Boobs vs. Bullets

A while back I came across a web site entitled What They Play, basically a site designed to help educate parents about games and gaming. It's not too bad, compared to many sites that claim to have the same mission but only serve to offer up some anti-gaming message.

So this one isn't terrible, comparatively, and every week they have a poll question. Often times it's fairly straightforward, something like "Do you plan to buy a DSi when it comes out" or something like that, other times it's something more involved, which is the subject of today's post.

A few months back I came across a question pertaining to what parents look for in terms of game content, the most important aspect when making a purchasing decision. The choices were what you'd expect: violence/ gore, nudity, sex, and profanity.

My big issue isn't the poll, but rather the fact that nudity was "winning". Of the four choices presented, most parents chose that nudity was their biggest concern when looking to purchase games. More than profanity, more than sex, and (admittedly slightly) more than violence and gore.

Let's not concern ourselves with profanity, which was a concern for some people but admittedly seems less important than some of the major "offenders", and even sex had a low number of votes compared to the other two options. Of those two remaining options, nudity was beating violence.

To clarify this even further: more parents were concerned with whether or not the game had a boob in it than whether you can rip someone's spine out.

Now, obviously, everybody has their own parenting style, and it may not be my place to judge them based upon their personal choices. Now that I have that out of the way, I fully intend to judge them based upon their personal choices.

While working in a video game store, I got to see this in practice too many times to count. A parent comes into the store, quite often with their little spawn, and they are looking for a game to stick the kid in front of to avoid having to do anything "family" related. The little monster runs around the store, grabbing random games and putting them back in the wrong place and such, and finally finds an M-rated game he really wants. Bear in mind, he's maybe six years old (though, to be fair, most adults can't put stuff back in the right spot either), and since many parents don't know how to read the ESRB descriptors they come up to the counter and ask about the game's content. Often they wouldn't even bother with that, instead just coming up to purchase the game. It was our job to inform them that the game was rated mature, and if they pressed we would explain why it had been given said rating.

More times than a layman would believe, people were fine with horrific violence but freaked out by the merest mention of nudity or even scanty outfits. They'd rather their child slice through people and watch blood and gore splatter everywhere than see the Dead or Alive girls bounce around a bit.

Does anybody else find that mentality extremely fucked up? I mean, parents shouldn't be buying an M-rated game for a little kid to begin with, regardless of why it garnered the rating, but it simply seems to me that I'd rather my kid see the occasional cleavage (despite my best attempts at denial, my daughter has some of her own, so it's not like she can't see it pretty much whenever) than see someone's head explode. If given only the two choices, I'd rather her play something like DOA Xtreme 2, which is fairly tame in the gameplay department but has top-heavy girls in tiny bikinis, than see her viciously slaughter people in Ninja Gaiden.

As Americans, we're taught that the human body is something to be ashamed of, unless you're ripping it to pieces with a chainsaw. Other cultures aren't nearly as prudish, and are much more likely to allow games with sexual content over those with violence. We also have substantially higher violent crime rates than many other countries, so the math isn't hard to figure out. Our kids are also generally dumber than a lot of other countries, which I'm not sure I can directly connect to the boobs vs. bullets argument but would really like to.

I'm a parent, and as such it is my duty to choose the best forms of entertainment for my child. There are several games in my library that I will not allow her to touch (Grand Theft Auto 4, for example), for a variety of reasons, but I'm also pretty easy-going on a few that I'm sure other parents would freak out about. That's their right as parents, but if you're going to censor your child "in their best interest", at least do so with their best interest actually in mind. If you're going to forbid them from playing a game with a bit of nudity because you're afraid of it burning into their spongey little brains, then don't turn around and let them blow guys apart.

I'm not terribly concerned with profanity, as by thirteen it's nothing my kid hasn't heard already. I monitor sexual content (I wouldn't be OK with her playing Leisure Suit Larry, for example, though I was playing the original PC game at about her age), and more than anything I monitor violence. I do watch for nudity, to a point, but really find it pretty low on the "oh my god my kid can't see that" scale, especially when compared to the other choices. I'd much rather her be OK with the human body than be OK with slicing heads off.

People are free to make their own decisions. I just wish they'd start making better ones.

Where's the Love?

I've reported on similar stories in the past: some musician decides to bash music games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero, saying that they're "no substitute" for really learning how to play an instrument and that they're somehow destroying the music industry or something.

The last one I had mentioned was last week (hit the names for links to the other posts), when Brad Paisley stated that "Nobody ever got a date from playing Rock Band". There was also a post in January, when Noel Gallagher of Oasis made disparaging remarks about playing a guitar video game as opposed to an actual guitar.

The latest assaults on our electronic music simulator games comes from Jack White of the White Stripes, and Jimmy Page, who is apparently in some small up-and-coming group called Led Zeppelin. According to Kotaku, the musicians are working on a documentary about the history of the electric guitar, and during a press conference to push said documentary they had some words to share about music video games.

According to Page, his complaint seems to be that the games simplify the skill of playing an instrument. "You think of the drum part that John Bonham did on Led Zeppelin's first track on the first album, Good Times Bad Times," he says, "How many drummers in the world can play that part, let alone on Christmas morning?"

Jack White's complaint was a little different. He was upset about the fact that the music games are where people are learning about new music. His quote: "It's depressing to have a label come and tell you that Guitar Hero is how kids are learning about music and experiencing music." He does state that he doesn't want to " limit which format people should get their music in…if you have to be in a video game to get in front of them, that's a little sad."

It should be pointed out that Brad Paisley has a track available for download on Rock Band, and the White Stripes will have a song on Guitar Hero 5 when it ships later this year, so for these guys bashing the music games seems a little hypocritical. Led Zeppelin's music has been sought by both Harmonix and Activision, but a variety of factors have apparently kept an agreement from coming together. No idea if any Oasis songs appear on any of the games, but who really cares either way?

Jack White's thoughts are especially confusing, since he seems upset by the fact that people may learn about new music by playing the games. Why does it matter how someone learns about a new band or a new style of music, as long as they do? I don't know how many songs I've downloaded onto my Zune because I heard them in Rock Band or Guitar Hero, stuff I never would have heard otherwise. I don't listen to the radio a lot, because I hate commercials (and they generally play the same few hot songs over and over again anyway), and when I do I only listen to one or two stations. When I listen to a CD I'm listening to the stuff I already have, so honestly a lot of my new music experiences have come from the games. I hadn't even heard of Dragonforce until "Through the Fire and Flames" appeared in Guitar Hero, but I have since become a fan, so does it make a difference that I first heard them in a game? I downloaded some tracks, the band made money off of me as a result, and if I hadn't played the game I'd still have no idea who they were.

Most of the complaints are generally the "kids should play real instruments and not just plastic toy versions". Like suddenly the world's guitarist supply is going to dry up because they were all too busy messing with Rock Band.

I wonder how many kids have decided to pursue music because of the games? How many started by playing Rock Band and it prompted them to take lessons and get serious? How many people sang a few songs and realized they have a decent voice and started getting coaching to make it even stronger? OK, there are a lot of people who will never do anything past playing the game, but to generalize that the games are somehow killing musical ambition only sounds ignorant. Like saying that people who play baseball games never go out and learn to play baseball. Sure, they may never play for the Red Sox, but they may go outside and play with their friends and develop an interest that is complemented by playing the game. Or what about all those people that never would have decided to be space marines and battle evil aliens if they hadn't played Halo?

Really, these musicians need to shut the fuck up. They're getting paid to have their songs in these games, they're getting exposure (far more than they would with just their albums on store shelves) by being in the games, and people could be getting turned on to their music and buying their CD's or downloads as a result of hearing them in the games. How, in any way, is any of that a bad thing?

People that are musically inclined are going to play, and I don't think that playing a music game is going to change that. People that aren't, like myself, get to enjoy pretending that we're rock stars, maybe hear some new tunes, and maybe some people are even going to pick up some drum sticks and give real skins a try because they played a music game.

Maybe instead of ranting and railing against the games (especially when said ranting is hypocritical because you have music in said games), they should work with the games? If you're so concerned about kids not wanting to play real guitar because they play one in Rock Band (still not seeing the logic, but whatever), come up with something other than bitching. Do an ad campaign along the lines of "If you like playing bass in the game, try it in real life!" or something. Make it a fucking NBC public service announcement or whatever.

