss Lawrence comes clean and admits that even though she was the "expert" for Fox News, she had no idea what she was talking about. Here are the prime paragraphs.
You know, there are plenty of non-controversial video games in the world. In fact, I bought two this week and am thoroughly enjoying them both. However, aside from some pointless review, that's not interesting enough to post on here. Besides, I think it's a valuable service to my readers to provide a explanation of a story that they probably have no idea about. That's why whenever I seem to post on the subject, something's going down.
And this one, it's a doozy.
So, there's game that came out last November on the XBox 360 called Mass Effect. It's made by BioWare, the same company that made the excellent, excellent Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. Mass Effect has been likened as the spiritual successor to those games, and so I'm waiting anxiously for it to come out on the PC (it hasn't been announced that it's coming to the PC, but trust me, it will eventually). The game has garnered almost universal acclaim and has been said by many to be one of, if not the, best game of 2007. So what could possibly be controversial about it.
Well, you see there's relations in this game.
Sexual relations.
Lesbian sexual relations.
Interspecies lesbian sexual relations.
Ruh-roh, Raggy!
However, before you visit the stables to find a high horse to sit upon, let me assure you upfront, it's really not that bad. In 21st-Century terms, I'd say it was actually done with quite some dignity. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Onto the story!
Chapter One - Cybercast News Service
So...Cybercast. Ever hear of them? Of course you haven't. They're a conservative (and trust me, you'll see a pattern here) news and opinion website. On January 11, one of their correspondants wrote an article on Mass Effect, entitled "Sex in Video Games Makes Waves Through Industry." Now, even though I'm likning to the articles, I don't recommend you click on them, because all that would do is generate traffic and, thus, encourage them. However, I'll give some nice juicy quotes, straight from the article.
A new, best-selling video game, Mass Effect, made for the Microsoft Xbox 360 console, allows the characters to engage in explicitly graphic sexual intercourse.Okay, let's stop right there. That's the first sentence of the article, and already it's showing complete and utter ignorance: ignorance of the game, ignorance of the world we live in, and ignorance of the words he's using.
"Explicit." What does that mean? According to Dictionary.com, it means "fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal." In other words, leaving nothing to the imagination.
Now, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to show the exact scenes that are causing this controversy (that is, the entirety of the controversy). Now, there are some definitely-intimate things going on, so this may perhaps not work-safe, but it's really...well, I'll just let you judge:
(Note: I am not in favor of stupid post-coital remarks.)
So there you go. That's 2 minutes and 33 seconds (half of which was spent in conversation) out of a game which can last from 30 to 60 hours. That is the total amount of sexual activity in the game, and it's not even a guarantee that you'll see it (as it only occurs after lots of specific relationship development with the computer characters).
And would you say that was explicit? Hell, I've seen more explicit things on NBC Primetime. Really, it's about as PG-13 as you could get, pornographic only in a world where there's nothing but silhouettes.
The game is "clearly marketed to minors," Cathy Ruse, a lawyer and senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, told Cybercast News Service.1. Who the hell is this person?
2. Does she have any facts to back up this claim?
I'll admit that I don't see many TV ads - seeing as I don't watch much TV - but I'm pretty sure they're not promoting this show on Kids WB. What I do see, though, is the Internet, and I have not seen one iota of advertising for the game that has targeted it for minors. If they had even brought up one example, I would have been satisfied, but I guess that was beneath them.
The game is rated "M" for mature, as are many video games...Oh, because that's not a leading statement.
If you'd like the stats, only 14% of video games sold are rated "M". 49% are rated "E" for Everyone, 32% are rated "T" for Teen, and the remaining 4% are "E10+".
"Mass Effect...even goes so far as to allow homosexuality to be on par with heterosexuality and heterosexuality outside of its proper context of marriage.""Goddamn queers! Queerin' up da place, tryin' makis all ho-mos!"
"There's no First Amendment right to exploit children ... They're making money at the expense of children in America, and they ought to be vilified for that."Again, evidence? Do we have any evidence to support these really serious claims? No? Aww...
Really, it's just a bunch of talk with very few facts to validate any of what they're saying. It's almost like...it's almost like they've never even played the game. But this is the conservative news site Cybercast! Surely they wouldn't be so careless!
Really, the only beneficial thing to come out of this article was a hilariously satirical Photoshop (on Kotaku) adding a new option to the after-the-deed banter.
So, we get off that train, only to hop onto another...
Chapter Two - Kevin McCollough
So...Kevin McCullough. Ever hear of him? Of course you haven't. He's a conservative author and columnist on conservative website Townhall.com. I would provide you with a link directly to his article (written January 13), but it appears as though it's been taken down, likely due to too much traffic and/or heat. I don't remember exactly what it said, so the quotes I'm going to give you came from other sites. However, the article was entitled "The 'Sex-Box' Race for President." While I would love to compliment him on his clever wordplay, it seems some perverted Japanese company beat him to it. Oh, and how exactly does this play into the presidential race?
[Presidential candidates] all probably assume they have better, much more important, urgent, timely, things to campaign on, but I sure would like to get their individual takes on the new video game that one company is marketing to fifteen year old boys.Ah! So he must have used Cybercast as his primary source! Wonderful! So basically, he's saying that we should be asking our candidates why they aren't addressing an issue that isn't even an issue, or at least not one that has been verified.
It’s called “Mass Effect” and it allows its players… to engage in the most realistic sex acts ever conceived. One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, race, hair style, breast size of the images they wish to “engage” and then watch in crystal clear, LCD, 54 inch screen, HD clarity as the video game “persons” hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of…You don't know how many people made the joke "Wow, I'd pay twice as much for the version that McCullough got. Harharhar." Now, there is a character creation screen for Mass Effect. Wanna see it? Here you go! Hard as I looked, I didn't see a "Breast Size" option anywhere. Go figure.
I like the assumption that the game goes straight into lewd territory the moment you finish the character creation. I also like the assumption that all gamers have 54" LCD TV's to watch their "persons" hump in...format? What the hell does "format" mean in this context?
…And because of the digital chip age in which we live - “Mass Effect” can be customized to sodomize whatever, whoever, however, the game player wishes.I'm sorry, this made me laugh out loud. This guy must still write with a typewriter if he's going to refer to this as the "digital chip age." But really, the whole "sodomize whatever, however" bit...so basically, the game he played is about molesting young boys, or something. And though he did pick up on the fact that there is homosexuality in these sex scenes, he didn't even do enough research to figure out that it was lesbian homosexuality. No sodomy involved.
With it’s “over the net” capabilities virtual orgasmic rape is just the push of a button away......I don't even know what this sentence is even supposed to refer to! Does he think this is some website you log onto and start raping (in a "virtual orgasmic" way)?! This guy must either have the most active imagination ever, or a really, really bad childhood.
How refreshing would it be for a President to… put his pen and signature to a bill that dealt with such simulated sex excess in a way that was punitive to its creators to such a degree that they would never recover from it?That's right! Obama, McCain, Clinton: listen up (wait, no, not Hillary; she'd actually do it)! We need to stop these orgasmic sodomizing simulators from reaching our kids and put the bastards behind it in prison, America-style!
(Note: BioWare is a Canadian company.)
Now, as you can imagine, there was quite a stir amongst the gaming community. So much so, that the article was floooooded with comments. Thousand of comments. And this is on a website that, from what I've seen in my scan of it, normally has 20 - 50 comments an article. Now, I'm not going to say that everyone was entirely civil; nay, there were quite a number of completely uncalled-for comments in addition to the ones which adequately described to Mr. McCullough how he was wrong.
So, with his toes of his left foot gently tickling the back of his throat, what does this man do? He sticks the right foot directly below the left in his follow-up article "Life Lessons: Gamers 'Rights' to Lesbo-Alien Sex" (see what he did there?). This was his chance to make amends, to admit that he had no idea what he was talking about. Let's see how he fessed up.
If the few who wrote me are indicative of the rest of the gaming universe, we know at least they have passion - for their toy-boxes...*Facepalm.* That's not a good way to start.
