And the band plays on

One might think from the title, this is a post about Rock Band. One might be incorrect in that assumption, although that post will probably come soon. This is another one about the continuing fracas surrounding Grand Theft Auto IV. It’s a long one, so read at your own peril.

Wow, this is the story that doesn’t die. It’s not the first videogame issue that’s come up, but it has been one of the most widely touted, at least in recent memory. And it’s all about protecting the children. Think of the children!

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Take Two Interactive sued the CTA for breach of contract when the CTA pulled GTA IV ads. I noticed Friday that the bus stop outside the Aon building has a GTA ad. Hooray for capitalism!

The rest of this post is inspired by this article in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune. No, it’s not a paper I read regularly, but GamePolitics has been following the GTA thing extensively, and this was one of the articles they brought up. It’s a well-thought-through article, but wrong on a few points, and these are some points that have been bugging me for quite a while. And although the bulk of my regular readers have no real understanding of what I’m talking about, I’m still going to talk about it.

First, let me get this out of the way: this is a game kids should not play. Younger minds can be influenced by what they see and do, because they have yet to develop a thorough understanding of who they are, who they should be, and the difference between right and wrong. They have a less clearly defined separation between reality and fantasy. Which is why younger minds should not see R rated movies. This is why the term “adult themes” exists. And Grand Theft Auto IV, and many other quality games, are rated M, equivalent to an R rating in a movie.

But think of the children! You know they’re going to get their hands on it! Ask any 15 year old boy about whether his parents are the gatekeepers of their children’s play! And to that I agree, to some extent. In actuality, underage buyers of M-rated videogames have about a 20% success rate. Sounds like a lot, right? Not so much if you consider that an underage buyer can get an R-Rated DVD about 50% of the time, or get into an R-Rated movie 35% of the time. So in that sense, the videogame industry is clamping down pretty hard (at GameStop, the success rate is actually about 6%… makes me want to give them more business). And yes, parents sometime may get the game for their kids, not knowing about the content (that argument gets brought up all the time with games). Well then, I guess the parents are actually the gatekeepers of their children’s play. I could follow with a rant about good parenting, but I won’t.

But still, think of the children! They’re going to get their hands on it somehow! Think of the damage it can do to their fragile psyches! Yes, I agree, to some extent. And these children can also buy an R-Rated DVD, sneak into an R-Rated movie, look at things they shouldn’t on the internet, drink alcohol, smoke, possibly even get into drugs. I guess in the light of that, playing a videogame, even a very adult one like Grand Theft Auto IV, doesn’t seem as horrific. The idea that a game will influence them to do horrible things, when they have an almost limitless variety of other cultural influences, to say nothing of the influence of their peers, is foolish.

OK, well, think of the adults! These husbands and fathers can’t be any good if they spend their free time fantasizing about shooting hookers or running down pedestrians! And to that I agree. If someone spends their time fantasizing about these things, they have some pretty serious issues. However, not so many actually bring that away from the game. It has been my firm belief for a long time, that all of life is experienced through your own personal lenses. You bring out of any media that which is already inside you. I’ve known people who saw Star Wars, and they brought any number of things with them: some wanted to study film, others science, others music, others martial arts. Some parents refuse to let their children watch or read Harry Potter in case it influences them to get into witchcraft. That is more than a little ridiculous, and so is the concern about adults playing videogames.

I have seen myself be influenced by video games. After playing Burnout: Revenge, I find myself having to be careful while driving. After playing Katamari Damacy, I find myself influenced to clean up around the house, and thinking about what would roll up well wherever I go. I have gone to sleep and dreamt about matching gems after playing some games, and had music from other games floating through my head for days after. And I play Grand Theft Auto. In the game, I have driven a bus the wrong way down an expressway, plowing down cars as I see fit. I have stolen cars, mugged people, driven through crowded pedestrian areas, have gotten falling-down drunk (and once tried to drive that way… boy that didn’t last long), driven off "stunt ramps" so my car could fly dozens of yards, and done donuts on a baseball diamond and a beach. Am I influenced to do anything I have tried in game? No. Why? Because it is so far removed from who I am in real life that it's not a draw. At all. It is a game, not one in which I'm acting out my violent fantasies, but one in which I'm either trying to accomplish a goal or taking the opportunity to experiment and explore. And that right there is the kicker: games are blamed for corrupting people (much in the same way movies and television and comic books and rock & roll and cartoons and alcohol have in the past), while the truth is people don't need the help. Videogames have been blamed for the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. Some tried to pin the blame on games for the NIU shooting before any evidence was in, and it turned out that the guy hadn’t played a game for years. It is my belief that these people were seriously messed up to begin with, and would have gotten the desire to kill others and themselves had they watched TV, played videogames, listened to music, or read the newspaper. It wasn’t in the media, it was in them.

Video games are the nation's current hysteria. It seems every decade or so, something has to be demonized. The most extreme example is prohibition in the 1930's. Alcohol was the evil “flavor of the month”, and a constitutional amendment was passed (yes, they changed the Constitution of the United States for this) declaring that this evil must be abolished from society. Fewer than ten years later, people realized how silly they were being, and repealed the amendment. Videogames have been the most recent perpetrators of evil in our culture; as they have become more mainstream they have attracted more attention, and those that don’t understand the influence fear the change, just like television, rock music, and the Internet.

