An Interview With Spencer Halpin

Video game violence is, to understate the matter considerably, a source of much controversy these days. No matter where you stand on the issue, you can't deny that it's one of the hottest hot button issues facing the industry today.

The new film Moral Kombat, directed by Spencer Halpin (brother of Hal Halpin of the ECA), takes a serious look at the debate. Talking to proponents on both sides, the movie is shaping up to be a very important look at the ongoing controversy surrounding video game violence.

I had the opportunity to ask Spencer some questions about the movie, which has been described by Professor Jenkins (MIT) as "perhaps the most important film ever made about video games".

*) First off, to get everyone up to speed, please talk a bit about the project overall, the subject and how it all came together.
Spencer Halpin’s: Moral Kombat came to be as a result of dinner conversations I had with my brother, Hal. He was knee-deep in anti-games legislation when he was running the IEMA and we’d talk about the cast of characters, viewpoints, and merits of the debate. It was a subject that certainly wasn’t near-and-dear to my heart, but one that I felt told a compelling story. The more into shooting we got, the more complex and interesting I found it… so I grew to love it and it ultimately became a passion.

*) What sort of release does the film have? Is it something that will be in theaters or on TV, can it be purchased or downloaded? I don’t believe there’s been a formal announcement yet, but we have signed with a digital distribution partner, Cinetic Media in NYC. We’ve been in talks with a few networks about the TV rights and had a lot of interest in DVD distribution of differing types. After getting hung-up on the legal and IP issues for some time, I’m really excited to say that it’ll be out soon.

*) Throughout the film you talk to quite a few people, on both sides of the argument. Can you talk a bit about some of the people you talked to, and how offering them the opportunity to present their case helped the film?
Yes. Actually the full credits have just been uploaded to the film’s dedicated website (http://www.moralkombatmovie.com/credits.htm). As you scan through the interviewees, I think the roster really speaks for itself. And following the negative reaction that the trailer got on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIu3JMGxk3Q), from gamers who were concerned that the film would be biased, this… and the reaction from the industry executives who came to last week’s screenings, should put those fears to rest. Regarding each interviewee experience, it really spanned the gamut: from intensely emotional and cathartic, to combative and confrontational, to funny and a blast to shoot. One common thread between the interviewees which I found interesting was their love for what they do and a driving passion for their perspective, which shines through in the doc.

*) Does the film take a non-partisan approach to the subject? Are you working to prove one viewpoint or the other, or offering up as much information as possible on both sides and allowing the viewer to make their own decision?
…much more the latter. As an artist, it’s near impossible to say with all honesty that your own thoughts and feelings aren’t a part of the work, but the story is told in as objective and informative a way as I know how. Like any filmmaker, I wanted to take the audience on a ride while telling them the story and engaging their senses in as holistic a way as I could. The best answer I could give you is that the people on either extreme each thought that the film was biased their direction – so I took that as high praise.

*) Are there any highlights that you can think of during production, anybody who surprised you with a statement or anything that you learned about either side during the filming?
Well, there were most definitely some very surprising interviews… certainly. Without naming names, I can tell you that one of the leading software company CEOs was mislead about the project and misinformed about the nature of what we were trying to do. We had this 180 degree green screen set-up with complex dolly moves on multiple cameras and the one time that there was a fair-sized crew manning the shoot. The interviewee arrived late, because he was coming from a trade association board meeting, and flew into a tirade about the film, me, what we were doing… it was very intense and also very confusing. He cursed like a sailor and stormed off the set. As a filmmaker, it gave me a lot of perspective and made me take a step back to appreciate just how emotional and personal these interviews were going to be. While it was a very stressful moment, it was also a learning experience.

*) Finally, is there anything you want to say or add concerning the film?
I’m really just grateful to have gone through the process, learned what feels like a Master’s degree’s worth in public policy and IP law, and made some lifelong friends along the way. That the film is finally coming out and it’s touching people and engaging them in thoughtful and respectful debate and discussion, is a dream come true. I’m flattered by all of the feedback and humbled by the sources. My goal all along was for the documentary to be an important educational and historic work that inspired the audience and forced them to appreciate the complexities of the discussion. Seeing that come to fruition…

*) Again, thank you for taking the time. I'm really looking forward to seeing the movie. Any plans for a screening in the Boston area?