But what was it I was supposed to have lied about? That my friend is the compelling part of this highly emotional drama - if only to one niche of people attached to their X-Boxes.So, he's now saying he didn't lie because this is apparently the most realistic sexual acts ever put in a game that he has seen. You know what? I believe him. Because I'm sure the only other video game footage - period - he has ever seen was the first level of Super Mario Bros. However, in his original article, he didn't say "the most realistic sex I've ever seen in a video game." He said "the most realistic sex ever conceived" (emphasis mine). There's a large, day I say "cavernous," divide betwixt those two points. Hence, I still call BS on his original statement.
1. "The most realistic sex acts..." - from the YouTube footage I saw, I still concur, to me these acts are the most realistic put in video games - that I have seen. In the lesbian version one woman's hand appears to stimulate the crotch of the other passing between the legs. Today many of the more perv-oriented gamers took delight in describing for me the detailed description of games they claim are MORE realistic... Ok fine, I'll take them at their word, but for me the statement stands...
2. "One can custom design the shape, form, bodies, race, hair style, breast size of the images..." Evidently the only thing I got wrong on this was the breast size, though I would like someone to explain to me how the female characters end up having different sizes again on the YouTube footage I witnessed with my own eyes... But the rest of it was true. race, hair style, color - etc.I'll grant him that last sentence. Still, when has it been a bad thing to allow players to customize race, hair, and...oh, right, right. It goes against the idea of the perfectly homogenized (but not homosexual) human.
3. "...the video game "persons" hump in every form, format, multiple, gender-oriented possibility they can think of." Again true (not that there are that many combinations of human sexuality to begin with.)You know, I would say that this is again completely untrue and the man is as bald-faced a liar as any. However, this man was obviously brought up in a very conservative household, and probably only knows of the missionary position (being the "proper church form" and all). Hell, I don't even think about sex and I can think of more "combinations" than are displayed in the game. He then goes on to equate the fact a partner can be a lesbian alien to bestiality. Really, bestiality? That's rather harsh.
4. They also took outrageous umbrage to the claims I made in the column that the game is marketed to teen-age boys. (Though many of those giving me feedback happened to be under the age of 17/18.) The common argument is that because the game is marked "M" that means that no kid under 17/18 (depending on your state) would be allowed access to it. Asinine thinking through and through though. Simply like the fact that movie theaters are this night allowing children underage to purchase tickets, refusing to ask for ID, these games are being sold over the counter by the major chain stores with no enforcement of the age limit suggestions posted on the games themselves. The Gamers act as though the packaging itself is all the responsibility that needs to be taken. Of course they themselves probably started hiding their collection of Hustler Magazine under their beds when they were eleven and have thus a good idea of how the "letter of the law" differs from the "intent." Thus the explanation of why they were so sore with me for pointing out the obvious. The silly "M" label stands for, and accomplishes precious little.He later recanted - somewhat - this last statement, so I'll give him that. However, I still have yeat to anyone present anything that says anywhere that it's marketed toward minors? Only arguments to the contrary. Even if the ratings system didn't do anything, that still doesn't prove the argument they're trying to make. I mean, do they even know what it means to "market" something? Seriously!
5. The major criticism the Gamers had for me in their reaction was this challenge: "Unless you've spent the 20 hours of game time it takes to get to the explicit scenes, keep your fat mouth shut!" Many challenges stated that unless I played it myself then I had no business pointing out its objectionably content. Would they say the same of a strip club at the end of their block or hookers knocking at their door? Normal people would not. There is an innate instinct that tells us right from wrong, it's called a conscience. Did I play the game? No. Did I talk to some gamers who had and who knew the possibilities of the game. Yes! Does it make the lesbian, alien, hetero, homo sex that a player arrives at in the game a proper thing for teenagers to be tantalized by? Absolutely not!So the fact that there's an option to experience, or not experience, a segment of the game that makes up .08-.17% of the total package means nothing to this guy? As to opposed to a movie, which literally shoves sex scenes down our throats with or without our approval? This man must honestly believe the game is a hardcore sex simulator. He even compares it to a hooker, for cripe's sake!
So, things kept rolling along. As you may expect, his eloquent words did little to appease gamers worldwide. People wondered why he would continue to bear-bait people like this. One proposal (likely, an accurate one) came from webcomic Penny-Arcade who basically thought that it was his ticket out of obscurity. Because really, the guy is a nobody. Sure, he's written a book, but aside from his liberalism-fighting, he's never done anything.
...Now, there is an ending to this one. McCullough had an Internet Radio show on which he spoke with several gamers about the issues. And, surprise, he learned that he was, in fact, wrong about things, including the fact that ratings actually do things (the percentage of minors successful in purchasing M-rated games dropped from 85% in 2000 to 42% in 2005, and it's likely lower now). He also learned that not all "Gamer-Nerds," as he originally called them, are slobbering idiots who want to sodomize children, but are normal people who care about these issues as much as he does (perhaps more-so, seeing as they actually do research). And so, after 4 days of complete turmoil, the guy - still against the game - admitted that he was wrong on a couple of his original points, and said (in bold lettering, no less),
I DO apologize to the gaming universe!Ah...all's well that ends well.
Oh, wait.
It's not over yet?
*Sigh* Here we go...
Chapter Three - Fox News
So...Fox News. Ever hear of them? Of course you...have?
So, this is the big one, as well as the most current (that is to say, ongoing).
You know what? No introduction. Watch the clip.
Now, my point-by-point:
1. Again, "SexBox". I think all these conservatives have all the same joke writers - bad, unoriginal joke writers.
2. "A new game...is leaving nothing to the imagination." These people must have small imaginations. Very small.
3. "It features full, digital nudity. Imagine!" I thought we didn't have to, lady! Still, you've seen the clips yourself. I would hardly classify the partial nudity in the game as "full nudity."
4. "The person playing the game can decide exactly what's going to happen between the two if you know what I mean." Yes, because it's so simple to control a cinematic cut-scene.
5. "The game is rated M for mature, but critics say the game is being marketed to kids and to teenagers." ONE EXAMPLE! THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR! Lord almighty, how hard can it be to validate a single sound-byte.
6. Geoff Keighley is a very nice man, and considered the best video game journalists the industry has ever had (and is considered by many one of the best journalists in any field currently). The anchor flippantly refers to him as a "video game expert" (which even sounds contrived) and for the rest of the interview, he's treated like some kind of weirdo. I like how he keeps a stiff upper lip for the entirety of the segment he was in, but you have to feel bad for the man.
7. "Pandora's Box has been opened." Really? Pandora's Box? Those three minutes up there equate to Pandora's Box?
8. "Unless you're hovering over [your kids] every second, they're going to find ways to see this stuff on the Internet." Is she even still talking about Mass Effect? There's plenty worse things on the Internet, lady. A little intergalactic lovin' is the least of your problems compared to - oh, I don't know - child molesters and the like! Just a thought. And you don't have to "hover" around your kids every minute, you just have to be smart about what they have access to.
9. "Let's look at the statistics. Who's playing video games but adolescent males, not their dads." And the stereotypes begin! Yes, Miss Lawrence, let's look at the statistics. The beautiful statistics, which say that they average gamer age is 33. Minors make up only 28.2% of all gamers, whereas 47.6% are aged 18-49, and 24.2% are above 50. Also, a greater portion of the video gamer pie (31%) is taken up by women aged 18+ than it is for male minors (20%). So, given a random sampling or a perfectly heterogeneous group, it's more likely that an adolescent male's mother (or at least older sister) is playing a game than the adolescent male himself. I love statistics...real ones, that is.
10. "You don't see women as being valued for anything but their sexuality." Does she know that in the game, in order to reach these couple minutes of sexuality, you have to go through hours of dialogue, learning the innermost secrets of the characters, what they want to achieve in life, and having to respond in a way that creates a kinship with them? No? Okay, then.