Children: don’t play the game. Parents: communicate with your kids. Society: relax.

GTA IV

Evidently, I plan to steal, kill, and destroy. I contribute to the end of all that is good and holy for our children. Look upon me, for I am the face of moral decline. I purchased Grand Theft Auto IV.

There has been a media circus regarding the release of this game. Admittedly, I follow news like this, but it seems that every day someone else (or several someone elses) have to put their two cents in about theage of darkness that will be ushered in by this game. One would think that the cover of this game is a little gate to hell, and opening it will unleash such evil that the western world will dissolve into anarchy.

This game has been called a murder simulator, a cop-killing trainingdevice, and pornography. And it’s a game. One that is played while sitting on the couch, looking at a TV. If this game had been a movie, nobody would have complained. If this game had been a book, nobody would have thought twice. But no, since it’s interactive, it will unravel the fabric of society.

This game is rated M by the ESRB, a rating that is equal to an R rating in a movie. And yes, it earns its rating, perhaps more so than any other videogame I have played. It is a game in which it is inevitable that you will be running from the police. It is a game in which it is very easy to run down pedestrians, and actually a little difficult to avoid it. It is a game in which your character has the option to do any number of illicit things, such as kill a cop, steal a car, pick up a hooker, drive drunk, or go to a strip club (and no, from what I understand, the naughty bits are not visible). It is also a game in which your character can go bowling, watch TV, buy clothes, play darts, or go to a comedy club (and yes, they actually have real comedians doing virtual performances). You have options, just like life.

I understand the concern of parents who don’t want their child exposed to the less virtuous aspects of the game. The language alone is pretty bad. However, several places (including the CTA) have pulled advertisements based off of the complaints of various concerned citizen groups. Is that going too far? To remove advertising because of the damage the product might do to someone that is not in its target audience? Will this advertising be replaced for ads for an R-rated movie? Alcohol? Is this media assault not giving the game tons of free advertising?

I’ve never been a parent, but I do know that if I don’t want my children exposed to something, one of the best ways to do so is to not bring it into my home. Yes, it would be naïve to think that children won’t get exposure to it outside the home, but I am led to believe that’s why parents are supposed to communicate with their children. I feel like the attacks on this game are reflected in the South Park movie. In that, the kids go see aCanadian movie that is far too adult for them, and it affects them negatively. The parents never asked what movie they were going to see, nor did they talk to their children about the effect it had on them. Instead, they chose to Blame Canada for their children’s new vocabulary.

This is a good game. It provides a hugely detailed city to explore, has adeep, engaging storyline, and gives you tons of leeway about how to live your new life in America (the main character is fresh-off-the-boat from Serbia). Yes, in my first few hours of playing I stole four cars (one of which I used to do donuts on the beach before I drove it into the river), ran from the police three times, beat up three people, and shot four more. I also went bowling on a date, ate a hotdog from a street vendor, and watched the sun come up while on a Coney-island-esque pier. Are kids going to buy this game? Not legally. Are kids going to play it? Yes, if their parents let them (through understanding of the kid, or through negligence).Would I let my young kids play it? Hell no. Will I play it? Hell yeah!

The End of the Beginning

And so it goes, one of the inspirations of my youth has gone the way of all flesh. Gary Gygax, the creator of Dungeons & Dragons, has died.

I'm not particularly moved. His influence changed the face of gaming; he introduced the concept of a role-playing game, and for that I will be forever grateful. A lot of concepts came from the tactical wargames from which they evolved, and these games became a cross between wargames and improvisational theatre. But still, gaming has moved on since his 1970's and early 80's influence. If he had not followed his muse, would something like role-playing games exist? It's a good question, and an interesting debate. Not sure if it matters, or if I would have missed it if it hadn't existed, but I'm glad it's a moot point.

In any case, I'm very glad Gygax lived, and in that sense he has achieved immortality. He had a good run. Pour a forty for him.

Mass Effect

Considering the media hooplah that's been going on lately with Mass Effect, I figured now was a good time to review it. My response to the media hooplah is moot. Other people have said it, and sometimes better. Fox News and other conservative publications are simply ridiculous, uninformed, insulting and wrong regarding this. Egad! Fox News distorting the truth for sensationalist purposes? Say it ain't so!

So anyway, Mass Effect. I've mentioned that Heavenly Sword had the best digital actors in any game to date, and after some thought, I'm reconsidering my opinion. I still am crazy impressed by Heavenly Sword, but the digital acting in Mass Effect is on equal footing, it's just that the characters aren't as over-the-top.

Let's start from the very beginning (it IS a very good place to start, isn't it?). When you start the game, you have the option to create your character from relative scratch, or choose one of the two default characters. All the advertising is based off the default male character, and that kind of confuses me. I created my own character, making him look vaguely like a badass version of myself. He had the acne scars, auburn hair, reddish unshaven look, big nose, that sort of thing. I remember going through the game as him. I see the advertising for the game with the default character and think, "Wait. That's not the same game I played. The guy is different. Who's this guy?" Then I get back to thinking that yes, I changed the default, and its someone else. It's akin to watching the TV show M*A*S*H for years, and then going back to the movie and wondering who this Elliot Gould guy is where Alan Alda should be. Or Michael Gambon as Dumbledore instead of Richard Harris. You get the picture.