As someone not musically inclined, Rock Band does exactly what it should: allows me to pretend to be something I will never be, which is one of the points of electronic entertainment. In the process of acting out my rock star fantasies in my kick-ass virtual band (Shoes for Squids), I've heard a lot of music that I probably never would have, liked a lot of it, and have purchased quite a few tracks directly because I enjoyed playing them in the games.

My daughter plays Rock Band with me, and has been asking me if she can take guitar lessons. So, to Brad and Jimmy and Noel and any other stuck-up musicians who are copping an attitude about this, enjoy the virtual middle finger I am giving you right now.

Of course, if we start getting into these virtual middle fingers, then are kids going to be less likely to really flip people off?

This Week

I figured that I should state to all my fans (both of them) that this is shaping to be a light week in terms of posts.

Seeing as how it's already Tuesday and I haven't actually put anything up yet.

This weekend is my daughter's dance recital. I'm running the sound for the show, which means rehearsals and just general technical stuff (like trying to burn all the music for the show onto my computer last night until two in the morning).

Then we have Comics Against Cancer tonight. This is a big event, a comedy show to help raise funds for the American Cancer Society's flagship fundraiser, the Relay for Life. There are awesome comics, including Steve Burr, April Macie, James Johann, and others. If you live in the Boston area, and want to get tickets to the show, the website is here. It's at the Somerville Theater, in (obviously) Somerville. I'm the technical director, meaning that all lighting and sound and stage crew stuff is my responsibility. So I'm getting to the theater around one in the afternoon, the show is at eight in the evening, and I seriously doubt I'll be up to coming back and writing.

So tonight, Comics Against Cancer. Tomorrow, more recital music work. Thursday night, I actually think I have a free night (I shouldn't say that too loud). Friday is dress rehearsal for the recital, and then Saturday and Sunday are the performances.

Yeah, I may have some time in between to get a few posts up. I do really intend to, but if Wednesday hits and there still isn't new content, please forgive me. Feel free to dig through the archives and catch up on older posts.

Comics Against Cancer, dance recitals, trying to squeeze in some blogging... It's a good thing I don't have a real job, or I'd never have the time for all of this.

Friday Night Fail: Magic Edition

A game, in a way, is a lot like a recipe.

Bear with me-- that analogy is totally going somewhere.

In the kitchen, you've got a particular list of ingredients that come together in the proper amounts to form a delectable dish. There are definitely combinations that don't work, like peanut butter on pizza, but with some common sense you can take tastes that work well together and create something delicious.

With a game, you've still got a recipe of sorts. Take a protagonist, add weapons and levels (don't forget the ice level. There's always a fucking ice level), season with enemies, and with skill you can put together a great experience. Just like in the kitchen, some combos are not meant to be (a Hello Kitty level in Bioshock, for example), but with the right mix a studio can pull off a virtual feast.

OK, that analogy made more sense in my head. Slightly.

Sometimes, even the right ingredients can't make a dish (or a game) any more palatable. Case in point, Bullet Witch. This is another one of those bad games that I found myself getting into, playing through more than once, knowing all the while that it wasn't very good.

Take one hot heroine. Mix in demonic enemies, pepper with magical abilities, season with a big gun and different bullet types, and it all sounds like a recipe for something delicious. Somehow, though, the whole meal just falls flat.

Bullet Witch is an action game in which you play Alicia, a sexy witch who carries a massive gun (her "broom". Get it? She's a witch) and goes around blasting demons that have turned the world into their own gory playground. So far, it sounds like something tasty, right?

You've got some acrobatics at your disposal, as well as magic with which to slaughter your enemies. The spells range from telekinesis, with which you can toss cars at your opponents, to swirling tornadoes that can throw large groups of demons around and even pull helicopters out of the sky.

Yep, the demons use helicopters, at least the skeletal grunts (which you see more than any other type) do. They also use guns, and wear military helmets. It's actually an interesting concept, the demons as a military force and not a slobbering horde of grunting monsters, but even that little dash of pepper can't save this plate from disaster.

So where does a game that sounds decent on paper go so wrong in execution? First of all, the game is amazingly simplistic. There are only a handful of enemies that are repeated throughout every level (seriously, there's something like five enemy types throughout the entire game), the task is never more complicated than "kill lots of monsters"; At no point are you involved in puzzle solving or platforming or anything other than jamming on the attack button, and many of the fights can actually be simply avoided completely (I got most of the way through one level just by jumping over bad guys and running). There's really nothing that makes it stand out, no hook that makes you want to keep playing. The storyline starts out pretty generic, and while it does get better towards the end as you learn how Alicia and the demonic apocalypse are connected, only the stalwart will ever get that far.

You gain magical abilities as you progress, but honestly only a few of them are at all useful. The lightning is the only real way to eliminate tanks, whirlwinds are used on helicopters, so many have a specific purpose, but many of them aren't much help and when facing the general hordes you'll find the gun far more effective. Part of the problem with magic is that the menu system to access and use powers is a little counter-intuitive, and not only do you have to navigate the menu to pick the power you want but you're still being attacked while you do so, so while you're trying to unleash elemental fury your enemies are getting free hits in.

The game is pretty short as well, and offers up no replay value outside of achievement hunting. The graphics are passable, the sound is mediocre, and the controls basically work outside of the menu system for magic. There's just nothing that really stands out, though, to really make the game step up and get noticed. Like a dish that sounds good on the menu but just ends up tasting OK, Bullet Witch is just a mediocre experience made from a cool sounding premise.

It's too bad, too, because the game does have some pretty neat moments that allow you a glimpse of what the game could have been if the developers put some more work into the project. There's one boss fight against a giant flying monstrosity that takes place in the sky, with Alicia standing on the outside of an airplane and blasting the creature with lightning while trying to keep the plane from being destroyed by flying eyeballs. It's a little frustrating at times (the aiming for the lightning isn't always accurate), but it's definitely different and definitely cool. Causing helicopters to crash to the ground in a swirling tornado is satisfying, and the destruction caused by calling lightning down onto a tank does cause a smile the first couple of times. After the twentieth or so, it's not quite as exciting, but at first the explosions are fun to watch.

Oh, and I should mention that the game features a character named Max Cougar. Yep, that's right. He's a blonde guy with an "I'm so cool" attitude, and his name is Max Cougar. Even if the rest of the game wasn't a generic, repetitive mess, it could be considered a failure just based on that fact.

So, like a recipe (nope, not dropping this in the near future), Bullet Witch has the right ingredients but the chefs involved never made good use of them when cooking up the final product. There are flashes of cool gameplay, some brief tastes of what he dish could have been if prepared properly, but ultimately it proves unsatisfying and bland.

H8ters and a WTF? Moment

A few random stories tonight:

First up, we have a "hater", Brad Paisley. Apparently Mr. Paisley is a purveyor of a type of music known as "country", and is supposedly quite well known amid the redneck circles that follow this form of entertainment. As I don't live in a trailer and have an education above the third grade, I can't say as I know much about his sound, but I'm sure he does a great job and his parents must be very proud of him.

Anyway, during a speech at the Country Music Television awards show (which his fans watched on a TV sitting upon a bigger, broken TV), good old Brad spoke out to kids that might be interested in becoming musicians, and he urged them to pick up real instruments and learn instead of falling back on video game simulations. According to the artist (term used very loosely), "Rock Band never got anybody a date. Never."

Wow. Way to make a pretty broad and stereotypical statement there, buddy. You don't see me picking on your choice of music, do you. Oh... wait... right... that's pretty much all I've been doing.

Ryan Clementz met his wife, Laura Ramkissoon (that name totally sounds like a country in some Japanese RPG) online playing Rock Band. They got to know each other between songs, met in person, and fell in love. Jeremy Harless (Harless, the spiky-haired hero from Ramkissoon) convinced the fun folks at Harmonix to put his proposal to his girlfriend Beth into the game itself, as a message of the day. Awwwww...

I know plenty of girls, and guys, that play Rock Band. The game is wildly popular with hardcore and casual gamers alike. Who knows who else has met while playing with those plastic instruments?

I'd like to point something out-- Brad Paisley released a song called Ticks. Yes, that refers to the creepy bloodsucking parasites. In fact, one of the lines in the song is "I'd like to check you for ticks".