11. "It's a man in this game deciding how many women he wants to be with." How does one encounter suddenly become basis for calling the main character (who can be male or female) a gigolo of sorts. That statement was completely inaccurate, and Geoff thankfully points that out immediately.
12. "Cooper, have you ever played Mass Effect?" "N-n-no." ................*Facepalm*
13. I like how when they show a screenshot from the game, they have an unnecessary large black box around the alien's butt, as if there was anything there but slight curvature.
14. "Geoff, I went on the website for the game to do 'research' and when I tried to go on it there was a little popup that had me enter my age and so I thought it was a scanning process and so I thought 'God, this is gonna take forever' and I enter my age and BOOM you're in! That's a pretty easy screen to get past." World-class journalism there. As far as the "screening process" goes, how difficult do you want it, woman? Do visitors have to give their credit card information to see the site? Honestly, I'm curious to hear how she'd improve the system.
15. Geoff: "One of the great things about Mass Effect - people who've played it know this - is that it's sort of a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure Story and the game doesn't force you down any situation. You could actually play through the entire game without the sexual situation ever happeni-" Lawrence: "Yes, and the young boys are going to be choosing not to have sex, that'll be what they choose." This is where I get a lot of my respect for Geoff. Had that woman interrupted me - in a condescending way, no less - I would have gotten royally pissed off. Plus, she makes it sound like 10 year olds are the only ones playing this.
16. "It's not a simple choice. You don't turn on the game and it says 'Do you want to have sex or not?' It's with the evolution of a relationship with characters and the fact that this game has incredible artificial intelligence, and you can actually fall in love in this game, and it's just like modeling a form of your life." I think this one statement digs at the very heart of the controversy. Most of the people who have been criticizing the game have treated it as though it were just a sex simulator. This is basically Geoff's last attempt at reason. The response...?
17. "Darlin'..." If I said I would have been pissed off before, this would have put me over the edge. What an utter lack of respect and professionalism.
18. "I gotta go with the research, and the research says that there's a new study out by the University of Maryland that's out right now that says that boys who play video games cannot tell the difference between what they're seeing in a video and what's in the real world if they don't have a real experience." Yes, Miss. Lawrence does her research, and she gets only the most recent research, right? Well, I scoured the University of Maryland for any study related to video games at all. And, to Miss Lawrence's credit, there was one. It came out in 2005. So much for that whole "new study" thing. The study, which you can read about here, basically says that students find video games to be essentially harmless. Now, these aren't elementary students. Hell, these aren't even high school students. These are University of Maryland students! Where did Miss Lawrence see anything about "boys who play video games." Hell, they only interviewed two students, and one of them was 19-year-old girl. The only talk in that study about the "damaging effects" of video games (which I will admit, to the non-vigilant, there can be) was always in reference to previous studies. That's some damn good research there, Miss Lawrence. Bring up one three-year-old study with ambiguous results and completely (mis)interpret them to suit your final comment. Well played!
19. "Who can argue, possibly, that Luke Skywalker meets 'Debbie Does Dallas' is a good thing? It's not, it's just not good, and I'm definitely not going to let Mass Effect in my house." Thank you, bespectacled random guy. But, since you bring up Star Wars (the original ones, rated PG), don't you think there was already some, y'know, raunchy stuff in that (like, basically everything related to Jabba the Hutt)?
20. "Once you bring it into the house...our kids aren't always supervised...they let themselves in after school, and what do you think they're going to do when they get there? 'I want to play my dad's video game.' And that's dangerous." If that's your problem, hide the goddamn game disc! Problem solved.
21. "I'm not sure why it didn't merit an 'Adult Only' rating which is the highest rating a game can have. This board that rates them all needs to have their head examined." For all intents and purposes, "M" is the highest practical rating a game can have, and because games rated M are pretty much sold to only those over 17, it's pretty much Adults Only. The issue with the AO rating is that the three console makers (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) have a strict "No-AO" policy, meaning that a game cannot be sold if it is for Adults Only. Hence, an AO rating is an effective banning in the United States. Very few games ever get it, and if they do, they often tone down whatever their issue is until an "M" rating is procured. The exact same thing happens all the time in movies. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers was originally rated R, but was toned down just enough to get the coveted PG-13 rating. The ESRB has done an excellent job in my opinion, almost to the point of "overdoing it" (they have a warning about "Alcohol Usage" in games; ain't that adorable?). Someone may need to have their head examined, but the ESRB is doing fine.
22. "This made me feel old, watching this. Whatever happened to Atari and Pinball and Pac-Man?" ..........................................*Facepalm*
23. Some Guy: "At the end of the day, it's up to parents to control what their kids are seeing and doing and playing." Anchor: "It is. Unfortunately, it makes being a parent a much harder job." Yes, because being a parent is supposed to be easy. Why do I have the sick feeling that if I were given a kid right now, I'd still be a better parent than these people? Yes, you're kids can access things all over the place (it may be hard to download Mass Effect by phone, however), but that's just called "living with the times." Put some effort into your children, people! My parents did, and I turned out just fine.
24. I think the saddest part of this whole thing is that Geoff's words seem to have fallen upon deaf ears. He made a beautiful case for the game in the extremely short time he was given, and yet they all still act like it's just pornography.
Well, I guess that's Faux News for ya.
...But wait! It's not over yet!
Electronic Arts, who recently acquired BioWare, sent a letter to Fox News. I honestly can't blame them. After all, their quality game was completely trounced and dragged through its own filth in an unfortunately mainstream news station. You know what that's called? That's slander, children.
Basically, they requested - requested, not demanded - that Fox News corrected many of the errors that they made, including the ideas that the game shows full nudity and graphic sex and that it's been marketed to teenagers. The end of the letter, which I'll reproduce here, tries to reach out to Fox News' supposed good side.
The resulting coverage was insulting to the men and women who spent years creating a game which is acclaimed by critics for its high creative standards. As video games continue to take audiences away from television, we expect to see more TV news stories warning parents about the corrupting influence of interactive entertainment. But this represents a new level of recklessness.Normally, I would never claim to be on EA's side, but Jeff Brown (VP of Communications, who wrote the letter) is completely right. Think if you were one of the many people who worked on this game for years, and have its name sullied by half-truths and whole lies. It is insulting. It is also ironic that Fox News is in the same empire as Fox, which seems to have exactly opposite morals. Finally, I appreciate the fact that they didn't threaten legal action. They must have learned from my example.
Do you watch the Fox Network? Do you watch Family Guy? Have you ever seen The OC? Do you think the sexual situations in Mass Effect are any more graphic than scenes routinely aired on those shows? Do you honestly believe that young people have more exposure to Mass Effect than to those prime time shows?
This isn't a legal threat; it's an appeal to your sense of fairness. We're asking FNC to correct the record on Mass Effect.
But things weren't so easy. The producer of the show on which the segment was hosted had sent a single line text message to Brown, blowing off his whole request. Brown then commented that he wouldn't let the good people of Canada to have their work and reputation slandered, and that there would be a fight if Fox news did not come clean.
Finally, Fox News did make a statement, but not the one that EA wanted.
Fox News Channel has extended several invitations to EA through a company representative to appear on Live Desk With Martha MacCallum to discuss Mass Effect and the segment which aired on Monday. We have received no response.So, they're forcing EA to come on to their show to pry out an apology like so many rotten teeth. Isn't a news company supposed to fess up when they make a mistake and/or lie? Well, any with integrity would. I guess that's Faux News for you.
But what of Miss Cooper Lawrence? You know, that obvious feminist who condescends grown men and does research that would make Inspector Clouseau shake his head in disbelief. Well, you may remember that when she was introduced, she was noted as the author of the new book "The Cult of Perfection." Well, I wonder how that book is. Let's check out Amazon.
Heh.
At it's peak, there were over 500 1-star reviews. As of this writing, there are 382. I'm sure most will be taken down before too long. So far, Amazon mainly deleted those which included personal attacks on the author (name calling, threats, etc.). The rest is fair game. A lot of people are saying things to the effect of "If she criticizes games without playing them, I'm going to criticize her book without reading it," and "She's using her womanly body on the cover for no other reason than to sell more copies of her book. That teaches kids poor morals." In case you're wondering, no, I haven't written a review of the book. Though I do find myself smirking at the situation.