So anyway, I went through the game with badass-me as the main character. And we start, and I'm already blown away. It's a movie, complete with recognizeable actors, but you're able to interact with the story. There is actual cinematography, actual acting in an interactive sequence. For those who are not as exposed to gaming, this is unusual. Yes, games have been getting more and more artistic as of late, but this raises the bar dramatically. These conversation sequences play to the viewer's emotions, unfolding according to how you respond, but portrayed in a very watchable style (there's even a rack-focus in one of the tense scenes). There were times when I was watching the story unfold in conversation sequence, and I thought, "Meh, I've seen movies like this before." And that's the thing. Games are still a relatively young art form, not nearly as advanced as film. And yet, I was comparing this game to a movie and favorably.

The story is moderately straightforward, but difficult to summarize. For that, I'll pull straight off the website:

The galaxy is trapped in an endless cycle of extinction. Every 50,000 years, an
ancient machine race invades the galaxy. With ruthless efficiency, the machines
wipe out all advanced organic civilization. They leave behind only the scattered
ruins of technology, destroying all evidence of their own existence. Few believe
this ancient legend. You, however, know it to be true. The fight to stop this
extinction event has become the most important mission in the galaxy. As
Commander Shepard of the SS Normandy, you will take your elite recon squad
across a galaxy in turmoil, in a desperate race to stop the return of an enemy
without mercy. To stop this enemy, you must act without remorse, without
hesitation, and outside the limits of the law. Your only imperative is to
preserve the safety of civilized life in the galaxy - at any cost. You must
become the tip of the spear of humanity, for you alone know the full extent of
what is at stake if you should fail.

Yes, it's something similar to what I've seen before: Ancient big nasty thing wants to destroy everything in your world, and you have to stop it (Babylon 5, anyone?). But the way it is told is what makes it magnificent.

The gameplay varies, depending on the style. In conversation sequences, as noted above, it's freakin wonderful. Each choice you make changes your path in the story. You can be a tough-but-good guy, or you can be a heartless bastard. It's all up to you. I understand that this changes how the story unfolds, but I have only played the game once. The action side of it, not as good. It works, and you learn it as you go, but in order to be proficient in combat, you really have to stop the action periodically so you can queue up your next ability. Not such a big fan of that. Ultimately, it didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth, but it did bring me out of the story.

This is a great game, and I recommend it highly. And yes, as the big hulabaloo is all about, there is a sex scene, if you choose to develop your relationships well. However, this game is rated M, and therefore has restrictions for sale placed on it, just like an R rated movie. The fact that the sex scene is about as tame as that which you would see in a PG-13 movie, or on TV after 9:00 doesn't seem to enter critics' minds, but it seems as though reporting impartially and factually doesn't either.

Red Ring of Death

It was really just a matter of time. I knew the Red Fairy would eventually visit me and lay waste to the Xbox, as she has done for so many others. I could blame Microsoft for it, but the thing has served me very well for 21 months, and they would fix it for free. And besides, it's no fun to kick even the bully when he's (kind of) down.

So anyway, the ring of death manifests in several forms, almost always three lights around the power button. The one that is off signifies the actual error. Mine is the top right quadrant (like the one in the picture), which means a "general hardware fault," or "call Microsoft and they'll pay to have it shipped back to them, fixed in 3-4 weeks, and sent back to you."

As it happens, I got the Best Buy extended warrantee thing (which could inspire my "always buy the extended warrantee" speech, but I'll spare you that), and about ten minutes of chatting to some of the friendlier-than-Microsoft Best Buy customer service team leads me to be able to bring my Xbox back to Best Buy and get a gift card for the price I paid plus tax.

Now, I happen to have a few other Besy Buy gift cards, and I know they've dropped the price a bit since I made the original purchase, so maybe I can get something newer and prettier. I was thinking of using the cards for something else (like maybe a Wii), but really, I have a lot invested in the Xbox already, so I might as well stick with what I know.

So Best Buy made things easy, Microsoft met my moderately low expectations. Yay Best Buy! Meh Microsoft!

Heavenly Sword

My father-in-law recenly got a Playstation 3, in order to entice me and his biological son to come and spend time with the folks. Well, it worked.

In any case, it's been a difficult Christmas, and for various and sundry reasons, we haven't been able to see Heidi's parents for a few weeks, which was to end today. We got there early in the morning and, due to some poor planning and miscommunication, ended up sitting alone at their home for a good four hours.

Since I try to take advantage of situations as they arise, I chose to play one of the two games they happened to have: Heavenly Sword.

The game focuses around Nariko, a sort of supernatural sword-weilding Lara Croft. She has been charged with the protection of the Heavenly Sword, a magical sword of tremendous power, but which comes with a curse to take the life force of the one who weilds it. As it happens, King Bohan (played by Andy Serkis) wants the sword for himself and, since he's subjugating the known world anyway, comes to claim it. Nariko figures the best way to protect the sword is to use it to destroy everyone in her general vicinity, and hilarity ensues.