My pleasure, Aaron. Thanks for taking the time for the interview. As for Boston… I’m not sure. Over the past few years, we’ve taken it to film festivals, university screenings and trade and consumer shows. But all of those have been instances where we’ve been invited. I believe that Dr. (Henry) Jenkins, before leaving MIT for USC this year, said that the film is part of the curriculum and in their library… which is a great honor in and of itself. So I suppose it’s possible that an MIT event could come about at some point. I screened at USC a few years ago, but now that Henry’s there and we’ve gotten so much interest for an LA-area screening, that’s also a possibility.

I have to say, I'm looking forward to seeing Moral Kombat, and it looks like it's going to be an important film for anybody with an interest in the video game violence debate or even just with the industry in general.
The official movie site can be found at www.moralkombatmovie.com. The official trailer, credits, and press releases can be found there.

Thank you to Spencer Halpin, for taking the time to answer my questions.

OMGNEWS!!!

A few somewhat interesting stories came about last week, so here we go:

Kid forced to buy a PS3 at gunpoint, or when the marketing campaign just isn't enough:
According to the Naples news, an eighteen year old kid was held up and forced to go to Wal-Mart and purchase a Playstation 3 console. The story is a bit more involved, of course, and begins when the young man was confronted by a pair of armed guys. One was allegedly carrying an assault rifle, while the other carried a semi-automatic pistol. That one was described by the victim as an "Asian looking man".
Apparently Kaz Hirai is pretty serious about selling those Sony machines...
Anyway, they first made the teenager drive to his own home and steal his stepfather's credit card and some jewelry. They then took him to the local Wal-Mart (some would argue that shopping there is a crime in itself), with the intention of making him purchase a shotgun. When they found the gun counter closed, they had him buy a PS3 instead and then let him go. One of the men is now in custody, though the other (the Asian looking one) is still at large.
You know, how many times has this happened to you? Not the being held at gunpoint part, of course, but the "going in for one thing and walking out with something else". Hell, just the other day I went looking for a rocket launcher, but when I found that my local shop didn't have one I just bought a DS instead. Really, it's almost the same thing.

Life on the mean street dates:
Street dates, the releasing of a title (or book, or DVD, or music) on a specific date across all retailers, is pretty standard practice in the entertainment world. While many smaller games aren't held to such rigid concerns, most big releases are given specific release dates by the publisher and all stores must adhere to this date or suffer the consequences. By that I mean fines and often having less in the way of future shipments, and not a hit squad of angry goons hell-bent on breaking kneecaps, though I bet the latter would better insure the following of said dates.
With some of the latest big titles (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Assassin's Creed 2,Left 4 Dead 2), the release dates have been broken by none other than mega-retailer Gamestop.
The first such incidents occurred during the CoD launch, when some stores were told by the corporate office to go ahead and sell the game a day ahead of the official date. This was done, supposedly, to stem lost sales as a result of smaller "mom and pop" stores breaking the date and selling the game ahead of time. In a press release, a Gamestop spokesperson did confirm that the decision was made at the corporate level, though he did state that Activision had given the company permission to do so.
Activision then released a statement of their own, claiming that they had not approved any such early sales for any retailer.
Despite the finger-pointing, I doubt anything serious is going to come of this. Activision needs Gamestop as much as Gamestop needs Activision, so I'm sure they'll kiss each others' asses and make up soon enough. Which is a shame, because if Activision were to make an example of such a large retailer you can bet everyone else is going to fall the hell into line.
More recently, some New Jersey Gamestop stores were allowed by their corporate office to sell AC2 and L4D2 early, as "local independent retailers" were doing so. No word yet from Ubisoft or Valve in terms of them giving Gamestop the bitch slapping they so rightly deserve.