Dude, you wrote a song about checking a girl for TICKS. Is that like an effective pickup line in hillbilly world?

Also, it should be mentioned that one of Paisley's songs, Mud on the Tires, is available on the Rock Band downloadable music shop. So maybe he meant that nobody will get a date while playing his song on Rock Band.

---

Our second hater of the evening is none other than Ryan Reynolds, the actor who recently portrayed popular Marvel comic character Deadpool in the recent X-Men Origins: Wolverine movie. So here's a guy whose biggest role is a geek icon. I'm not saying that he has to be into comic books and such as a result of playing the role, he's an actor and he was doing a job, but as such he developed a following within the geek community.

In a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, Ryan Reynolds is quoted as saying "I don't really play video games. Is there a way to waste more fucking time? The internet's enough. The last video game I played was Ms. Pac Man".

Dude. Fuck you too. I can think of another way to waste some more time. How about going to watch that idiotic looking romantic comedy you've got coming out, the one where you and Sandra Bullock have to get married to keep her in the country.

Let me guess the plot here: you guys start out hating each other, get engaged in order for her to not get deported, hijinks ensue, you guys fall in love, and then the big wedding at the end is real and not just for a green card".

Yeah, that's real original. Never saw anything like that before. Good job.

---

Now we have tonight's WTF, brought to you by the ESRB and Left 4 Dead 2.

I'm a big fan of the ESRB. I like the rating system, I think it works, and more people should use it to make purchasing decisions.

The cover art for the first Left 4 Dead game featured a hand against a green background, with four fingers held up. The thumb was missing, a bloody hole where it should have been.

For the sequel, Valve artists intended to evoke a similar look. This time, though, only the index and middle fingers were held upright, to indicate a two. Also, the other two fingers have been ripped off, for a total of three grisly spaces on the hand.

The ESRB rejected the design, asking that it be redone.

So... one finger ripped off is OK, but three is over the top? Is there some sort of specific ruling for this in some book at the ESRB offices? Do they consult it to determine exactly how many fingers can be violently chewed off of a human hand before it crosses the line?

Maybe there is some perfectly realistic and acceptable reasoning behind the decision, but it just struck me as entertaining.

---

So that's tonight's excitement. A couple of doucheknockers and a weird ruling on missing digits. Fun times.

Exclusively on Grumbly Gamer!

Sony recently stated that they expect their social networking life simulation thing, Home, to draw people in and make them purchase Playstation 3 systems.

Microsoft is pushing the fact that you can watch Netflix movies, use Facebook and Twitter, and conquer small third-world countries with the Xbox 360.

Nintendo... well, they just sort of do their own thing.

My point is, they all hype different features to try to get people to buy their game machines, and does anybody remember back in the days when they actually used games to do that?

That's a little melodramatic, of course. At the recent E3 trade show, there were plenty of hot titles shown. The show is, for the most part, still about games (and booth babes), and there were no shortage of amazing ones (again, games and booth babes) on display. There was, though, a definite push towards showing off some of the non-game related features of the machines. This isn't necessarily a new thing, as our game consoles have been able to play movies and such for a while now, but as technology advances the manufacturers are working hard to integrate their systems into as many aspects of your daily life as they can. They go out of their way to hype all of the features these machines have, many having little to do with actual games.

Realistically, though, it's not entirely their fault. The industry has changed. One of the weapons of the "system wars" has substantially less firepower than it did years ago, meaning that the line that separates one machine from the next has blurred in many ways. That weapon, of course, is console exclusivity.

Back in the earlier days of gaming, what system you chose was very firmly decided by what games you wanted to play. If you wanted to immerse yourself in Final Fantasy, you had to purchase a Nintendo console. The John Madden Football series got its start on the Sega Genesis. Going even further back, one of the main reasons the NES stomped the competition was the contracts they had with third party developers, meaning that they had all sorts of exclusive titles locked up and if you wanted to play the games, you needed that particular console.

It was a lot easier for the console manufacturers to promote their machines based on just the games they had to offer. Of course, it also made it a bit tougher on the consumer in many ways. Sure, if you could look and clearly decide between Mario and Sonic, then there was no real question of which system to buy, but what if you wanted to play Phantasy Star and The Legend of Zelda? You'd have to decide which one you wanted more, or shell out for more than one console.

In many ways, things haven't changed. If you want Mass Effect, it's Xbox 360. Rather play Uncharted? You'll need a Playstation 3. Really want to play both? Break out that bank-robbery plan you've been working on. So there are still exclusives out there, but just not nearly as many as there once was.

More and more, though, exclusive titles are the realm of the first and second parties, and third parties are playing the field more than ever before. Excited about Assassin's Creed 2 (and really, who isn't)? As long as you've got a 360 or PS3 hooked up, you're all good. Madden NFL has been multi-platform for years, and games like the sexy-looking Dragon Age: Origins are going to be available on the 360 and PS3 as well. The various versions will most likely look almost identical to one another, have the same features, so there's not the "I need to own this system to play that game" feeling like there once was.

What we're seeing now is more and more cross-platform games, timed exclusives (Bioshock, Eternal Sonata) that are available on one system for a set amount of time, the occasional franchise jump to a new system (Ace Combat, which had formerly been living on Sony machines and moved to the Xbox 360), and a lot of titles coming out across the board. Even franchises that had formerly been the selling point for one console (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto) have been released on others (or soon will be) over the course of this latest generation.

In a recent interview on Gamasutra, Shane Kim of Microsoft Game studios spoke about exclusivity. The question was essentially about whether or not exclusives even matter any more, if they have any importance. Among other things, he mentions that a key to their strategy was a "level third party playing field", and he mentions Metal Gear Solid as an example. With that previously Sony-only franchise, as well as a certain Squeenix RPG series, coming to the 360, it looks like the field is definitely leveled.

He points out that economics are another factor in a third party's decision to support multiple platforms. This may seem obvious, but that doesn't make it untrue. Games cost a ridiculous amount to make, and limiting yourself to one segment of the purchasing public is in many cases crazy. Again, exceptions exist, but it really does make more sense to take every opportunity to make as much money back as possible. While fanboys may cry that a studio has "betrayed" their trust by putting their beloved franchise onto an "enemy" system, why wouldn't a developer who is proud of their work want as many people to play it as possible? Fanboys are dumb...

Kim also points out the importance of exclusive downloadable content, suggesting that this is the new face of exclusivity. Instead of the game itself only being made available on one system, it's on multiples, but the extra content is only available for one. This sort of practice heavily swayed sales of Grand Theft Auto 4 and Fallout 3 in the Xbox 360's favor. The games were still available for those who owned a PS3, but 360 players got a little extra. Did that sway sales of the consoles? Numbers do point to a positive on that one, though probably not as many as a true game exclusive would have.

It looks like Xbox Live and PSN has become the new battleground for exclusive content. So maybe things haven't changed as much as I've been thinking, but instead of crowing about the titles they've got on the shelf, console manufacturers are hyping up the stuff you can pull off of their online network.

Nintendo actually gets quite a few exclusive third party titles, for better or for worse. There's quite a bit of shovelware on the system, no doubt, but for every ten pieces of crap on the shelf there's a No More Heroes in the mix. The combination of the unique control scheme and drastically different hardware has created an environment that is nothing like that of the other two consoles.

So without as many truly exclusive games to hype up, where does that leave the console makers? Pushing all of the extra things that their systems can do in the hopes that the extra features, if not exclusive games, will sell machines.

This Blog Can Read Itself!

It seems that, these days, Nintendo can't say or do much of anything without polarizing gamers and the game industry. Of course, every manufacturer and studio has their supporters and detractors (read some of the ongoing chaos surrounding the Squeenix decision to make Final Fantasy XIII cross platform and you'll get a pretty clear picture of both camps), but this generation seems to have seen more Nintendo love and hate than any before.

This may be due to the simple fact that the "big N" has chosen to really forge their own path, moreso than ever before, and this has angered many gamers as well as garnered respect from so many others.

The latest buzz-worthy announcement is a confirmation of a new feature set to be unveiled in the new Super Mario Brothers game coming to the Wii this holiday season. Dubbed "demo play" and also known as the "kind code" in the patent filing , the system essentially removes what the Nintendo overlords see as one of the major hurdles of playing games: insurmountable difficulty.