This is, as can be expected, a hack and slash game. And as a hack and slash game, it's really fun. The amount of damage you can dish out to the various enemies nearby is a lot of fun, as is the figuring out of the fighting combos. But as far as gameplay, there are some notable differences; the swordplay is a heck of a lot of fun, but when you get into playing with projectiles is where it gets to be a real kick in the pants.

There are a few times when you get to shoot stuff, many of which are when you're playing as Nariko's kid "sister," Kai. The gameplay in shooting can be pretty straighforward: you point, you shoot. But that's not all that interesting. When you hold down the fire button, you jump to a Sam Raimi follow-the-projectile shot and, using the PS3's sixaxis control (the motion sensitive controller), you can guide the arrow/cannonball/whatever to your target. It makes for a heck of a lot of fun, guiding your ammo to its destination, not by guiding a stick, but by actually moving the controller itself. It's sort of like when you watch a bowler try to psychically guide his bowling ball down the lane, but actually effective. And crazy fun.

Another huge note about this game is that it features digital actors. Convincing digital actors. I've seen this before (I have yet to write about Mass Effect... expect that to come soon), but this game has cutscenes that, with limited exceptions, could come from a movie. The actors are expressive enough to be considered actors, pulling facial expressions so real that you have to step back for a second and think if it's a game or a movie, if it's digital or actual. The characters are incredibly over-the-top, but the acting within those characters is stunningly real, and sometime freakin' hilarious.

This game is exclusively for the PS3, and I can see how it uses the hardware's capability to its fullest. The environments are huge, and there's no real transition between what's right in front of you or what's over that hill. A lot of games will have "filler" in the background to make it easier on the hardware. With a PS3, not so necessary. The visuals are also stunning. Ina lot of games, they make the cutscenes outsie of the game's engine, and they're beautiful, only to go back to the semi-bland game. These cutscenes use the game engine (with maybe a bit of polish) and are freakin' gorgeous!

So yeah, fun game. For the first time in my life, I have gamer's thumb. And I gotta say, I'm glad to have earned it.

Orange Box vs. Halo 3

So here's my deal. I was in a debate with myself, a veritable spiritual wrestling match, over my next game purchase. Whether or not I was going to get a game was not in question. I had warned Heidi well ahead of time, and had discussed this in depth with her. However, which game would it be? Halo 3 recently came out, and was the reigning champion of game purchases. The Orange Box has three games in it, as well as two expansions for one of the games, and therefore was one of the best deals for a new game in history.

Half a dozen of my friends had Halo 3, and there were literally more than a million more people out there who had the game. I knew that if I got that, there would never be any shortage of online multiplayer partners. I knew that I would have a constant supply of friends with which I could play, as I could easily do a split screen multiplayer, even if I had a friend who didn't have the game. I knew the graphics would be incredible from screenshots I had seen. The reviews of Halo 3 were freakin' stellar. I hadn't played Halo 2, but I had played Halo. I don't remember enjoying Halo's single player all that much, but it would be multiplayer which would be the selling point.

Nobody I knew had The Orange Box, but it was still mouthwatering. One of the games on it is Half-Life 2. Half-Life 2 is widely considered the greatest single-player shooter ever made. Some even call it the greatest game ever made. I played it briefly on my old computer, but it kept crashing my system (like I-have-to-uninstall-the-whole-thing-t0-get-the-system-working-right crashing), so I couldn't get past a certain point. Still, I loved what I had played. The Orange Box also includes the subsequent two episodes of Half-Life 2, which I'd also heard were very good. Team Fortress 2 is another game on it. I have fond memories of playing the original Team Fortress for hours on end, and learning tricks which would serve me for years to come in various other games (as well as a few which would assist me in real life). Portal is the third game on it, and I knew very little about it, except the reviews I had read, which were generally very positive.

So that was my quandry: get the great game that several of my friends have, but which I really didn't know how much I'd enjoy the single player experience, or get the incredible deal that not many other people were getting, but which I knew would be good from previous experience. I knew I was getting one of them, just didn't know which.

Gamerankings.com is sort of the rottentomatoes of games. It aggregates all the reviews of all major review outlets and gives you an average of their opinions. Halo 3 ranked incredibly high, at 94.1% (it's since slipped a fraction of a percent, as it had one review that was only very good). Orange Box was too new to really rank, but it still had about ten reviews. I believe at the time the rating was 95.6% (it's currently 97.5%). That tore it. If the reviews were marginally more positive for the one that I already knew was going to be good, then I'll be antisocial and take the one that nobody else has.

So, I would have blogged about this before, but I was a little preoccupied. And Portal, the one I didn't know anything about, is absolutely wonderful, in addition to being laugh-out-loud funny. I finished it over the weekend, and want to play it again, even though I already know how to solve all the puzzles. Also, I might add, my friend Zach broke down and bought The Orange Box over the weekend.