Really? Game violence is still a "thing"?
Recently, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has been catching some flak over a violent level that has you playing as a terrorist sort of person. While an option is available to skip the level, from what I understand it really does hammer home the evil-ness of the enemy that your character will be fighting throughout the game.
Speaking to Industry Gamers, Rockstar Games head Dan Houser chimes in on the controversy (being no stranger to it himself), and rightly points out that the entire argument is just getting a bit ludicrous. Says Houser:
"It feels at last like we’re moving on from that debate. The audience is getting past 30 so it all becomes a bit silly. That’s not to say that all games are for all people; we’ve never said that. GTA has always been rated 18 and we’ve always been very happy with that. Nevertheless, we do get frustrated when video games are singled out and movies are given a free pass. Manhunt 2 was banned in the same week that Saw was released. The arguments become quite ludicrous quite quickly when people argue that games are somehow more dangerous than full-motion video."
Well said, Mr. Houser, especially that part about Manhunt 2 and Saw.
Really, it amazes me that this is still even an argument.

Fail from a land down under:
Here's one from Gamepolitics.
To set this one up a bit, Australia currently doesn't have any sort of "mature" rating classification for games, meaning that adult games are lumped in with others. As a result, all sorts of violent games are banned or have their content altered as to not be banned. Apparently there has been a push to get an 18+ sort of rating so Aussie gamers can get their mature gaming on, but the Australian Attorney General has no intention of making it happen.
He at first acknowledges that many gamers are adults, having grown up with electronic entertainment. He goes so far to say that his 22 year old son plays computer games.
He then praises the Wii console for offering "many games to challenge and develop skill, physically and intellectually, without depraved sex, gore, or cruelty".
Two things here, my Kiwi friend: go play Madworld and/ or No More Heroes. Both of these great games offer all sorts of violence, and NMH doesn't skimp on the sexual innuendo. Also, most of the damn minigame compilations on the console kill more brain cells than develop intellectual skills.
Apparently he can't understand why supporters of the rating want "more cruel sex and extreme violence". I've played some pretty violent games, but which games have the cruel sex? I want to play them for... ummm.... research purposes...
He also states that his constituents are more concerned with real life issues than with imaginary worlds. Dude, look at the real life issues. People live in these imaginary worlds because the real one seriously sucks.

Isn't one world enough?
It was recently revealed that Two Worlds 2 has been pushed back to a 2010 release. Gamers pretty much shrug without interest and go back about their lives.


OK, that's enough news for now. It's been a big week for games, so I'm off to play Dragon Age, Phantasy Star Zero, and Assassin's Creed 2. Maybe not all at the same time.

Friday Night Fail: Buckle those Swashes Edition

I am, as a general rule, a huge fan of pirates. By which of course I mean the eyepatch-and-parrot type and not the douchebag that I spoke about in a recent post. So I approach any game involving privateers with excitement, though sometimes that initial burst of pirate-y happy is burst like a scurvy-ridden soap bubble.

Such is the case with Pirates of the Caribbean for the original Xbox. What could have been an enjoyable and deep title, in the end, ends up walking the plank and taking a dive into a sea of fail.

PotC was developed by Bethesda Softworks, of Elder Scrolls fame, and was in fact touted as being very similar to those popular open world RPG titles. The game itself began its life as a title called Sea Dogs (#2, if memory serves), but as the PotC movie gained steam the development shifted to bring the game under the license. This also meant that, since they wanted the game to release with the film, it was rushed through development. Interestingly enough, with the exception of the name change and a few in-game narrations by Keira Knightley (Elizabeth Swann in the films), the game really has nothing at all to do with the movie.

In PotC, you play Nathaniel Hawk, and you roam through an open RPG world. Like the Elder Scrolls games, you do have an over-arching questline but when and how you approach it is pretty much up to you. The game is presented in a third person perspective, the battles are action combat, and throughout the game you will be helming your ship on the open seas. Sounds like a winner, doesn't it? It's pretty amazing how such a cool concept on paper can sink so quickly in real life.