They're not saying that all games are terribly difficult or anything like that. Instead, they're furthering their goal to make games accessible to everyone, allowing even a complete novice with flippers for hands and one eye to get immersed in the hobby. With that thought in mind, they feel that one reason people don't play games, or try and quickly give up, is that they get stuck and simply abandon gaming entirely.

The theory is not without its merits. I think every gamer, no matter how hardcore they consider themselves, has gotten frustrated and given up on a title. There's only so many times you can replay the same level or mission or battle before you just throw in the virtual towel (I mean, has anybody actually finished any of the later Mega Man games?), and while a gamer may just move onto another game someone trying for the first time may do something silly like go outside... or read a book... or one of those other "not-playing-a-game" activities.

What this demo play system does is helps out and takes over the playing of the game, to help someone through a tough part so that they can continue the story and hopefully not give up on the experience. So let's say someone is playing Super Mario Brothers, and gets stuck on a level. They try and retry the same area, and keep failing around the same point. Eventually, they'd give up, but with demo play they can have the computer take over for them. They can watch the tough part be played, popping in and out whenever they choose to control the action, and Nintendo hopes that this will keep people playing the game and not just tossing it aside in frustration.

Naturally, there are very different and vocal schools of thought on this idea.

The naysayers were quick to dismiss the idea as stupid. Many pointed out that watching a game being played by the machine negates the point of playing the game. Others say it's just silly, when there are strategy guides and websites available if people want to get help. They say that Nintendo is continuing to sell out the industry to the casual gamers (the industry civil war between the hardcore and casual rages on), and overall this announcement did nothing to lessen the contempt a lot of people feel towards Nintendo right now.

On the positive side of the coin, the supporters think this isn't too bad of a concept. They think that, since it's an optional thing that one doesn't have to use if they don't want to, there's no harm in having the system in place. They support Nintendo's decision to make games more accesible to everyone, appreciate the innovation involved in the demo play system. The gamer can go back and play the hard part after watching the game do so, which means that it really does nothing other than help someone get better at gaming.

For the most part, I agree with the positive side of the argument (and wish it was in place in a couple old games, like Solstice for the NES), and think that those against need to chill the hell out. Really, does having the system in place make a bit of difference if the player never opts to use it? Tons of gamers choose to use strategy guides to get through a rough spot or find hidden stuff in a game, how is this any different in the long run? Consider that this is designed to help out casual or new gamers, many of which may not know about strats or online faqs or other helpers that more experienced gamers take for granted, so a hardcore gamer may never have to activate the system. So then what's the big problem?

Hating Nintendo for everything they do has become almost vogue in the industry lately. Regardless of what they decide to do, there's just a lot of vitriol aimed at the company. Until they announce a super-powerful console with regular controllers that plays nothing but Zelda games, a lot of gamers are going to just hate them for trying to broaden their audience, and any announcement that isn't that is going to be met with derision.

Nintendo wants every person on the planet to play games. I respect that. If demo play is another tool to achieve that goal, then more power to them. If you don't like it, then don't by the games that have it, or just don't activate it.

Really, do people on the forums even know what they're arguing about anymore?

Various Contact Info

I know what you're thinking right now. You're sitting there, wondering how you can possibly fit even more Grumbly Gamer into your daily life. I mean, you read and re-read every post, but I know you're just yearning for even more.

So, on this beautiful weekend, as I'm getting ready to head out to the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life in Ashland, MA and spend the night walking for a cause, I figured I'd satisfy that deep need you've got and offer up all sorts of ways to get more Grumbly into your world.

We have, first and foremost, Facebook. My personal page can be found here, and I'm on it pretty much all the time. Still not enough, you say? You want to show off your fandom? Then become a fan of The Grumbly Gamer on Facebook right here!

Wow, so that's pretty good, you're saying, but you still want more. Hop on over to Myspace, and add your name to the list of Grumbly friends here.

So that's getting close, right? You've now got Grumbly Gamer from a few different sources. I'm just thinking about your needs, though, when I tell you that The Grumbly Gamer is on Twitter, and can be followed here.

I'm also on AIM, under the screen name "thegrumblygamer" (big surprise there), if you're bored and want to chat.

So there you have it. So many ways to get a Grumbly fix throughout the day.

You're welcome.

Friday Night Fail: Blood-soaked Edition

There are some combinations that are legendary: chocolate and peanut butter, dungeons and dragons, Larry, Curly, and Moe.

One could assume that another great combo would be bikini-clad samurai girls and zombies.

Sadly, as Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad for the Xbox 360 proves, that assumption would be very wrong. Despite the amazing-sounding premise, the execution of this game falls seriously short of its potential. O:BSS is an action game, starring a team of scantily clad female warriors who are attempting to... save the city, or something, really, it's not too clear... from endless hordes of shambling undead.

Let's start right at the beginning. After an opening cinematic that could have been easily done on an Xbox (and has very gratuitous shower and dressing scenes), the game starts. Now, the manual gives you no information outside of basic controller functions, and there is no in-game tutorial, meaning that you're left figuring out the bulk of the game on your own. Not that the gameplay is deep or anything, but having some info on what the statues do or how to access and use inventory would have been nice.

Before each level you're treated to some text (and whoever wrote it apparently forgot all about their space bar) setting up the thin story. Apparently the sisters that you play as have some special blood that allows them to have special powers and hack through endless waves of zombies. Someone else is trying to get the blood so they can have powers too. Yup, that's pretty much the narrative.

The gameplay is "run around, hit the attack buttons" to a mind-numbing degree. At one point, playing while sitting on my couch, my cat Kairi (yes, named after the girl in Kingdom Hearts) leapt onto my chest and proceeded to get between my face and the TV. In some games, I would immediately hit the pause button until I could regain visual contact with the screen, but in this case I kept moving the thumbstick around randomly and pressing the attack button. When I could finally see what was happening again, it turned out that not only had I hacked through several zombies but I had done so without losing any life. So, actually watching the action is apparently optional here. The game really is just killing a ton of the same enemies as you travel through bland levels with little direction (and sometimes the levels repeat). There's the occasional scrolling text between stages, some grainy cutscenes, and just a ton of hitting the attack buttons. There are only a few types of zombies that are recycled constantly, even the bosses are repeated, and there's absolutely nothing that stands out in any way.

As you run through and kill zombies, you can swap characters on the fly. The two sisters play almost the same, hacking through the undead with their swords, and later you gain a third team member who attacks with guns. As you slice through the enemies, your sword get covered in blood, and if the blade gets completely covered it gets dull and will stick to enemies (pretty much allowing them a free hit). With the press of a button you can clean the blade, though, and rarely are you so overwhelmed that you can't take a second to do so. Also, as you violently slash through zombies you get doused in their blood. This doesn't do anything to the gunner, but for the samurai sisters it increases a meter that, when full, grants the characters increased speed and strength. Unfortunately, it also causes your life meter to start ticking down, and it is possible to die from this enhanced power. You can slow this march towards death by killing more zombies, but only by using a certain item or finding a goddess statue can you drain the meter and stay alive.

The game is full of little annoyances. The camera is manual but moody, allowing you to move it around only when it feels like it. The experience orbs appear several seconds after killing an enemy, and require you to be on top of them to pick them up, meaning that forward momentum is constantly halted while you stop to pick them up. There's a meter that fills as you kill zombies, allowing you to unleash special attacks, but it's really tough to fill for anyone other than the gunner, and is pretty useless most of the time. The characters are oddly animated, their boobs move less realistically than in Dead or Alive Xtreme 2, and the dress-up mode is downright creepy. Oh, and your lead character wears a bikini, wicker cowboy hat, and a feather boa. I really have no clue what mind altering substance the designer was on.

Oh, and the achievements completely suck ass. Sometimes a bad game can be ever so slightly redeemed by offering up some easy points, so at least the pain of the experience offered up something worthwhile. In this case, though, the achievements are as annoying as the game. The achievements are all tied to "quests", which are fulfilled by pulling off certain requirements such as killing a certain amount of zombies with guns, or killing a boss while your sword is completely covered in blood. Each quest has three requirements, but at no point do they tell you what these are. So you basically play the game, hope that you fulfill a few of the quests, and maybe you'll get lucky (or look up the requirements on achieve360points.com or something).