Bioshock

I just finished Bioshock, a relatively new game for the Xbox 360. I guess the best word to describe this game would be "creepy." Here's the story: you are some guy in 1960 whose plane goes down in the ocean, and you happen upon a small island with a lighthouse, in which is a bathysphere which takes you down to the great underwater city of Rapture. Andrew Ryan, a Howard Hughes/Charles Foster Kane type of individual thought it would be neat to create a magnificent city of intellectuals. A city of unlimited potential. A city beyond the reach of any earthly government. A city in which people could play with their genetics at their leisure. Since the substance required to play with genetics (called Adam) is found only in these slug-like things found under the sea, that's where this city should be. In one of the quotes of the game, he says, "It wasn't impossible to build Rapture under the sea, it would be impossible to build it anywhere else." With him, he brings some of the greatest minds of the late 50's, and they build an empire that swiftly goes terribly terribly wrong.

The story plays out primarily in radio communications and audio diaries, so you're only picking up snippets of the story at a time. Still, those snippets are enough to fill you in on the citizens of Rapture flirting with godhood, the subsequent need to exploit one another, and Ryan's desperate attempts to restore order. It's pretty twisted. But that's not really where the creepiness lies.

The nameless you enters the scene, and immediately you inject yourself with a "gene tonic" with which you can ignite things by snapping your fingers. And yes, it's a little odd that you immediately choose to inject yourself with a foreign substance, but that gets explained sufficiently later. Rapture is a mess. The people are all insane, the lighting is dark and flickery, there are leaks everywhere, and the groaning of metal under the sea or the crazed ramblings of the inhabitants can really freak you out. This game is built to freak you out, and it does a good job with that.

In order to "purchase" more gene upgrades (which you realize quickly you need in this madhouse), you require Adam. Adam is in these undersea slugs, which are implantd in little 10-year-old girls, called "Little Sisters" (later on it is explained why it has to be little girls). You have the choice of saving the little girls from the influence of these slugs and getting your Adam, or you can pull the slug out of them, killing them, but getting you twice the Adam. I chose to play the way that would let me sleep at night, and I ended the story on a happy note, having saved all these little girls. Later on I may play through, killing them all and seeing how it changes the ending. Maybe not. I know it's just a game, but that's just wrong.

One of the more interesting facets of the game are how you can use the environment to your advantage. You can hack the security cameras and security turrets to do your bidding, which makes it a lot easier to get around (if a security camera spots you, it'll send little gunbots after you... if you hack it, it sends those same gunbots after the badguys who wander into its gaze). Hacking is a fun little minigame in which you try to connect tubes from one end to another, only given a few different pieces to work with. It's challenging, but fun and rewarding. And that does lead to a lot of options: In other reviews I've read, the reviewers discuss the different ways they killed the first boss (one of the genetic surgeons who has gone all kinds of crazy). Some led him into the water in a lower level of his area and electrocuted him. Some shot the canisters of gas near him and blew him up. Some set him on fire. I personally used a hacked turret and camera and had robots do all my dirty work.

Between the mad ramblings of the lunatics down in Rapture, the creepy lighting and sound, and harvesting the Little Sisters, this is a really creepy game. After a while you get kind of used to it, and then things are built to creep you out more (like when the lunatics figure out it'll be easier to kill you if they pretend to be one of the many corpses lying around, and then jump up right when you walk up to them). Y'know, if I'm playing a first person shooter, and I'm killing aliens or robots or criminals or enemy military, I'm OK with that. Going through this place that looks like a riot happened in an underwater asylum, not so much. I like the tenseness and excitement that comes from just making it through the enemy onslaught, but being creeped out and feeling like I'm putting these people down because they're just too sick to live.

So it's a good game, with a lot of potential. It allows for a lot of replayability, since you can try different tactics on your enemies. It's got a deep and engaging story, with some pretty significant and dynamic and surprising twists. But it's really freaky.

So, this Halo 3 thing

No, I haven't bought it yet. Although it appears as though I'm the only person in the world who owns an Xbox 360 that hasn't. I even have one friend who specifically bought an Xbox 360 for Halo 3. Fortunately, he bought at a good time, as there are a lot of cool games coming out for it in the next few months.

For those who are reading this through an RSS feed, pehaps the first link above isn't working as well as perhaps it could. Read this:

Microsoft today announced that Halo 3 has officially become the biggest entertainment launch in history, garnering an estimated $170 million in sales in the United States alone in the first 24 hours. The Xbox 360 title beat previous records set by blockbuster theatrical releases like Spider-Man 3 and novels such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Stores across the country were packed with Halo fans.

Halo 3 is the conclusion to the epic trilogy and picks up where Halo 2 left off, answering questions around the fates of the beloved protagonist Master Chief and his
artificial intelligence sidekick Cortana as they struggle to save humankind from
destruction at the hands of the alien coalition known as the Covenant. In
addition to the rich storyline, Halo 3 continues the franchise's grand tradition
of delivering innovative online multiplayer experiences via Xbox LIVE, the
world's largest social network on TV.

"Halo 3 has become a pop-culture phenomenon," said Shane Kim, corporate vice president of Microsoft Game Studios. "Not only is Halo 3 setting sales records, it's also redefining entertainment. Within the first 20 hours alone, we've seen more than
a million Xbox LIVE members come online to play Halo 3—that makes September 25
the most active Xbox LIVE gaming day in history."

Retailers have also expressed their excitement about the launch of Halo 3. Bob McKenzie, Senior Vice President of Merchandising for GameStop Corp commented that, "With consumer demand for Halo 3 and related products, we expect it to be the biggest video game title generator in GameStop's history."