Which brings me to my final point.
If you have any sort of occupation which connects you in some way to the Internet, tread carefully when talking about gamers. Because - and I say this without pride nor malice - gamers own the Internet. It's essentially the same population. And with tools like Digg, news travels fast. Hence, action can be taken swiftly and brutally. It will overload your website's server, it will flood your inbox, and you can be damn sure all your books will have poor reviews.
So, are gamers just a bunch of thugs who will bully anyone who disagrees with them? No, no, no....well, yes, some are. But most are fairly reasonable. Here's an interesting thought: why don't academic institutions that post anti-gaming studies not hated upon (much)? My idea is that it has to do with credibility. These organizations did actual research and experiments to come to their conclusions. They didn't pull things out of midair.
Second takeaway point: when you're watching the news and you see these sensationalist stories, don't take them at face value. Often times, they're based on ignorance and speculation.
So, long story short: if you want to criticize a game, make sure you know what you're talking about! That's all.
Holy hell, that was long. Hopefully, you're still the same age you were when you started reading. I guess this counts as my beginning of semester thesis. In any event, I'm interested in hearing your opinion on the subject. Am I wrong? Have I been downplaying this sexual encounter? Do you have an example of Mass Effect being marketed to children (I'd really like to see one)? Whatever you have to say, sound off in the comments.
Laters.
***UPDATE 1/26/07***
So, at this point, Amazon has removed all reviews of Miss Lawrence's that were from people who have obviously not read the book. As of this moment, there's only 21 left (though, interestingly, they're still all 1 and 2-star ratings). Additionally, Miss Lawrence has come forth and apologized. Here's the story from the New York Times. (If you don't have a NYT account, I recommend getting one; it's free.) It's worth a read, mainly because it's pretty amusing for a newpaper article, with lines such as "The Internet hath no fury like a gamer scorned." In the article, Miss Lawrence comes clean and admits that even though she was the "expert" for Fox News, she had no idea what she was talking about. Here are the prime paragraphs.
In an interview on Friday, Ms. Lawrence said that since the controversy over her remarks erupted she had watched someone play the game for about two and a half hours. “I recognize that I misspoke,” she said. “I really regret saying that, and now that I’ve seen the game and seen the sex scenes it’s kind of a joke.Some have claimed that this is nothing but damage control to try to prevent more negative reviews from sending her Amazon book ratings "into oblivion" as the article author puts it. Personally, I think it's sincere, from a person who was honestly unaware of the far-reaching implications her words would have. Either way, I applaud that she had enough grace and dignity to admit her mistake. We'll see if anyone else (i.e. Fox News) follows suit.“Before the show I had asked somebody about what they had heard, and they had said it’s like pornography,” she added. “But it’s not like pornography. I’ve seen episodes of ‘Lost’ that are more sexually explicit.”
Sunday, December 9, 2007
We Are Truly the Stabbiest Generation
To all my readers:
I am sorry.
Many, many hours I have sat at my desk, typing away so that you may have many, many minutes of reading material. I have made it accessible, both in writing style and in searchability on the Intertubes. I have tried to make it entertaining, or at least not totally depressing, so that you may walk away ever now and again with something resembling a smile.
And for that, I am sorry.
I was naive. I thought the only damage that could possibly done was to some faceless web server in Silicon Valley somewhere. But no, the damage was more terrible, more insidious than that.
You see, I have been like a cancer to you all. And I'm not just talking about the gamma rays coming from your monitor, causing goiters and infertility.
Nay, I am a cancer to your soul, and to society as a whole. I am systematically bringing down the structure of our world, and ensuring that when you die, you'll go down that super happy fun slide down to the pits of Hell. And before you go there, you'll go on a rampage and kill people.
Don't believe me? Just ask former NBC dude Tom Brokaw who said in an interview (emphasis mine):
...Oh, and if you've read any of my posts on video games...well, then, you're doubly screwed.
I am sorry.
Many, many hours I have sat at my desk, typing away so that you may have many, many minutes of reading material. I have made it accessible, both in writing style and in searchability on the Intertubes. I have tried to make it entertaining, or at least not totally depressing, so that you may walk away ever now and again with something resembling a smile.
And for that, I am sorry.
I was naive. I thought the only damage that could possibly done was to some faceless web server in Silicon Valley somewhere. But no, the damage was more terrible, more insidious than that.
You see, I have been like a cancer to you all. And I'm not just talking about the gamma rays coming from your monitor, causing goiters and infertility.
Nay, I am a cancer to your soul, and to society as a whole. I am systematically bringing down the structure of our world, and ensuring that when you die, you'll go down that super happy fun slide down to the pits of Hell. And before you go there, you'll go on a rampage and kill people.
Don't believe me? Just ask former NBC dude Tom Brokaw who said in an interview (emphasis mine):
HH: NBC ran the Virginia Tech killer tape on the day they obtained it. Steve Capus, Brian Williams made that decision. Did they make the right decision?So there you go. Make sure you get your news not from blog sites, from traditional "air" media. That way, your soul will not be cancer-ridden, and you will not go out and kill anyone.TB: Yeah, they did.
HH: Do you not think it's going to incite other people to try to do the same thing?
TB: No, I don't. I think...to get back to something we were talking about earlier in general thematic terms, I don't think we're doing a very good job about talking about violence in this country, either. You know, Virginia Tech went away. We didn't have any ongoing dialogue in our communities or on the air about the corrosive effect of violence. It was not what he, what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it's what they read in blog sites, and what they see in video games. It's that kind of stuff that I think is cancerous. And I'm a free speech absolutist, but I think that at the same time, we have to have free speech in some kind of a context. And part of that context is a discussion of the possible effects of it.
...Oh, and if you've read any of my posts on video games...well, then, you're doubly screwed.
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
A Helluva Lotta Hullaballoo
As you may be able to tell, I keep up on my video gaming news. Perhaps too well, but the fact remains that they do interest me, and it may be relevant to future occupations. However, most of the time, I only talk about the superfluous oddity games, as I feel those are what transcend the gamer/non-gamer boundaries simply due to their "WTF" value.
(By the way, take a look at what I saw in the local Gamestop today. No Spanish for Everyone yet, though.)
Today, on the other hand, I'm going to talk about something bigger than some quirky, politically incorrect game. You see, there are big rumblings in the industry right now. There is a scandal!
And no, this isn't like another Brittany Spears-style scandal, this is a real controversy that may have large repercussions for a few major players in the industry, and may shake up the underpinnings of an integral part of the video gaming universe. If I were to equate it to an American political scandal, I'd say...well, it wouldn't be Watergate, but I'd say maybe Iran-Contra Affair level. Eh, maybe Blackwater.
Anyhoo, let me start by saying that video games are no stranger to scandal and controversy. But you already knew that, what with all the hullaballoo about games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt II, the demands to ban video gmaes, use the governement to regulate them, etc.
However, despite the game in question being a violent, foul-mouthed shoot-em-up, that is not the source of the controversy. The controversy has to do with something that many people have taken for granted: reviews.
Enter the players:
Kane & Lynch:Dead Men - The video game in question, developed by IO Interactive and published by Eidos Interactive, known, among other things, for their Tomb Raider series. According to the powers-that-be, "The game depicts a violent and chaotic journey of two men — a flawed mercenary and a medicated psychopath — and their brutal attitude towards right and wrong."
Gamespot - Not to be confused with the retail chain Gamestop, Gamespot is the most-visited video-game related website (according to Alexa web rankings) with news, previews, reviews, downloads, etc, etc. It's owned by proverbial megalith CNET Networks.
Jeff Gestermann - A well-known and well-respected video game reviewer who has worked with Gamespot for a full 11 years.
Everyone Else - That means you and me.
Act 1.