The makers of this game hoped that girls in skimpy outfits and bloody zombie killing would be enough to carry the experience. Sadly, though, as much as I love scantily clad samurai chicks and slaughtering the undead, this combination falls seriously short in pretty much every way.

Brainstorming

Some of the ideas that marketing departments come up with are ingenious, others are downright crazy, and sometimes they'll just leave you scratching your head in confusion.

There were a couple recently that stood out. One took place at E3, and is now getting some fallout. The other just happened, and will probably get some heat over the next few days.


Our first one comes from Electronic Arts, and involves their upcoming game Dante's Inferno. As one could guess from the title, the game is not going to be a cheerful romp through fields of lollipops and kittens. So at E3, outside of the LA Convention Center, about twenty protesters stood in protest of the game, carrying signs with such statements as "EA=Electronic Anti-Christ", "Hell isn't a game", "trade in your Playstation for a praystation", and (my personal favorite) "My high score is in heaven". There was even a mistaken story in the LA Times that claimed the protesters came from a local church in Ventura County. There was also a website, made to look as if it was designed by amateurs and pretty much proclaiming the game as evil and featuring religious imagery.

It turns out, though, that these picketers were actually actors, hired by EA themselves, and the protest was designed to boost visibility of the game.

While there are no reports of any official complaints or such from churches towards EA, a few religious bloggers have opted to speak their minds concerning the campaign.

The first comes from Inside Catholic, who makes it clear that they weren't amused by the stunt. From the blog:
It's been clear for a while now that the entertainment inudstry views Christians on the whole as priggish, thin-skinned fun-killers. (That swipe about our Web design skills might be most hurtful of all.) Clearly they don't read enough InsideCatholic, or they'd see what a market they're missing right here. Their loss.

They also turn that pointing finger back onto actual religious protesters in a way, noting that the fact that they're so quick to protest anything they disagree with, and getting all crazy about it, is why things like this even happen in the first place.

Another response to the protest comes from Catholic Video Gamers:
Ok, look Electronic Arts, as much as the hardcore gaming community is full of the risible self-parodies known as the "freethinking" - the Richard Dawkins-loving, fundamentalist atheist, "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you-are-because-I-don't-believe-in-God" types, I doubt that even they would actually be more likely to buy a game because they *think* that their ideological foes (the equally risible Fundamentalist Creationist, anti-Catholic, evangelical "Christians") happen to hate it. Gamers of all varieties will buy this product if its, well, actually a good game. So instead of engaging in a shamelessly anti-Christian stunt to promote your poor excuse of a product, maybe you ought to work on making this game, you know, something better than a blatant God of War rip-off and make it, ya know, something worthwhile?

I never thought I would say this, and I still feel a little weird doing so, but... yeah, I pretty much agree with that statement. Rather than try to take a moral high ground, the blogger took a serious stance and responded intelligently. I love that part at the end about making the game "something worthwhile". Personally, I have no issue with the promotional campaign itself (being one of the aforementioned I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you-because-I-don't-believe-in-God types), but I have to admit that these are some well thought out, intelligent arguments. I really did expect some crazy religious yelling, and am pleasantly surprised by the fact that there was some coherency involved here.

Will this go anywhere? Probably not. EA has every right to hire actors to do pretty much anything that's not considered indecent, and they weren't really making fun of religious protesters in any way. People may bitch a bit, but that's pretty harmless.


The other bizarre marketing promotion comes from THQ, and took place in London. Intending to promote the environmental destruction possible in Red Faction: Guerrilla. In Covent Garden, a car was left parked with 100 copies of the game inside. Chained to the vehicle was a sledgehammer, and people passing by were invited to smash the car and take home a copy of the game. Over the course of the day, hundreds of people took a whack at the car, and miraculously the entire thing went down without any fatalities or injuries.

There's really not much else to that story, really. Nobody was hurt, nobody seems to be outraged by the stunt, and it all pretty much seems to have gone down as it was intended to. So I really just offer it up as an interesting marketing story and not a tale of blood and amusement.


Two different companies, two different games, two bizarre promotional stunts. So even if the games are generic and mediocre (not saying these are, just generalizing), the marketing campaigns are anything but.

Random News

After scouring the web for por... I mean, gaming news, I found more than one story worthy of ridicule.

So, without further ado, I present the various monkeys performing for our amusement.

Our first story involves, as all good stories should, boobs. More accurately, a pair of DD-sized monsters attached to a porn star by the name of Anna Morgan. The nineteen year old girl is pretty much an unknown in the adult world at this point (I mean, so I hear, because I spend my days reading holy books and not concerning myself with such matters...*cough*), though she did just sign a contract with LA-based Top Studios and is apparently considered an up-and-umm....

I can't finish that one without giggling like a thirteen-year-old, so we'll move on.

According to the press release, the top-heavy young woman just signed a deal with MyMMOshop.com, a World of Warcraft gold selling site. The deal apparently involves the site giving the starlet $500,000, and in turn she will have the site's URL tattooed onto her breasts. The ink will remain, unaltered, for two years. The site states that "the link between porn, the internet, and online gaming is as strong as the pairing of peanut butter and jelly, making this an excellent fit." No word yet if Smuckers or Skippy is going to pay the actress to spread those on her boobs as well.

The company also points out that "a female porn star can easily appear in 50-100 films per year so this gives mymmoshop.com a lot of exposure for years to come." Anna is going to get the ink on June 15th.

Really, some stories are just so amazing, that no sarcastic commentary is necessary. However: as long as the gamers watching can type the URL one-handed, they should be all set.


Moving on now.

The next news story comes courtesy of G4. Apparently Japan is having some population crisis in that they don't have enough people in the country, and companies are rising to confront this challenge. Game studio Koei, who makes Dynasty Warriors games and... ummm.... more Dynasty Warriors games (though Tecmo is now a part of them, makers of my beloved Dead or Alive franchise), has offered an incentive to their employees in the hopes of bringing more Japanese babies into the world.

The offer is as follows: If one of their employees has a baby, they will get a bonus of $1,000. Spawn a second, and there's a cool $2,000 in it for the dedicated employee. The real money, though, is in pushing out a third kid. Go for a trio, and the employee gets a $20,000 bonus.

So, I think I've solved my financial problems. I'll go to Japan, get a job with Koei-Tecmo, knock up some coworkers, and come back with some money to spend on games (ironically, no Koei or Tecmo ones).

Really, is this a bright move? Production will grind to a halt once all the maternity leave requests hit HR in about nine months. Also, once the kids are older, are they going to be put to work making Dynasty Warriors games?


The next story gets a "no shit, Sherlock" award for pure obviousness.

Science Daily posted research from sleep studies by people who have entirely too much free time on their hands. According to their findings:
"Computer/console gamers who play for more than seven hours a week and who identify their gaming as an addiction sleep less during the weekdays and experience greater sleepiness than casual or non-gamers."

The study goes on for a while, but the point that they hammer home is that gamers sleep less than non-gamers, and are often more tired as a result.

Really. Wow. Thanks for that, guys. Give me a lab coat and a big research grant, and I can prove that people are less hungry when they eat. With enough time and money, I may even be able to find a corrolation between gas and making cars go.

Maybe there are some non-gamers out there who are surprised by the findings, but anybody who considers themselves a gamer is nodding right now in agreement, and debating whether they should go to bed or play for another "few minutes" (ie: two hours). If anybody is unclear-- the gaming is going to win.


That's probably enough madness for tonight. We had a porn star's boobs, Koei-Tecmo becoming a baby factory, and a serious waste of scientific research funding. Sounds like a solid night to me.


UPDATE: More and more info is coming out about the Anna Morgan story, and all evidence is pointing to it being faked. Right now the supposed culprit is the gold farming site itself, and it's suspected that "Anna Morgan" herself was actually created for the purpose of the hoax. I suppose we'll see on June 15th, the date where she (if she's real) is supposedly getting her boobs inked.

Damned if you...

When people don't get what they want, they can get whiny and upset. When they do get what they want, quite often they're still whiny and upset. This is true of humans in general, but gamers in particular.

Case in point, Left 4 Dead 2. The game has gotten quite a bit of attention since it was announced at Microsoft's E3 press brief, to the point of an online petition trying to prevent its release and a proposed boycott if (by which I mean when) that first measure fails.