The graphics are muddy, the sound is uninspired, and the controls are passable. So, from a technical standpoint, there's really nothing worthwhile about the game. The ship battles, which should be the crowning achievement in a game like this (being about pirates and all) are slow to the point of being broken: even turning your vessel is a lesson in patience. While this may make for some realism, it also makes for some serious frustration. You can also board vessels, at which point the action shifts to the third person combat system. This actually isn't too bad, pretty standard action overall, but even in this area the game has some serious issues.

Not so much with the boarding parts, but with the land combat. As you travel you'll dock at different ports, explore various cities and shops, and can also walk into the wilderness seeking treasure and danger. Again, while there's nothing basically wrong with the sword-and-flintlock combat, the problem lies in the enemies themselves. They just seem to have a ton of hidden friends who will swarm and overtake you, leading to a lot of needless death. If you're wandering outside, for example, you may come across two or three shady characters and you figure that you can easily handle such a small band of miscreants. You then launch yourself into battle, but within seconds the tide shifts as several more enemies just happen to climb out of the bushes (apparently they were napping) and attack you. So what should have been a reasonably challenging but possible fight against a few foes now becomes impossible as you're quickly surrounded and cut down.

The game does offer some conversations with various people, governors of port cities and the like, and you can receive quests and make alliances, but none of the cool aspects are enough to counteract the bad ones.

If you want to get your virtual swashbuckler on, there are some very well-made ways to do so, most notably Sid Meier's Pirates. As for Pirates of the Caribbean... that one should probably just be sent to Davy Jones' locker.

Pirates Have Feelings Too!

Some British kid pirated a bunch of Xbox 360 games, got caught and banned from Live, and is now all pissy about it.

So the BBC let him talk about the experience, because apparently it was a slow news day.

The kid admitted to having copied "roughly 30 or 40 games". He apparently got surprised when he was booted off of Live for, you know, doing something illegal, so he tried to sign in again and when he was denied a few more times he thought something was wrong.

Which prompted him to complain through BBC, because obviously this can't be his fault!

The best part is when he compares getting booted off Live to finding out that your "dog just died". Really, kid? That's the connection we're going with here? Comparing losing the ability to play video games online with the death of a pet? I mean, I'm a hardcore gamer who loves him some Xbox Live, but I'm also an owner of both a dog and cats, and I'm going to say that losing a pet is a wee bit tougher emotionally than losing your online gaming.

Especially because, to review, the kid was a freaking pirate! So, more accurately, it's like poisoning your dog and being surprised when the pooch keels over.

He then explains that he had been considering whether or not to move over to Playstation 3 or get another Xbox. He says that he's not sure he wants another Xbox after this, though he also claims that he won't be pirating games anymore.

Seriously, at no point did he stop and go "Wow, I was being a total doucheknocker and doing something illegal. I got caught, and got lucky in the sense that I just got banned from Live and didn't have Scotland Yard banging on my door, so I'm going to call this a win and go to bed."

No, he whined about being booted and likened it to losing a pet. Seriously epic fail, British dude. I say to you good day.

I say good day, sir!

Building the Perfect RPG

So I've been playing Lost Odyssey lately, and am currently on disc 4 out of 4. I'm trying to finish it before diving into Dragon Age: Origins, as I really don't want to have too many deep RPG's running in my brain at the same time (I'm also working through Super Robot Taisen OG Saga: Endless Frontier on the DS). I've been occasionally working through the action RPG Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, and keep meaning to finally sit down and start Knights in the Nightmare. Oh, and I'm picking up Phantasy Star Zero this week.

So, obviously, I have a thing for this particular genre.

All this recent role playing, though, has gotten me thinking about the pros and cons inherent in each game. I mean, Lost Odyssey has some great stuff going for it: a deep and mature story, awesome graphics, a decent battle system, but it also has random battles (ugh) and save points that are often too far apart. It's good, but hardly perfect.

Which leads me to the point of today's post (yep, it's nice to know that I was going somewhere with this): what features would have to be put into the perfect RPG? I've thought back through a lot of the games that I've played and cobbled together the best aspects of them all to create the best RPG of all time.