So, this game, Kane & Lynch came out. Very, very hyped game. Advertising all over the place. Movie plans already in place. Big stuff, very big. So, how did it fare against the reviewers? Not too hot. According to Metacritic, a website that averages different reviews, it recieved a 67/100, meaning "Mixed or Average Reviews". Now, one particular review here was important.
That was the review of one Mr. Jeff Gestermann. He gave the game a 6.0/10, which, according to the Gamespot scale, means it is a "Fair" game. However, this is not a good "fair." In most cases, any score less than a 7.0 is essentially a warning: "Do Not Buy." So, Mr. Gestermann thought there were problems, and so he didn't recommend the game. Oh well, right? Just another game destined for the bargain bin. Happens all the time; nothing to cry over.
Wait, maybe I should clarify something.
You see, when this review (and the related video review) were posted, there was Kane & Lynch advertising on the website. Major advertising. Full-site advertising. You see, they actually had a Kane & Lynch skin on the site, meaning that the sidebars on every page of the website were ads for one game. Gamespot was apparently being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for these ads, with hundreds of thousands more coming to them in the following week.
About a day after the review went up, three things happened.
1. The Kane & Lynch ads were removed from the website.
2. The video review was removed from the website.
3. Jeff Gestermann was removed from the website.
By which I mean, he was fired. Suddenly, and inexplicably. According to an anonymous tipster, Gestermann was fired due to the "tone" of his review. And then it all came tumbling down.
Now, gamers may accurately be described as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and (occasionally) short, but they have a tendency of working in large numbers (a "guild mentality," if you will). And before you know it, there was talk of boycotts, petitions, and everything in betwixt. Employees at fellow game sites picketed outside Gamespot's headquarters. Other sites began satirizing the situation. As far as Kane & Lynch goes, forget about it. User scores on the various websites are in the pits, sometimes hovering in the 20s range (out of 100). With one exception: the reviews of the game on GameFAQs, few though they are, seem to be quite positive.
Oh wait, ratings for the game have been disabled on GameFAQs. Oh wait, GameFAQs is owned by CNET Networks. ....*Facepalm*
It actually took Gamespot over a week to make any sort of statement about the issue. In it, they take the straight line and say that Gestermann's firing had nothing to do with pressure by advertisers, and that the two events were merely "coincidental." Now most people - myself included - are calling "BS" on this. Coincidence is all fine and good, but when an advertiser "coincidentally" removes a boatload of potential revenue, then I start to cry foul.
To be honest, though, this is still going on, and there is still lots of speculation. I'm surprised nobody has asked Gestermann about the situation himself, but either he can't be found, or isn't allowed to talk. It's definitely an evolving story, though, and there's no way of knowing how it will pan out.
Act 2.
This literally popped up last night. When one goes on to the official game website, and watches the flash intro, they see the following screens pop up:
I'll forgive you if you don't know what I'm talking about. The parts that I'd like to point out are the little blurbs on the left. Here they are for easy reading:
Now, what do these resemble to you? Reviews and ratings, perhaps? Indeed they do! However, they are nothing of the sort! Those little blurbs are actually from game previews, written well before the game was ever released or even finished. Speculation, you may even call it. And the stars? Completely meaningless! In fact, according to my source, Kotaku, Gamespy gave the game 3 stars, and Game Informer (who doesn't even use stars) gave it a 7/10.
So basically, the website is lying about the scores that are being given to it's game.
Now, there are some people who are claiming, "Oh, just because there are stars, that doesn't mean it's a rating. It could be used as decoration, or to separate things, like so."
*****
However, what's there to separate? On the site, those things are standing on their own. And if they were to be purely decorative, then I would have made them more...centered. However, even if "decoration" is the official company line (as I'm sure Eidos will present it), then it is, at best, incredibly deceptive. When one sees a line of stars above or below a line of text relating to the product, 99% of the people who see it will think it is a review. That's just how our modern mind works. Stars = Ratings. It's done with movies, books, and games. To use them in this deceptive capacity, I believe, is simply cheating the customer.
So in this, Eidos has dug themselves deeper and deeper. There are two types of "bad" press in video games (and probably in all other forms of media). The first type is "good-bad" press, which means that the controversy surrounding game actually boosts sales. The poster boy for this is the Grand Theft Auto series, which mainly sells through both shock value and through its roguish nature. Then you have "bad-bad" press, which is exactly what Eidos has now. This is only going to hinder their already weak sales.
If you ask me, they should have spent less money in their massive ad campaign and more in actually making the game good. Then there wouldn't be a problem.
Epilogue.
Now, while this entire scandal is far from over, it seems as though it is going to have implications reaching far beyond Kane & Lynch, Eidos, or even Gamespot. At the very core of this controversy is the game reviewing system, and it has led many people to question its efficacy.
As much as people want to deny it, the fact is that reviews have major impacts on game sales. Games are becoming more and more expensive, yet renting games has become less and less common (don't ask me why). People, thus, are relying more and more on the opinions of others, particularly the so-called "experts." And as I said earlier, if a game's average rating is below a 6/10, it's not going to sell well at all, as that is essentially a "don't buy".
The question being asked now, then, is why do we even have a quantitative ratings system at all if only the top third of points matter? If everything below a 6 is "don't buy" territory, does it need to take up six slots on the scale? And on the other side, why does it matter whether a game gets a 9 or a 10? Both are excellent games you should buy. That's two more slots wasted.
When I'm deciding whether or not to watch a movie, I have three different places I can be, depending on the score (of four stars):
3-4: Definitely go.
2 - 2.5: Eh, give it some more thought.
<2: style="font-style: italic;">will be consequences for all those involved.
There, I hope you were able to follow all that. It's complicated, I know, but then, any controversy is. I just hope you have a little more idea of how video gaming isn't all fun and games. It's serious business. :O
(By the way, take a look at what I saw in the local Gamestop today. No Spanish for Everyone yet, though.)
Today, on the other hand, I'm going to talk about something bigger than some quirky, politically incorrect game. You see, there are big rumblings in the industry right now. There is a scandal!
And no, this isn't like another Brittany Spears-style scandal, this is a real controversy that may have large repercussions for a few major players in the industry, and may shake up the underpinnings of an integral part of the video gaming universe. If I were to equate it to an American political scandal, I'd say...well, it wouldn't be Watergate, but I'd say maybe Iran-Contra Affair level. Eh, maybe Blackwater.
Anyhoo, let me start by saying that video games are no stranger to scandal and controversy. But you already knew that, what with all the hullaballoo about games like Grand Theft Auto and Manhunt II, the demands to ban video gmaes, use the governement to regulate them, etc.
However, despite the game in question being a violent, foul-mouthed shoot-em-up, that is not the source of the controversy. The controversy has to do with something that many people have taken for granted: reviews.
Enter the players:
Kane & Lynch:Dead Men - The video game in question, developed by IO Interactive and published by Eidos Interactive, known, among other things, for their Tomb Raider series. According to the powers-that-be, "The game depicts a violent and chaotic journey of two men — a flawed mercenary and a medicated psychopath — and their brutal attitude towards right and wrong."
Gamespot - Not to be confused with the retail chain Gamestop, Gamespot is the most-visited video-game related website (according to Alexa web rankings) with news, previews, reviews, downloads, etc, etc. It's owned by proverbial megalith CNET Networks.
Jeff Gestermann - A well-known and well-respected video game reviewer who has worked with Gamespot for a full 11 years.
Everyone Else - That means you and me.
Act 1.
So, this game, Kane & Lynch came out. Very, very hyped game. Advertising all over the place. Movie plans already in place. Big stuff, very big. So, how did it fare against the reviewers? Not too hot. According to Metacritic, a website that averages different reviews, it recieved a 67/100, meaning "Mixed or Average Reviews". Now, one particular review here was important.
That was the review of one Mr. Jeff Gestermann. He gave the game a 6.0/10, which, according to the Gamespot scale, means it is a "Fair" game. However, this is not a good "fair." In most cases, any score less than a 7.0 is essentially a warning: "Do Not Buy." So, Mr. Gestermann thought there were problems, and so he didn't recommend the game. Oh well, right? Just another game destined for the bargain bin. Happens all the time; nothing to cry over.