Valve is a company known for taking their sweet time with releases, for something like a decade between a game and its sequel. They make a good product, but they're definitely not the fastest team out there. So there has been all sorts of ire aimed at that fact over the years. Gamers weren't happy with having to wait ten years for a follow-up.

Last November they released Left 4 Dead. The game was pretty damned good, a multiplayer blast-fest that really centered around teamwork, with up to four friends tearing through hordes of zombies in the hopes of making it out alive. The game has since seen one additional (and free, which is all too rare these days) download.

This November, a year after the release of the first game, the second one is due for release.

Even I'll admit to a bit of skepticism, as I relayed in my recent report on the Microsoft press conference. My fear is that the new game won't have a ton of new content or upgrades after only a year, not enough to justify it as a whole new full priced game, but at the same time I really enjoy playing the first one so will wait and see the second before making a real decision. After all, even if it's just more of the same, that same is still pretty damn good.

So, in the "against the sequel", we have the following arguments:

Many of the complaints seem to center around Valve "selling out" in some fashion, about how it's just too soon for a sequel and that it's just going to be more of the same, that the new content should have just been offered as downloads, and that the first game won't be supported anymore. Of course, if Valve waited a few years before a new game, people would be upset that they're not releasing a sequel, so there's really no winning that one. People seem to say that they do want more zombie-killing Left 4 Dead action, but they also don't want to have to buy a new game. They apparently want Valve to just keep handing them free content for a while.

Anyway, as I mentioned, there's a protest/ petition thing (currently having over 16,000 members) going on in the Steam forums in the hopes of stopping the game's release. The list of "crimes" these people claim Valve is guilty of is as follows:

*) Significant content for L4D was promised but never delivered.
-- Bear in mind that Valve never promised a certain amount of content to anybody, nor are they under any real obligation to make any additional content for the game free or otherwise.
*) Valve put little faith in L4D since they almost certainly started work on L4D2 right after release.
-- It's called multitasking, people.
*) The fact that L4D2 is nearly identical to L4D will decimate the community for both games.
-- Umm... is that even a coherent thought? There will be people who continue to play the first game, there will be people who move to the sequel, and there will be people (like myself) who just play whichever they're in the mood for at the time. Decimate? I don't think that word means what you think it means.
*) The announced date is not nearly enough time to polish content or make significant gameplay changes.
-- Shouldn't we wait for the game to be released before we start critiquing the content and gameplay? I'm just saying, is all.
*) The new character designs seem bland and unappealing so far.
-- Right. That's just low and borderline recess name-calling. Again, we're five months from release, way too soon to be making claims about content and graphics and such.
*) L4D2 is too bright to fit in with L4D's visual aesthetic.
-- Wow. Isn't that the call of the creators? Besides, screenshots of the game look pretty cool, and the daylight setting actually shows off some of the graphics and animations more than the murky night setting.
*) The fiddle-based horde music is extremely disliked, though the differently orchestrated music is otherwise welcome.
-- Again, wow. You people need to stop talking now.
*) L4D2’s release will result in a drop in quality and frequency for L4D content, even compared to before.
-- OK. Whatever.
*) The community has lost faith in Valve’s former reputation for commitment to their games post-release.
-- By "the community", of course, they only mean the "whiny bitch" contingent.

So now we've heard from the anti- Left 4 Dead 2 people. How does Valve themselves respond?

They basically state that the content in the second game was simply too big to be considered as a download, and they assure people that they are not done with additional content for the first game.

I've watched some videos on L4D2, read all sorts of info, and in many ways it does look a lot like its predecessor. The gameplay is largely unchanged, the graphics and everything look to be about in line with the first game. So yes, in many respects, it can be seen as just an incrimental upgrade over what we already have.

On the other hand, we're being given new weapons and new zombies. The game has daytime settings, new characters, and more distinct end goals to the scenarios (unlike the "stave off a horde until evac shows up), and the different episodes are going to have a more distinct connection. All of which adds up to some pretty awesome new features to an already pretty awesome game. I'll buy it, regardless of any fiddle music they may be tossing in there (I like fiddle music, and that's what custom soundtracks are for anyway).

So basically, because Valve wants to do a bit of milking on a very popular franchise, they're getting serious heat. On the other hand, if they waited ten years before another game in the series, they'd get serious heat. If they offered this content as downloads, but charged for it, they'd get heat. If they didn't offer any new content, wanting to save it for the future, they'd get heat.

Really, once you realize that there's no way to win, it all gets a lot easier.

I Call Shenanigans!

Before I start tonight's post, the results of the experiment I undertook at the end of yesterday's: No, there was no automatic hit from Bioware just for using the name Star Wars: The Old Republic. So there is that.

Now, to the action.

Not long ago, Activision merged with Vivendi. This merger brought major franchises from two separate but strong companies together, but there were a few titles (from the Vivendi side) that were dropped by the overlords at Activision. One of these was Ghostbusters, because the brain trust that makes the decisions felt that the game couldn't be exploited with sequels every year. Fortunately, Atari picked the game up for release. Another title abandoned by Activision was Double Fine's Brutal Legend, a heavy metal-infused action game starring Jack Black and featuring cameos from several notable metalheads such as Ozzy Osbourne. It looked fun and funny and cool, and the studio certainly has a history of quirky and awesome games. Tim Schafer worked on the first two Monkey Island titles, plus the why-hasn't-it-been-reissued-yet Grim Fandango for Lucasarts, and his own Double Fine released the spectacular platformer Psychonauts, which if you haven't played you need to stop reading and do so right now.

Brutal Legend was picked up for publication by Electronic Arts. They did some serious promotion at last week's E3, including devoting part of its press brief to the game and plastering a massive banner on the outside of the LA convention center.

Activision, though, in what can only be described as pure douchebaggery, has decided to sue EA in an attempt to stop the "Rocktober" release of the game. According to Variety, Activision had threatened to sue back in February if EA continued with their plans to release the game, but a source at EA had this to say:
"We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy".

That quote is amazing, and pretty much sums up the fact that nobody took Activision's threats seriously. After all, they did willingly and publicly drop the game last year, so why the hell do they even care? Don't they have some licensed kiddie game or a Tony Hawk they should be working on, instead of getting whiny when someone else plays with a toy they tossed aside?

The report that I read was on Gamespot, who acknowledged Associated Press as their source. According to the news, Activision claims that it still has the rights to release Brutal Legend themselves, regardless of the fact that they had dropped it during the merger, and that they invested about fifteen million dollars into the title.

At the time of Gamespot's news posting, reps for both Activision and EA had not returned their requests for comments. However, Tim Schafer of Double Fine did have this to say:
"Hey, if Activision liked it, then they should have put a ring on it. Oh great, now Beyonce is going to sue me too".

Another brilliant comment comes out of an insipid situation.

Remember when Activision was a company known for cool releases, and EA was the "evil empire" that did nothing but release Madden games and licensed crap? Now we have Electronic Arts (who has dropped all but a couple of their licenses with the intention of concentrating more on original games like the excellent Mirror's Edge and Dead Space) as the champion for gaming and Activision releasing the licensed crap and churning out annual sequels from their franchises.

I don't know the legal ins-and-outs of the case. Maybe there's some piece of paper somewhere that's going to prove Activision's case, though I hope on all that is holy that this is not the case. Maybe they're just upset because they saw the game gaining substantial steam and interest and now want it back (and maybe see annual sequel potential). Whatever the case, it's a pretty dick move to take, and only serves to paint Activision in a pretty bad light. The forums are lit up with people discussing the case, and nobody seems to be taking Activision's side. Some are even suggesting an all-out boycott of the publisher's titles. While the average consumer may not care about stuff like this, hardcore gamers definitely notice, and most are pretty vocal in their opinions. Of course, we'll see if a boycott actually happens, and if it could hold when something like Modern Warfare 2 drops later this year, but it does show who gamers see as the good guys and bad guys in this little saga.

In the end, as long as Brutal Legend sees a release, I suppose gamers eager to play it will be happy, but at this point I'd much rather see an EA logo on the case than an Activision one.

Following a Dream

I've been "between jobs" since October of 2008.

Since this drastic change in my amount of free time, I've taken the opportunity to re-assess my goals and what I want to do when I grow up. After spending about two decades bouncing around to different positions at different companies (including manager at a certain video game specialty retailer, front desk manager at a hotel, and even a stint at Walt Disney World), I really felt it was time to focus my efforts and figure out what career path I want to follow.