"The initial demand we've seen for Halo 3 has been astounding, and the game is on track to become the number one gaming title of all time. Halo 3 is a genuine
entertainment phenomenon and our customers have responded very enthusiastically
to the release," said Jill Hamburger, vice president of movies and games at Best
Buy. More than 10,000 retailers hosted Midnight Madness events to
celebrate the launch of this third installment in the billion-dollar franchise.

More than 1.7 million copies of Halo 3 were preordered in the United States before a single store opened its doors at midnight on September 25, making this the fasting pre-selling game in history, surpassing the previous record-setting pre-sales of Halo 2. Well beyond just a U.S. phenomenon, the launch of Halo 3 was a worldwide celebration that released in 37 countries and available in 17 languages.

Now, admittedly, Halo 3 costs six or seven times the cost of a movie ticket, and three times the cost of a book. But still, the biggest entertainment day in history for a single-platform game. I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around the magnitude of this.

On art and videogames

There has been some talk as of late about videogames and whether or not they are art. Roger Ebert said in one of his reviews that he did not think videogames were art. Clive Barker refuted that and said that they were art. This is where I came in on the issue; here is Roger Ebert's response to that. This was also brought up in episode 19 of Battleship Pretension (a very good movie podcast done by two guys who really know film, but have limited exposure to games). I emailed the Battleship Pretension folks, but I did a really good write-up, and I think it warrants a wider audience.

First thing, I will admit my bias toward videogames (I include computer games in this, although there is a bit of a difference between the two; for this argument it is irrelevant). I am a proud gamer, and pretty much anybody who knows me well knows that about me. As a result, however, my opinion is biased. Still, I think my arguments are valid.

So I put it to you: What is the purpose of art? From my understanding, art's purpose on the surface is to elicit an emotional reaction from its audience, through the work of one or more artists. Ebert's argument that a bowel movement also elicits an emotional reaction is ridiculous, unless you actually are capable of crapping movies, games, or literature. I know, it seems as though Brett Rattner and his like simply poops out his work, but he actually does put effort into the creation of it. On a deeper level, art is intended to guide its audience on their own journey of self-discovery. The latter is what I think Ebert would call "great art."

On the deeper level (great art), there are very few games that achieve that, but they do exist. On the surface level (art), there are a LOT. There are also some that elicit the reaction of rage, simply because it's so freakin' bad. Much like film. Or theatre. Or literature. Or visual art. Or music.

The concept that video games cannot be great art, simply based off of the fact that the audience is a participant, is ridiculous. Does that mean that art appreciation must, by definition, be passive? Are you unable to absorb information or appreciation, is it impossible to change the entire paradigm of your life, simply because you are more involved in its outcome? Are characters any less impactful because you are interacting with them? Ebert mentions that having multiple storylines devalues them all. That makes no sense to me at all. How can it possibly devalue the story if it is indeed a well-written, well-acted, well-designed ending? If it sticks with you and leaves you feeling as though you've said goodbye to a good friend? This is similar to arguing that if there are several different artforms, that they are each less valuable than if there is a single "art." In this argument he mentions that he could make Romeo and Juliet with them naked and standing on their hands. Yes, he could, and that might be art, but would a game designer choose to do that? Only if he was a moron.

Presumably the arguments for videogames being art were primarily focused around stories and characters, and it has been postulated that they were only art when they lined up with other, "actual" art forms. So does this mean that a films with a deep, engaging plot and stirring characters who are brilliantly acted cannot possibly be art because it lines up with similar qualities of live theatre? Does the fact that a game pulls facets from media which preceded it invalidate the art of the medium in which it was created? It has also been mentioned that one's style of gameplay invalidates the art ("I'll save my game, and go through that door"). So does that mean that the style in which someone absorbs art makes the creator less of an artist? Would that mean that if a person flips around a book to absorb it, or reads the last page first, that the person who wrote it was not an artist?

In this particular episode of the podcast, Tyler and David both mentioned Castle Wolfenstein as an example of videogames-as-not-art. I don't think this is a valid argument, as Wolfenstein was very early in game development, and could be easily compared with The Great Train Robbery of videogames. Was The Great Train Robbery good art in comparison to other media of the time? No, it was crap. Was it groundbreaking film? Hell yeah!

Ebert says that most games are either point & shoot (Doom-esque) or scavenger hunts (Myst-esque). And yes, that point is semi-valid; as it happens, the "scavenger hunt" game is out of vogue, although he could easily have put in some derogatory euphemism for Real-Time Strategy games and made a similar valid point. It is also valid to note that none of the games I consider to be great art are either of these styles, and it is pretty difficult to do an artistic game in these styles (although First Person Shooters these days often do have compelling stories behind them, and are frequently highly regarded in the gaming community).

In order to determine if a video game is great art, let's think about what makes a film great art. Beautiful writing, done on multiple levels, is arguably the strongest sign of a great film. Sometimes, if it is written so nothing significant happens on the surface level, but there's huge depth on other levels, that makes for a great script. Perfect cinematography, on its own, will not make a great film, but it can enhance an otherwise good film to greatness. Brilliant acting on its own will make for a good film, but in the presence of a good script the film can become a great one. There are other factors, but it seems to me that a great film is primarily about how it's written, with the rest of the film backing up the script.