An epic tale: gamers play RPGs, at least in part, for the story. Shooters and action games may have storylines, and maybe even some good ones, but there's nothing quite like an epic tale that unfolds over sixty hours or so of gameplay. Amazing cinematics, intense conversations, twisting plot points, and an intelligent narrative need to come together to create a tale that's going to hold a player's interest for as long as the game could take to complete.
Any RPG gamer knows the cliche: a spiky haired little kid, often an amnesiac or village outcast, brings together his equally spiky haired friends to embark on an epic quest to save the world from some horrible evil that has come back from the past to wreak havoc. We laugh about it, but it does still come up in a surprising amount of titles.
So the first aspect of our perfect RPG needs to be a story that breaks the norm. I mean, these stories obviously work in a sense (since we all keep playing them over and over again), but the perfect story would be something so epic and new that players will keep going well into the night just to see what happens next. Mass Effect had a great story, and one that made you want to play "just one more mission" until you realized that you've been playing for several hours. On the flipside, though, Eternal Sonata tried to be different and started out pretty intriguing before falling into a spiral of complete nonsense. So there's a fine line on both sides, I suppose.

Save points: Anybody who has been reading this blog from the beginning knows that save points, especially in RPGs, are one of my biggest gaming pet peeves. It was one of my earliest posts. Games, especially long epic sorts, should allow players to save anywhere. It's fine to put a few restrictions up, like no saving in the middle of a fight or something, but otherwise the option to just save and stop should be available. I'm not going to rant too long on this point (read the old post if you'd like to hear more of my thoughts), but simply put the perfect game won't rely on the archaic save point system but will instead allow players to save their game at any point.

Random battles: I hate random battles, and the perfect RPG will not have them. I like seeing my enemies on the screen, and have the option of fight or flight. I also like the idea that a lot of games implement with this, where if you hit the enemy from the back you get a surprise attack, but if they catch you from behind they get the drop.
Blue Dragon had this down really well. Not only could you see every enemy in the area, and could affect the start of the battle based on positioning, but they had a ring you could activate and sometimes catch several monsters at once. When the battle began you'd have to fight each group in sequence, but often the monsters themselves would turn on each other. It was a clever addition.
There's simply nothing worse than limping through a dungeon, low on healing items and just wanting to make it back to a town for supplies, and constantly getting assaulted by battles you can't see ahead of time. It's frustrating more than fun, so in the perfect RPG we're building we're going to implement the aforementioned Blue Dragon system.

The battle system: Here I'm actually pretty open. Whether a turn-based affair like Lost Odyssey or an action system like Fable, as long as the system is well constructed it's fine. Personally, I like Lost Odyssey's method of turn-based battles with a bit of an action kick: your combatants can activate a "ring" system that, if timed perfectly, can cause additional damage. It adds a bit of action to the otherwise straightforward turn system.
The biggest thing to avoid is getting too complicated and creating a monstrosity like The Last Remnant. The combat in that one was so complex that it wasn't fun as much as it was obnoxious to deal with. Simple, whether it be a shooting mechanic or a turn-by-turn system, works just fine. For the benefit of our perfect game, though, we'll stick with the classic RPG turn-based style of combat.

Collections: Unless your game starts with the word Pokemon, I don't want to see any little collection things in my perfect game. I don't want to miss out on a cooler ending or an achievement or whatever because I missed one goddamn puppy at the beginning of the game.

Epic-ness: I'm sort of lumping a few categories together here, but what a true perfect RPG needs is that sense of amazement. We're talking about thundering music at the right moments, jaw-dropping cinematics that thrust the story forward, and sprawling maps in a massive world. This is different from the story aspect I discussed earlier, as the epic feel that we get from the graphics and the music is what drives and invests us in the tale. Whether it be a gritty, realistic look like Final Fantasy 7 and Lost Odyssey, or the gorgeously colorful world of Eternal Sonata, pick a style and make it as amazing as the technology will allow.