My passion is video gaming, plain and simple, and the game industry is one that I really want to be a part of. I don't have any programming skill to speak of, nor any artistic ability (though, as N+ proves, there is apparently a market for stick figures in gaming), I can't offer any sort of musical assistance, and I'm not a technical-type person in any way. Which, of course, eliminates a whole large chunk of the available jobs in the industry.

The type of job I'm looking for, though, does lend itself to my particular suite of skills: personality, no fear in front of people, good verbal and written communication, a near encyclopedic knowledge of gaming, leadership and creative problem solving, and a Jedi-level amount of patience. The position goes by many names: community manager/ moderator/ liaison, PR, communications, community support/ representative, and the tasks involved are as varied as the titles. Including such duties as moderating forums, responding to fan emails (both positive and negative), submitting press releases, and hitting the trade shows to help demo a game (there are, of course, other aspects as well), the position of community liaison (which we'll call it from here on out) acts as not only a link between the studio and the fans, but can also cover customer service and press duties.

Granted, I have no practical experience, at least in the sense that I've never held the position before, so I've fallen into that awesome catch-22 trap: no experience means no job offer, but no job means no experience with which to get the job. Of course, I have all the skills listed above, plus I've been to a few E3 shows and a bunch of Gamestop manager conferences, so I have seen people that do have the position in action, and have paid very close attention to what they say and how they say it. I've studied out in the field, and while I've always wanted to be those people at the conferences that are showing off the game, it's only recently that I've realized that this is what I really want to do.

Now, of course, comes the fun part: applying for jobs. I think it's safe to say that I've at some point or another submitted an application to most of the major game studios out there (since 2007, I have applied for various positions at Nintendo a total of eighteen times. One of us isn't getting the hint here...). If someone has posted a need for any sort of community position or writing job, there's a good chance my resume is on file with them. Hell, in some cases the posting isn't even necessary, as I sent my information to Sega with a letter basically saying "if one should open up". I do regular checks online of all the game company job listings, on their own sites as well as Gamasutra and Gamejobs, and have apps out to some of the major game news sites as well.

In theory, eventually something has to work out. I'm confident that I can do the job, and do it well, but I'm just waiting for that one person to say "Hey, we should give this guy a chance".

So, it got me to thinking, am I doing it all wrong? I started looking at other ways to break into the industry, and here's some of the methods I've discovered:

The education/ training method: Perhaps the biggest investment, from time and money standpoints, is going to school and getting a degree for the career you want. I went to college, first as a classical stage actor and then switching to theatrical tech/ design, but never finished so have no degree to speak of, but outside of helping the "talking in front of people" part of the community liaison position the training I did get is not really relevant to the game industry.
The upside of this method is, of course, lots of practical training, as well as a piece of paper that many employers do find very important when making hiring decisions. Of course, some argue that sitting in a classroom isn't the same as hands-on experience (I've been to E3, watched and talked to community liaisons, something many reading a lesson in a textbook cannot claim), and many maintain that ultimately being right for the job is more than whether or not you carry a degree. Anybody can study hard and take tests, but if you don't have the personality for the job than there's no amount of class learning that can change that.

The "I know someone" method: This one is tricky, because it requires not only knowing someone but them liking you enough that they give you a shot even if you're not the first choice. Sometimes it's valuable to know someone if only for the good advice they can give you on your quest, other times they may know someone else and can put in a good word. Obviously, familiarity only goes so far, and the fact that I've never coded something in my life means that I'm not getting a programming gig no matter how well I know someone, but sometimes it does make just enough difference to matter.
I have this friend (ooh, this is going to be fun to do without giving any names or real information). This friend and I worked together at a store for a while, and one of our regular customers happened to be a reasonably important part of a local game studio. Eventually, my employee asked him about how to break into the industry in an artistic capacity, and after some emails and such my employee saw that a position had opened on the studio's site, assistant to the very person we knew. A resume was submitted, interviews were done, and in the end my employee was offered the job.
Now, I am in no way downplaying this person's abilities to do this job (and not only because they read this blog, but because they are an amazing assistant to have and instead of giving the excellent reference that I did I sort of wanted to say they were terrible so they wouldn't leave my team), but I am suggesting that knowing the person who was looking for an assistant may have helped the application along just enough.
It's not a foolproof method, as I well know, but it's a nice edge to have if you can get it. Skills are still paramount, of course.
Also, from knowing one person can come networking, which is often very important, because even if one person's team doesn't have an opening they may know someone who does.

The "Jessica Chobot" method: A few years back, pictures surfaced of a very hot girl suggestively licking a PSP. These pics quicky became pretty well known, and helped rocket the beautiful Jessica Chobot into the gaming news spotlight. It was apparent that this woman was not only (as I've mentioned twice already) really attractive, but smart and well-versed in gaming and game news as well, and had a personality that lended well to where she ended up. She now has a post at IGN writing a variety on a variety of subjects including games and dating, appears on videos for the site as well as strategy videos on Xbox Live, and rescues kitties from burning buildings in her spare time. She also, though she may not know this yet, is my future wife, so there is that.
This method, for the most part, requires simply coming up with something original and tossing out into the world of the interweb to see what happens. In many cases it may go nowhere, but with skill and luck (and your tongue on a handheld gaming machine) it can lead to great things.

Blogging/ writing method: This method is similar to the Jessica Chobot, but with less of a plasticy aftertaste, and a better one to pursue for those of us that aren't pretty girls.
It requires having an idea, some degree of ability in putting forth that idea, and then doing exactly what I did: create a site and start writing what you know. I actually started by writing for free on a game site that no longer exists, and for those that don't want to run their own site but still have something to say there are blogging sites like Destructoid that allow them a voice. This method still requires a lot of "legwork", applying and networking and such, but it allows potentially interested parties to go and look at your work and get a feel for who you are and what thoughts are rattling around in your head. Plus, it's a good outlet, it kills time, and if you're really lucky you could use it as a starting point for a media empire. Sites like IGN weren't built in a day, after all, and nowadays it's even easier to get your name out there. Social sites like Myspace and Twitter only serve to give anyone who wants one a voice. If you have something to say, then hopefully someone will notice eventually.

It should be mentioned that, as I still don't have a real job in the industry, this method may not work as well as I hope it will, and in time there could be some pics of me making out with my DSi surfacing. Also, bear in mind that in pretty much all cases, the blog or site or whatever will have to be ended once someone offers you a position, as many would see it as a conflict of interest.

There are, of course, other options. Signing a deal with an evil spirit of the netherworld is popular, and there's always sleeping your way to the top (remember that gaming is still a primarily male-driven industry. Take that as you will) or blackmailing someone important.

The best trait to have, as I have well found out, is patience.


Oh, one last thing. Star Wars: The Old Republic.
Here's the context of that: I recently applied for Bioware/ EA, for the position of Community Representative for the above mentioned game. Words cannot describe how badly I want this position, but that's not the point here. Shortly after submitting my application, I was writing about my most anticipated titles of 2009 and mentioned Star Wars: The Old Republic. I noticed later that the blog had gotten a hit from Bioware in Alberta. I wasn't sure if it was due to my app or due to the mention of the title, though, and as I didn't get an email or call I assumed (read: hoped) that it was just because I had said the name of the game.
The other day I was talking about E3 stuff, and wrote Star Wars: The Old Republic again, and once again got a hit from Bioware. So now I'm reasonably convinced that it is some (most likely automated) system designed to seek out mentions of the game. So I'm mentioning it now to test this theory.
This really does nothing other than satisfy my own curiosity, but with unemployment comes a substantial amount of free time with which to be amused by things like this. Maybe if I get a hit, and prove the theory, I'll randomly name drop other Bioware titles (the bestest and most talented of all the studios, just in case it isn't automated) throughout the week and see what happens.

Friday Night Fail: E3 Edition

For tonight's special E3 edition of FNF, I'm going to be concentrating on Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft. There was so much information out of E3, so many games and announcements, that it's a bit overwhelming. Since I wasn't there this year, I'm stuck with sifting through videos and news on other sites, and at some point I stopped watching everything and just started hunting for the stuff that I was interested in playing. This is a one-man operation, after all, and trying to absorb all the info that came out of LA this week risks shutting down productivity completely.