That said, we can see a lot of games that likely can be considered great art. The Fallout games can be applied to this, as they are written with individual stories that all lead to one big story, which not only is exciting and dynamic, but is also a telling story about the nature of humanity. The same can be said of Planescape: Torment. Both of these games had strong gameplay for the time (not directly an artform, although that could be argued, but important to the immersion necessary to be appreciated), good artwork for the time, good voice acting, and exceptional stories. These are widely considered (among gamers) the classics of gaming, the Citizen Kane of the computer. I actualy cried at the end of Planescape: Torment, and left with a sense of wanting more, but knowing that they had done their story, and there wouldn't be a sequel.

And these are not to say that they are the best or most fun games out there (although they are wonderful and are the favorites of many gamers). Half Life and Half-Life 2 are phenomenal games. Are they great art? No. TIE Fighter is one of my favorites of all time. Is it great art? No, but it is a helluva lot of fun. World of Warcraft is one of the most addictive games out there. It also is not great art, but it is fun.

Anyway, this is a post that comes almost directly from an email that was sent to the Battleship Pretension folks, and requires that you have read the link above and listened to that particular episode. In this I primarily focus on film vs. games, as that was my audience; I don't think this lessens the argument, but it could be expanded to argue other art forms as well. Maybe I'll do that later. Also, this is NOT intended to lessen the impact or power of any other artform, but rather to argue the merits of games. However, I do hold to the opinion that (A) games can be art, even great art, and (B) Roger Ebert's arguments to the contrary are based off of ignorance of the medium.

Spore

I originally heard of this from my friend Zach. He had mentioned something about Will Wright (creator of Sim City and The Sims and countless other Sim games) creating a new game which was effectively sim-everything. It sounded interesting to me, but I let it go. I didn't know much about it, and figured I'd know more when the time was right. And so it came to pass that I'd hear snippets of what was proposed for this game, and I grew covetous.

Here's the deal. You start the game as a microorganism, swimming around in a little puddle, potentially in the primordial ooze of your planet. As you eat and get bigger, you can reproduce and evolve. Soon, you develop complexity, becoming an animal of whatever design you choose. The program will determine how the beast should move, based off of the design (in the first video, Will Wright creates a three-legged thing with a hand on the tail arching over its back, and the program figures out how that thing will move). Anyway, after being a beast and attempting to make your way in the world, you reproduce and evolve, eventually developing the brain capacity to reach sentience. That starts the tribal phase. You're no longer evolving as a species, but instead you're evolving as a culture. Your tribe grows and develops, eventually becoming a city. As you develop your city and your culture, you develop technology, including space travel. You move out from your individual planet into the solar system, colonizing and terraforming other worlds, abducting things, making treaties, starting wars. It's life starting on a small scale, and developing into a huge scale.

One of the better things about this game is that it's largely about design. Sure, you're all about building a greater and better society, but its the design element that's so appealing.

When Matt was here a week ago, he showed a few videos that I had heard about, but had never seen. This first one is at the Game Developers Conference in 2005. It makes me drool, and it's nearly two years old.



This next one is at E3, 2006. It shows the game being more developed, which is cool, and ends with Robin Williams designing a creature.



Keep in mind, these videos are 40 minutes a pop, but they're so very yummy. It's making me quiver with anticipation. It's making Heidi say, "We need two computers, so we can both play." It's making Matt consider getting a Windows system.

Various Ends and Various Beginnings

So, I can drive now. I didn't blog about it, and I didn't really talk about it so much unless it was relevant or necessary. Here's the deal: I had a seizure back in August. No biggie, just something that happens from time to time. I told my neurologist, didn't tell the DMV. However, because the State of Illinois knows that I have a seizure history, they can't renew my license without a medical release from said neurologist. The neurologist can't sign off on my medical release unless I've been seizure free for six months. Still no problem, but here's the kicker: my license expired last December. So, for two months, I didn't drive much, and when I did, I was always looking over my proverbial shoulder (and sometimes my actual one) to make sure I wasn't going to get pulled over for anything. Being pulled over is bad enough when you have to pay $50. When you run the risk of having your car impounded, it's a little worse.

But now I can drive. I got my medical release, I went to the DMV, and I'm a legitimate driver again. It's really freeing when you can legally drive all you want. I'm a happy man.

Also, I've quit World of Warcraft again. I've done it before, and I might end up doing it again, but for now, the game isn't doing it for me anymore (and I have less time to devote to it, with me being out of the house 12 1/2 hours a day). I'm kind of wondering if I've had enough of being a PC gamer. I could consider being a console gamer and getting a Mac, but I'm also not about to make some leap that I don't want to follow through on just yet. Meh, just thinkin.

Burnout: Revenge

Y'know, I don't post a whole lot about games. I do mention that I'm a gamer, but really, in order for me to post about something, it has to make a big impact. Not many games do that anymore. But that has changed recently, as I discovered Burnout: Revenge.

The first "race" I played, it wasn't about getting first in line with the other guy, there weren't even any other racers on the track. Just traffic. Rush hour traffic. The timer gives you forty seconds to wreak as much havoc on the streets (designated in property damage costs) as you can. Each time you ram another car, you get a boost in time, so you can ram more traffic. I first played that after a mean commute, and it was a magnificent release.