Wait, maybe I should clarify something.
You see, when this review (and the related video review) were posted, there was Kane & Lynch advertising on the website. Major advertising. Full-site advertising. You see, they actually had a Kane & Lynch skin on the site, meaning that the sidebars on every page of the website were ads for one game. Gamespot was apparently being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for these ads, with hundreds of thousands more coming to them in the following week.
About a day after the review went up, three things happened.
1. The Kane & Lynch ads were removed from the website.
2. The video review was removed from the website.
3. Jeff Gestermann was removed from the website.
By which I mean, he was fired. Suddenly, and inexplicably. According to an anonymous tipster, Gestermann was fired due to the "tone" of his review. And then it all came tumbling down.
Now, gamers may accurately be described as solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and (occasionally) short, but they have a tendency of working in large numbers (a "guild mentality," if you will). And before you know it, there was talk of boycotts, petitions, and everything in betwixt. Employees at fellow game sites picketed outside Gamespot's headquarters. Other sites began satirizing the situation. As far as Kane & Lynch goes, forget about it. User scores on the various websites are in the pits, sometimes hovering in the 20s range (out of 100). With one exception: the reviews of the game on GameFAQs, few though they are, seem to be quite positive.
Oh wait, ratings for the game have been disabled on GameFAQs. Oh wait, GameFAQs is owned by CNET Networks. ....*Facepalm*
It actually took Gamespot over a week to make any sort of statement about the issue. In it, they take the straight line and say that Gestermann's firing had nothing to do with pressure by advertisers, and that the two events were merely "coincidental." Now most people - myself included - are calling "BS" on this. Coincidence is all fine and good, but when an advertiser "coincidentally" removes a boatload of potential revenue, then I start to cry foul.
To be honest, though, this is still going on, and there is still lots of speculation. I'm surprised nobody has asked Gestermann about the situation himself, but either he can't be found, or isn't allowed to talk. It's definitely an evolving story, though, and there's no way of knowing how it will pan out.
Act 2.
This literally popped up last night. When one goes on to the official game website, and watches the flash intro, they see the following screens pop up:
I'll forgive you if you don't know what I'm talking about. The parts that I'd like to point out are the little blurbs on the left. Here they are for easy reading:Now, what do these resemble to you? Reviews and ratings, perhaps? Indeed they do! However, they are nothing of the sort! Those little blurbs are actually from game previews, written well before the game was ever released or even finished. Speculation, you may even call it. And the stars? Completely meaningless! In fact, according to my source, Kotaku, Gamespy gave the game 3 stars, and Game Informer (who doesn't even use stars) gave it a 7/10.So basically, the website is lying about the scores that are being given to it's game.
Now, there are some people who are claiming, "Oh, just because there are stars, that doesn't mean it's a rating. It could be used as decoration, or to separate things, like so."
*****
However, what's there to separate? On the site, those things are standing on their own. And if they were to be purely decorative, then I would have made them more...centered. However, even if "decoration" is the official company line (as I'm sure Eidos will present it), then it is, at best, incredibly deceptive. When one sees a line of stars above or below a line of text relating to the product, 99% of the people who see it will think it is a review. That's just how our modern mind works. Stars = Ratings. It's done with movies, books, and games. To use them in this deceptive capacity, I believe, is simply cheating the customer.
So in this, Eidos has dug themselves deeper and deeper. There are two types of "bad" press in video games (and probably in all other forms of media). The first type is "good-bad" press, which means that the controversy surrounding game actually boosts sales. The poster boy for this is the Grand Theft Auto series, which mainly sells through both shock value and through its roguish nature. Then you have "bad-bad" press, which is exactly what Eidos has now. This is only going to hinder their already weak sales.
If you ask me, they should have spent less money in their massive ad campaign and more in actually making the game good. Then there wouldn't be a problem.
Epilogue.
Now, while this entire scandal is far from over, it seems as though it is going to have implications reaching far beyond Kane & Lynch, Eidos, or even Gamespot. At the very core of this controversy is the game reviewing system, and it has led many people to question its efficacy.
As much as people want to deny it, the fact is that reviews have major impacts on game sales. Games are becoming more and more expensive, yet renting games has become less and less common (don't ask me why). People, thus, are relying more and more on the opinions of others, particularly the so-called "experts." And as I said earlier, if a game's average rating is below a 6/10, it's not going to sell well at all, as that is essentially a "don't buy".
The question being asked now, then, is why do we even have a quantitative ratings system at all if only the top third of points matter? If everything below a 6 is "don't buy" territory, does it need to take up six slots on the scale? And on the other side, why does it matter whether a game gets a 9 or a 10? Both are excellent games you should buy. That's two more slots wasted.
When I'm deciding whether or not to watch a movie, I have three different places I can be, depending on the score (of four stars):
3-4: Definitely go.
2 - 2.5: Eh, give it some more thought.
<2: style="font-style: italic;">will be consequences for all those involved.
There, I hope you were able to follow all that. It's complicated, I know, but then, any controversy is. I just hope you have a little more idea of how video gaming isn't all fun and games. It's serious business. :O
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
It's Never Too Early to Teach Stereotypes!
Education is a good thing. Anyone will agree to that, except for maybe Lyndon LaRouche and his cult. But how do you get kids - and the reluctant adult - to learn. The answer, quite simply, is edutainment, the combination of education with entertaining elements. This has been done, and still is, in television. However, a new vehicle for edutainment nowadays is the video game. And this is a good thing. After all, kids like games, and they are certainly more interactive than television.
Now, you can use edutainment to teach all sorts of things, from basic math to quantum physics. There's almost no subject that can't be made into a game.
That thought is, apparently, what had gone through the head of a genius or two at Activision game studios when they decided to make this:
Ah, yes, Spanish for Everyone. What a noble goal. And it seems pretty practical, too. If you're planning on learning Spanish, it's probably a good supplement. Why then, is this blog-worthy?
Well, whoever actually made the game was either drunk, had some sort of agenda, or simply knew this game would not be popular, and so made it as outlandish as possible, whilst still maintaining an E rating.
Let's take a look at some clips, and remember, no matter how much you want to cry "Fake!", these are, I'm sorry to say, totally legit. (Oh, and I'd recommend turning down your speakers. The music in the game could turn the pope pagan.)
.............So, let's try to recap this. Shawn's obiously Chicano friend plays with his Nintendo DS before his obviously evil fatherpicks him up kidnaps him. And even though there are police cars chasing after his friend's father, the only thing he can think about is his DS (the materialistic bastard that he is). So, then "Aunt" Gina Vasquez (they don't call her that for nothing!) offers to give him a ride, despite the fact that A) Her driver's seat is on the wrong side, B) she barely seems to know the kid, and C) she seems quite shady. Still, she can teach "many things." I would say that this is the end of Shawn's innocence, but the kid seems to be a troublemaker to begin with. Hell, he didn't even tell his parents that he was going to freakin' Mexico!
...Oh, and apparently cars fly in this world (as evidence by the fact that they continue to move straight when the road clearly curves down).
"A new adventure begins in the back of this truck." Good. Lord. Let's not even begin to discuss the implications of "Aunty" Gina dropping the kid off in TJ of all places and telling him that he'll be "teaching" her someday. Oh, and looky here, this just happens to be your grandfather's truck! What a coincidence! Oh, and the truck comes with a bull that not only talks, but speaks of Shawn fulfilling some sort of prophecy by coming, and using Spanish to "thwart evil."
You know, after seeing the first two, I thought that it may have just been a simple oversight by the creators, writers, developers...basically, everyone at Activision. However, there is no way in Hell that they couldn't know the implications of this one! No way! Aside from the cheesy dialogue, ("Men would never understand that bulls can talk." You have the following items:
-The kid was apparently dropped off in this seedy town by his grandfather. Thanks a lot, Gramps!