That being said, here's tonight's Friday Night Fail: E3 Edition.

First up is Nintendo, since they are the most full of fail, based upon their press brief. Actually, it's more fair to say that the brief itself was lose and fail. Slow, boring, and quite frankly the quality of the content they showed was questionable for the most part. There are a lot of cool games coming out for their systems, for the Wii and in particular the DS, but they spent too much time on silly things like Style Savvy. Also, while they showed trailers for really hot titles like Super Mario Galaxy 2 and Metroid: Other M, these aren't coming out until sometime next year. Wii Fit Plus, as much as I still love the original, looks more like a souped up version of the first and not its own title, and while Wii Sports Resort looks like a lot of fun I'm still annoyed about the Wii Motion Plus. Why not just make your remotes 1:1 from the start, instead of making a special add-on later? Your goal with the Wii was to make it as simple as possible, but now you're adding one more piece to the puzzle, one that certain games are going to require and others won't, which is only adding to the confusion and can be seen as counterproductive to that goal.

So, while Nintendo did show some cool content throughout the week, and there were plenty of third parties showing off some amazing games for the Wii and especially the DS, the Nintendo press conference gets a big FAIL sticker.

Next we have Sony. Their biggest failure, as I see it, is the PSP Go. One of the PSP's faults was that they weren't sure what audience they were going for with the unit, and while I think that they're a little more focused on that front with the Go, I think they're going to miss the mark. It's pretty pricey at $250, and in the end just seems like a second-rate iPhone/ iPod Touch (the device they're obviously looking to compete with). The device was small and sort of neat looking, though I wonder why they chose buttons when the world seems to be moving to touch screens. I don't know if PSP owners are going to rush out and upgrade, as they already have a system and a stack of UMD games (though Sony has promised some sort of transfer system to download your game library to a PSP Go), and new "adult on the go" users (their primary market target) may see the device as lacking when compared to an iPhone (which has a phone, a camera, and regularly saves small children). Even the upcoming Zune HD (mmmm.... Zune HD) is going to feature a touch screen, downloadable apps and games, music, video, and an HD radio tuner with song tagging, so once again the PSP Go is coming up a little short. Really, what could save it is the games, but if they end up offering mainly the same titles for download and UMD, most people will probably stick with their existing machines or buy a regular PSP and a stack of games for the price of just a PSP Go.

Their strategy on the PSP Go could become clearer as it gets closer to its October release, but right now it seems like a second-rate attempt to be cool with the iPod crowd.

With Microsoft, it was hard to find any fail in their press brief. They showed some really hot games, made some cool announcements and bold promises, and they do seem more full of win/ succeed than lose/ fail. Their scripted conversations were still a bit forced, but that's not really game-related and more my theatrical background crying out for attention. So rather than try to force some sort of trumped up fail, I'm just going to pat them on the back and warn them not to fuck up with anything they showed or they will end up here in the future. I'm cautiously keeping my eyes on Project Natal, the motion sensing camera thing. It could be amazingly cool, bringing interaction with the console into a whole new dimension, or it could be a disaster.

Oh, and please quickly change the name "Natal". I know it's only a project code name and all, but it bugs the hell out of me every time I see it. Onstage they were pronouncing it "Nu-tall", but when I see it all I can thing of is natal like baby-related (pre-natal, neo-natal), and it just weirds me out. So give it some cool name that the press can use instead.

There was one bit of Microsoft fail, though it didn't come out at the press conference: premium content/ micro-transactions for avatars. They really think that people are going to pay good money (MS points, whatever) just so their avatar can wear Spartan armor? Really, this sort of special stuff for the avatars should be tied directly to achievements and not something they expect people to pay for. I could see, let's say I got a specific achievement in Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, getting to wear a Spider-Man outfit or something, but I'm certainly not going to pay to do so. My little virtual skeleton man isn't nearly that important to me.

One last bit of E3 fail: I WASN'T THERE! Stupid not being able to afford a plane ticket and hotel and expenses and stuff, and not being sure if this blog constitutes a real game press thing. I missed out on the convention chaos (which I love), booth babes (which I would like to love in freaky ways), and bacon-wrapped hot dogs (which I don't love), all of which adds up to complete and total fail.

E3: Highlights

So now that we've covered the "big three" press briefs, it's time to look at what else was offered up through the madness that is E3.

In the interest of space, I'm not going to talk about any game that has been mentioned in my previous E3 posts. So, as much as I want to rave about the amazing that is Assassin's Creed 2, it was written about in the Sony press brief post and therefore won't be mentioned again. Except for that mention I just made. No more, despite it being one of my most anticipated titles of 2009.

Also, to be fair, I don't generally hold a lot of stock in trailers. It's easy to make something look cool with some flashy cinematics, but there's no way to really know how a game is going to play until you're playing it. Even watching someone play a demo: well, they're playing the part of the game they want you to see. So, all of this (even news and info) is taken with a grain of salt. A great trailer can lead to a crappy finished product, and often the random games that are overlooked are the ones that can blow you away.

Nintendo's Shigeru Miyamoto revealed that there will be a new Legend of Zelda game for the Wii, featuring a more adult Link than we've ever seen before. He didn't give too much details, as the game is still a ways off, but he did mention (when he showed a picture of the new Link) that he wasn't holding a sword...

EA/ Bioware showed off gameplay of Mass Effect 2. The graphics are an improvement over the original's already amazing look, and while the gameplay looks very similar in a lot of ways there are a lot of new features promised. It's been stated that this is a direct continuation from the first story, and a previous game's save file will not only carry over character data but also any choices made along the way. There's a lot more to do in the galaxy this time around, and the title really does look amazing.

Scribblenauts for the DS looks amazingly quirky and fun. As you progress through the levels searching for star pieces, you need to type in (with the onscreen keyboard or text recognition) different tools and such to assist you in your quest. Need to dig a hole? Write in a shovel. A star piece up in a tree? Try typing "ladder". From what I understand, there are thousands of words the game recognizes, making crazy variety a big key point. During the demo videos, players pitted a kraken against a stegosaurus, and there was also a three-way battle royale between the kraken, god, and Albert Einstein, all of which the game recognized and created into its world. Oh, and apparently always betting on the kraken is the way to go.

I'm not a fan of the SingStar series, mostly because I can't sing and don't really play Sony systems much, but I think they look like fun party games and I think it's great that SingStar: Queen is coming out. Queen should be in every video game.

A new Castlevania game was announced for the 360 and PS3, called Castlevania: Lords of Shadow. It's a 3D action game, but is a new story and apparently isn't directly related to the previous mythos. It's also headed by Hideo Kojima, of Metal Gear Solid, rather than Iga (who has directed the games since Symphony of the Night). It will be interesting to see what someone new to the series, especially someone as well known and creative as Kojima, brings to the table. Like Team Ninja working on a Metroid game (Metroid: Other M), it's cool to see studios "mixing it up" a bit and trying their hands at other franchises. It could fail, but we could also see some really cool new experiences.

I'm not a big player of MMO games (Phantasy Star Universe notwithstanding, as it only loosely counts anyway), but I will be playing Star Wars: The Old Republic on day one. They showed some flashy videos, which naturally caused geekgasms just by watching them, but the actual gameplay is looking like it's going to be there as well. The game is very story-driven, the conversations following a choice system similar to Mass Effect, and the combat videos look a little faster and smoother than what I usually expect in MMO games. This one is going to be something special, and I only hope that it does in fact tie into the storyline from the first two titles.

Other noteworthy titles: Alpha Protocol and Bayonetta from Sega. The first is an RPG that ditches the fantasy setting for a modern day spy tale, the second a crazy action game featuring a woman with guns on her boots. A remake of Secret of Monkey Island (redubbed Monkey Island: Special Edition), the classic adventure from Lucasarts, is seeing an Xbox Live and WiiWare release, and a new episodic installment called Tales of Monkey Island is coming to WiiWare. Now, Lucasarts people, about a Grim Fandango redux...

That's just a quick look at some of the games that were at the show. There was obviously so much information, so many announcements and videos and such, that it's a little overwhelming, and I could spend the next couple of weeks reporting on E3 related news. Which I don't intend to do, so unless something really sparks my interest I'm going to move on to other subjects next week.