Character progression: There's nothing worse than the following scenario- you have a group of several characters, but your party can only be made up of a few of them. You find yourself always using the same ones, especially later in the game when they're higher levels and the "rejects" in the group never got any action. Suddenly the story takes a turn and you find yourself needing to command the losers you forgot about hours ago, and they're not strong enough now to battle the crazy creatures you're battling.
While this mechanic has probably been in place before, I first saw it in Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic: your backup party also gains levels. If you swapped in a character that you hadn't been using, they would immediately be elevated to match your main character's level upon leaving the base. Eternal Sonata allowed every party member, regardless of usage, to gain experience, though the ones not in battle gained less than the ones on the front lines.
The perfect RPG will have something in place to allow even second-stringers to gain enough XP to not be totally useless when the time comes.

Final bosses: One form is enough, thank you. I just used up all of my healing items and every magic point trying to fry your ass, and now you're suddenly coming back as a dragon or something? Screw that. One big epic battle is enough, thanks, unless you're going to give me the option to heal up and save between forms. After all , you've somehow gotten all of your life and magic back (sometimes even more than you had before), so really it's only fair.

So, to sum up, our perfect RPG will have:
*) A deep and coherent narrative that sucks us in and keeps us enthralled.
*) A generous save system.
*) A battle system that is fun without getting bogged down.
*) No collecting doodads.
*) A system to allow the rejects to feel like they're useful.
*) Graphics, music, and an epic feel befitting the story.
*) An epic finale that doesn't become a three-form marathon of pain.

I'm sure there's lots more to this perfect RPG, though. What about you guys? What do you feel would add to this perfect game (or what have I added that you disagree with)? How long should the perfect RPG be? What features have you found in other games that you feel should be included here?

The Movie Game

So there's the trailer for the Prince of Persia movie that's due out next year. It actually looks pretty damn good, though of course a trailer is intended to make a movie look as good as possible. So while a couple short minutes is hardly indicative of the project's overall quality (which we won't know about for sure until it's actually released), a few things leap right out and make me think that perhaps this film won't fall into the trap of suckage that so many game-based movies have.

Obviously, there's the whole line of atrocious-beyond-rational-thought movies by Uwe Boll, whose films (Bloodrayne, Alone in the Dark, and House of the Dead, among many others) have really done terrible things for the entire concept of adapting games into movies. Even when serious attempts are made to bring video game experiences to life on the big screen, though, the end product usually falls short.

There have been some decent attempts along the way as well. Tomb Raider and Resident Evil were both solid movies and enjoyed some degree of box office success, though to be fair both of those were only loosely related to the games from which they were borne. Tomb Raider is similar only in the sense that the character is still named "Lara Croft" and she jets around the world raiding tombs, and Resident Evil also takes basic story elements from the games but crafts a new tale with a somewhat different mythology. Silent Hill, on the other hand, stuck closer to the game to the point that people who hadn't played the series were left a bit confused, and therein lies a lot of the issue with bringing a game to the cinema.

People who play the games are, for the most part, going to be watching the movie in the hopes that it keeps what they love about the game intact. So any major deviation, especially without a valid cause, will leave them disappointed and probably flaming the film on forums shortly after leaving the theater. Stick too close to the game mythos, though, and you run the risk of only appealing to the gamers and leaving moviegoers who aren't familiar with the title out in the cold.

It's a delicate line, and one on which a perfect balance has yet to be achieved.

Hopefully Prince of Persia won't suck too badly. The trailer does seem to indicate that they're keeping the story somewhat intact, what with the sands of time and the ability to rewind and such. I particularly like the banter between the Prince and Farrah in the trailer, as anybody who has played the game knows that those two characters engaged in similar verbal sparring there as well. So based on a short view that was specifically designed to entice moviegoers, I'm definitely intrigued.

Maybe this will be the film that really breaks down the barriers between the two mediums, that fans of the games (such as myself) can really appreciate but those unfamiliar with the franchise will enjoy as well.

Then, of course, we can start dealing with the issue in reverse: why is it that games based directly on movies generally suck?