-The town's name is "La Zorra," which I've been told is Spanish slang for "Bitch."
-Shawn's "uncle" just happens to be in this town when he arrives.
-Tio Juan is an exporter to the United States. An exporter! There's no way that was an oversight. He even needs to discuss "financial arrangements."
-Tio Juan promises safety if Shawn gets in the jeep and they ride together. He promises...
-Jeeps are cool!
And so, the journey concludes. Apparently, Shawn's DS means that much to him, despite the fact that you could a new one off eBay for easily less than $100. And...what the hell is happening at the 45-seconds-left mark?! Is that like a raid or something? Well, it looks like Miguel's evil father's evil "exporting" empire is getting its evil comeuppance.
But is it really over? As you can see, Shawn was given a case of "puffy dolls" (seriously? Seriously?!) to deliver for good ol' UncleShady Juan. I'm sure in the next game, French for Everyone, we'll see Shawn continue his newfound life of crime, all while meeting more ambiguous relatives. Ah, good times......wait, wasn't he supposed to "thwart evil" with Spanish. I saw no evil-thwarting there. In fact, Shawn went over to the dark side!
Bull: "You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the drug lords, not join them! You were to bring balance to Mexico, not leave it in darkness!"
Shawn: "I hate you!"
Bull: "You were my brother, Shawn. I loved you."
OK, so apparently, the people at Activision ain't great about keeping blatant stereotypes from their game. But what about another company, say...Ubisoft? As it turns out, Ubisoft (who we've seen in action before) is making their own Spanish-teaching game, entitled My Spanish Teacher. It has to be better, and not nearly as prejudiced, right?
Right?
...........wellllll.......
Now, you can use edutainment to teach all sorts of things, from basic math to quantum physics. There's almost no subject that can't be made into a game.
That thought is, apparently, what had gone through the head of a genius or two at Activision game studios when they decided to make this:
Ah, yes, Spanish for Everyone. What a noble goal. And it seems pretty practical, too. If you're planning on learning Spanish, it's probably a good supplement. Why then, is this blog-worthy?
Well, whoever actually made the game was either drunk, had some sort of agenda, or simply knew this game would not be popular, and so made it as outlandish as possible, whilst still maintaining an E rating.
Let's take a look at some clips, and remember, no matter how much you want to cry "Fake!", these are, I'm sorry to say, totally legit. (Oh, and I'd recommend turning down your speakers. The music in the game could turn the pope pagan.)
.............So, let's try to recap this. Shawn's obiously Chicano friend plays with his Nintendo DS before his obviously evil father
...Oh, and apparently cars fly in this world (as evidence by the fact that they continue to move straight when the road clearly curves down).
"A new adventure begins in the back of this truck." Good. Lord. Let's not even begin to discuss the implications of "Aunty" Gina dropping the kid off in TJ of all places and telling him that he'll be "teaching" her someday. Oh, and looky here, this just happens to be your grandfather's truck! What a coincidence! Oh, and the truck comes with a bull that not only talks, but speaks of Shawn fulfilling some sort of prophecy by coming, and using Spanish to "thwart evil."
You know, after seeing the first two, I thought that it may have just been a simple oversight by the creators, writers, developers...basically, everyone at Activision. However, there is no way in Hell that they couldn't know the implications of this one! No way! Aside from the cheesy dialogue, ("Men would never understand that bulls can talk." You have the following items:
-The kid was apparently dropped off in this seedy town by his grandfather. Thanks a lot, Gramps!
-The town's name is "La Zorra," which I've been told is Spanish slang for "Bitch."
-Shawn's "uncle" just happens to be in this town when he arrives.
-Tio Juan is an exporter to the United States. An exporter! There's no way that was an oversight. He even needs to discuss "financial arrangements."
-Tio Juan promises safety if Shawn gets in the jeep and they ride together. He promises...
-Jeeps are cool!
And so, the journey concludes. Apparently, Shawn's DS means that much to him, despite the fact that you could a new one off eBay for easily less than $100. And...what the hell is happening at the 45-seconds-left mark?! Is that like a raid or something? Well, it looks like Miguel's evil father's evil "exporting" empire is getting its evil comeuppance.
But is it really over? As you can see, Shawn was given a case of "puffy dolls" (seriously? Seriously?!) to deliver for good ol' Uncle
Bull: "You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the drug lords, not join them! You were to bring balance to Mexico, not leave it in darkness!"
Shawn: "I hate you!"
Bull: "You were my brother, Shawn. I loved you."
OK, so apparently, the people at Activision ain't great about keeping blatant stereotypes from their game. But what about another company, say...Ubisoft? As it turns out, Ubisoft (who we've seen in action before) is making their own Spanish-teaching game, entitled My Spanish Teacher. It has to be better, and not nearly as prejudiced, right?
Right?
...........wellllll.......
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Getting My Face Out There (And Winning, Too!)
(Interesting note: I would have had this written and put up last night, but well, when you fall asleep at 11pm on a Friday fully clothed, with the lights on, and in the middle of playing video games, you probably needed the rest [which I did after this week].)
You know what's cool?
Fame. Even if it's only temporary, and even if it's only on the Internet.
You know what's better than achieving said fame?
Achieving said fame while winning a contest.
You know what's even better that achieving said fame while winning a contest?
Achieving said fame, winning said contest, and doing so without putting a damn ounce of effort into it.
Now, this isn't just simple musing. Because I have achieved such a thing. You may remember me talking about how a question I asked was featured on the Magic: The Gathering main page. However, a pseudonymous question doesn't...well, it's not the best way to get your face out there (unless you were very good at ASCII Art). However, a picture - specifically a picture of you, is.
So, when a contest appeared on internationally-read and well-respected video game news blog Kotaku, I didn't do anything...mainly because I didn't read about it. And even though one of my readers has had a couple pictures placed (and unfortunately lampooned by commenters) on their website, I personally have never had any prestige on the site, outside my own comments (which were admittedly not terribly prestigious). However, a reminder about the contest was put up about an hour before it finished, saying the following:
Hmmm....wrap myself up in toilet paper? Why does that...sound...familiar...?
Ah!
I must make a side comment about this picture: Personally, I think this picture is perfect. All the elements blend perfectly together: a big, goateed guy in a toilet paper dress, chest hair, an odd-looking sad face, the paleness, the watch and ring, the M&Ms and Wii box in the background, the fact that the top of my head is cut off...it just works. And it's me, so that's a plus.
And so, putting forth no effort, I submitted that picture, along with this little description:
"But Andrew," you say, "didn't that description at least require some effort?" No! The fact is, I had made up that entire spiel (give or take a few words) just several days after the contest was finished. All I had to do was retrieve the memory floating at the top of my brain like some sort of pond scum.
So, I a couple hours after submitting the picture, it was selected as one of the 10 finalists, which were placed up for voting. It seems that voting articles on that site get more comments than normal; this one got over 280. And wanna know something? I won. It's not official, but I have more votes than anyone else. Using pictures and descriptions many moons old, I was able to beat all these hard-working enthusiasts at their own game. Now that's satisfying.
What's more satisfying, though, is the fact that it's literally being seen by thousands. In case you don't remember, one of my big goals is to become viral. I want something I make, do, or say to propagate itself accross the Internet. That's why I have neither my MySpace or Facebook accounts set to private. Let them see, I say, and let them spread! The moment something I create is considered a fad, I can say I'll die a happier man. This picture could be that opportunity!
But enough about that; let's focus on the present, and take a look at my competition (this is if you didn't click the link to the voting page above).
As you can see, some of these people actually put in quite a bit of time and effort into their costumes. Still, my incidental submission demolished them all. According to my crude measurements, the voting went like this.
#1 (Me): 90
#2: 6
#3: 2
#4: 11
#5: 12
#6: 14
#7: 1
#8: 36
#9: 41
#10: 57
Interesting to see how the voting was heavily skewed towards the beginning (that is, me) and the last three. For the most part, I would agree with the ranks of all of the entries.
At the time of me writing this, the official results haven't been announced, so let's just look at some of my favorite comments from the voting (with my thoughts in bold red):
Now, there were a group of comments that looked like the following.
So scour the Internet in the upcoming days, weeks, and months. If someone posts up this picture, repost it. If someone sends you an email saying "FoWaRd ThIs To 10 PeOpLe Or HaIrY mAn BrIdE wIlL fInD yOu!1!!!11!!!", for the love of God, forward it! Let my online takeover be consensual, not imposed! Together, we can do this!
And, as a way to wrap this all up, here is what we've learned today:
Today's Lesson - Never try at anything, because Andrew Schnorr will beat you without putting any effort into it.
You know what's cool?
Fame. Even if it's only temporary, and even if it's only on the Internet.
You know what's better than achieving said fame?
Achieving said fame while winning a contest.
You know what's even better that achieving said fame while winning a contest?
Achieving said fame, winning said contest, and doing so without putting a damn ounce of effort into it.
Now, this isn't just simple musing. Because I have achieved such a thing. You may remember me talking about how a question I asked was featured on the Magic: The Gathering main page. However, a pseudonymous question doesn't...well, it's not the best way to get your face out there (unless you were very good at ASCII Art). However, a picture - specifically a picture of you, is.
So, when a contest appeared on internationally-read and well-respected video game news blog Kotaku, I didn't do anything...mainly because I didn't read about it. And even though one of my readers has had a couple pictures placed (and unfortunately lampooned by commenters) on their website, I personally have never had any prestige on the site, outside my own comments (which were admittedly not terribly prestigious). However, a reminder about the contest was put up about an hour before it finished, saying the following:
We're giving away a copy of DS scary game Dementium: The Ward in our cosplay contest. But not just any old cosplay contest! Oh no. We're doing a bandage cosplay contest. Meaning? If you have toilet paper, you can enter. If you have band-aids, you can enter. Just cover yourself in bandage, and you are good to go.
Hmmm....wrap myself up in toilet paper? Why does that...sound...familiar...?
Ah!
I must make a side comment about this picture: Personally, I think this picture is perfect. All the elements blend perfectly together: a big, goateed guy in a toilet paper dress, chest hair, an odd-looking sad face, the paleness, the watch and ring, the M&Ms and Wii box in the background, the fact that the top of my head is cut off...it just works. And it's me, so that's a plus.
And so, putting forth no effort, I submitted that picture, along with this little description:
This is me wrapped up in toilet paper, cosplaying as....a bride? Yes, that is a wedding dress, and yes, I did make it myself. You'll find it's fairly difficult to wrap toilet paper around your own (pale) torso. That's why I had to stop sorta halfway through. However, I was sure to cover the nipples. 'Cause, you know, a wedding dress that doesn't conceal nipples isn't a very good wedding dress...
"But Andrew," you say, "didn't that description at least require some effort?" No! The fact is, I had made up that entire spiel (give or take a few words) just several days after the contest was finished. All I had to do was retrieve the memory floating at the top of my brain like some sort of pond scum.
So, I a couple hours after submitting the picture, it was selected as one of the 10 finalists, which were placed up for voting. It seems that voting articles on that site get more comments than normal; this one got over 280. And wanna know something? I won. It's not official, but I have more votes than anyone else. Using pictures and descriptions many moons old, I was able to beat all these hard-working enthusiasts at their own game. Now that's satisfying.
What's more satisfying, though, is the fact that it's literally being seen by thousands. In case you don't remember, one of my big goals is to become viral. I want something I make, do, or say to propagate itself accross the Internet. That's why I have neither my MySpace or Facebook accounts set to private. Let them see, I say, and let them spread! The moment something I create is considered a fad, I can say I'll die a happier man. This picture could be that opportunity!
But enough about that; let's focus on the present, and take a look at my competition (this is if you didn't click the link to the voting page above).
As you can see, some of these people actually put in quite a bit of time and effort into their costumes. Still, my incidental submission demolished them all. According to my crude measurements, the voting went like this.
#1 (Me): 90
#2: 6
#3: 2
#4: 11
#5: 12
#6: 14
#7: 1
#8: 36
#9: 41
#10: 57
Interesting to see how the voting was heavily skewed towards the beginning (that is, me) and the last three. For the most part, I would agree with the ranks of all of the entries.
At the time of me writing this, the official results haven't been announced, so let's just look at some of my favorite comments from the voting (with my thoughts in bold red):
Now, there were a group of comments that looked like the following.
- #1 For feeding us his dignityObviously, these people have absolutely no idea who I am. In any event, for every comment insisting that this was potential blackmail material, there was one like these:
- #1 since that must have been embarrassing.
- After getting laughed at by all his friends for dressing up as a bride, he's gonna need something to cheer him up.
- #1 because his picture will haunt him for years to come, so he should at least get a game to go with that humiliation.
- #1. If he doesn't win, he actually has something to lose (his dignity).
-Special mention to #1 for being the only entry to make zero attempt at concealing the contestants identity, and feature him in a dress...These people also have absolutely no idea who I am. :P In addition to the description and the TP dress itself, there were two things that people really found funny - my facial expression (as one supporter said, "Making faces like that in a contest shouldn't be allowed.") and my chest hair:
...holding flowers.
-You know you're a badass when you can post a pic of yourself to the intarweb, face fully exposed, while wearing a dress made of toilet paper.
-Wow! I'm finalist #2. I must say #1 has some balls! His facial expression is right on. My vote goes to him.
- Your a wife! dam it shave your chest :pAnd the rest of the best...
- There's something oddly erotic about a manbride with superfluous chest hair...
- #1 gets my vote. The lighting, the roses, the chest hair...it all comes together so nicely. Well done.
- #1 Throw in a few tanning salon visits and a book on Manscaping, he doesn't have to go metro. He does need to lose that nerd tan, its too low to be a farmers.I actually had to look up what "manscaping" was before I fully understood the comment. And frankly, if it that and free tanning was included as part of the prize package, I'd accept it with open, pale arms!
- #1 Looks like a bride that just found out the groom bailed with one of the bridesmaids.Mother always told me there'd be days like this...
- Dude looks like a lady.That! That...
- Halloween... An excuse for men to cross-dress and for women to dress like tramps...Truer words were never spoken.
- I vote for #1. What a handsome devil he is!In case you can't tell, this was actually me talking. However, nobody may have noticed, seeing as my user name was misspelled (as it often is) as "Neo_Dues". Even though misspelling my name is a huge pet peeve of mine, I didn't correct them with my usual "Like a god, not a tax" quip.
>_>
<_<>_>
- #1 simply because i would marry his toilet paper wearing pale buttocks.The only part about this comment that I found creepy was the fact that I couldn't tell if it was from a man or a woman.
- almost went with #1, but he lost my vote because a dress that doesn't cover nipples is the BEST kind of dress.Well, I will concede that it is apparently the most newsworthy kind.
- #1, he could've been even more creative and put band-aids on his nipples.While this may indeed have been seen as more creative, I fear it would have appeared like I was part of some Bay Area S&M scene (and I'm sure there is one).
- My wife votes for '#1 as this may be the only wedding he ever gets to.'Ouch, madame, ouch. That's one name taken off of my wedding invitation list.
- Honorable Mention: #1, the dress actually looks nice, but the fact that choice in flower color didn't properly compliment his eyes cost him my vote. Better luck next time.I guess there's no pleasing everyone. Well, as long as you please the plurality, that's all that matters. (Democracy in action!)
- #1 deserves the win and INTERNET FAME!And hopefully I will!
So scour the Internet in the upcoming days, weeks, and months. If someone posts up this picture, repost it. If someone sends you an email saying "FoWaRd ThIs To 10 PeOpLe Or HaIrY mAn BrIdE wIlL fInD yOu!1!!!11!!!", for the love of God, forward it! Let my online takeover be consensual, not imposed! Together, we can do this!
And, as a way to wrap this all up, here is what we've learned today:
Today's Lesson - Never try at anything, because Andrew Schnorr will beat you without putting any effort into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)