The next "race" was a crash. That's it. Nothing else. Your goal in this one is to run at top speed into a busy intersection and cause as much property damage as you can. You get a massive pileup pretty quickly and can rack up millions of dollars of damage (primarily because cars keep ramming the pileup, and then you can explode your car which is hopefully in the middle of the junk heap).

They do have actual races, but even though the goal is to get across the finish line first, the methods are frequently to ram the other car off the road and see him crash spectacularly in slow motion. It's also fun to bounce another car into your opponent, causing him to crash and burn in the same manner.

The locations are beautiful as well. They aren't exact depictions of actual cities, but they clearly evoke the city you're supposed to be visiting. The first one is in "Sunshine Keys," a very Miami-ish setting. The next one is "Motor City," a very Detroitesque city. I've also gone through something that completely resembles northern LA (complete with going over the Hollywood hills at speeds exceeding 100mph), a Roman-ish city and some Swiss mountain area.

No other game in recent memory has given me such sustained glee. I found myself laughing frequently, not so much because something was funny, but because it was just an insane amount of fun. Heidi even played two sessions (the beat-down-traffic one and a crash), looked over to me and said, "Great, just what I need; crack."

This is a great game for anybody who hates traffic (and who of us doesn't). Right now it's a rental, but I've already decided to save up enough to buy it.

Pirates

OK, I'm really looking forward to the new Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Heidi and I have been discussing whether I should go in full pirate regalia or some mock-up of it (it'll be hot this weekend, so I'll probably just wear the pirate T-Shirt and maybe an eyepatch). But something intriguing is on the horizon, something which I find interesting but frightening at the same time: Pirates of the Carribean Online. Yep, you heard me, a MMORPG based of the Pirates of the Caribbean. Now, at first glance, you would think this would be a wet dream of mine. However, Star Wars Galaxies, arguably the easiest MMOG setting you could possibly imagine to do right, was a steaming pile of donkey poo with a good character creation system. Now, this was before World of Warcraft came out, and really, pretty much every MMOG these days is modeled in some way off that system, because game designers (or rather the companies they work for) don't like risk, and that's a well-crafted and violently successful game. So, PoCO could very well end up being a fun game in its own right, but in a much cooler setting and with freakin' pirate ships! However, movie-based games tend to suckalot, so hopes aren't rising too high. I'll look forward to it, I'll try to sign up for the Beta (read: free test-run), but I'm not going to hold my breath for the year it takes to come out (and, being an MMO, it'll get pushed back and/or released earlier than it should have been).

So long, Farewell, Auf Wedersehn, Goodbye!

I realized recently that I was so upset with the system issues with World of Warcraft that I hadn't logged on for a month. I also realized that I didn't miss it. So, I figured it would just be wiser to drop the mild drain on my income, and get rid of the thing altogether. I still have about a week of "leftover" subscription before it runs out, so I could have a change of heart, but I think I'm pretty much legitimately done with this particular online obsession. Keep in mind that the expansion comes out this summer, but so does Middle Earth Online, so no decision is final, just that I'm done with this one for now.

Bout Damn Time

The Altar of Entertainment is complete! Or, at least, as complete as it's going to be for quite a while. I finally, after four months, found an Xbox360... probably could have had one earlier if I actually asked someone at the store, as they tend to not have them out on the shelves. Last night was an orgy of hi-def, 56", surround sound gaming, followed by dreams of said game (which, frankly, were kind of annoying). Between that and the perpetual queues on the World of Warcraft servers, I might just let my World of Warcraft subscription expire. Might.

Gaming and marriage

Heidi has already expressed that she's fully in support of my (excessive?) gaming habits, and has demostrated that, while we were being lazy a couple days ago, and she let me play World of Warcraft for an hour (when I should have been learning lines for a skit...owell). However, this video makes me wonder if we'll be having conversations like this in a couple years.

Fame

I don't normally post this geeky. I reference World of Warcraft on occasion, but never quite so intensly. Anyway, one of my characters on there has a side job of being a tailor. Since he's a spellcaster, all he can wear is cloth (as opposed to leather or mail armor), so he's chosen well. Every time he "levels up," he can make himself another piece of clothing and switch it out, making his total armor count better, boosting stats, what have you. Anyway, I hadn't played this guy in a while and I was wondering why. It's not that he's not a fun character to play, but rather, well, look at him, he looks like a dancer from 1983.I have since changed his outfit, so he doesn't look quite so "flamboyant," but that was a low spot in our "relationship."

Child's Play

I just found a new charity: Child's Play. It's created by gamers for gamers (in a way). It's all about giving kids who have long-term stays in the hospital something to do, be it video games, listening to music, or watching movies. I don't remember much of being in the hospital when I was way young, but what I do remember was pretty traumatic. This, combined with how I reacted when that little girl I never knew had cancer, combined with the fact that it's a charity started by die-hard gamers, all makes me kind of a shoe-in for it. It bugs me that there are no Chicago hospitals currently involved, and even the hospital I went to (Boston Children's Hospital) back in the early 70's isn't there (hell, I don't even know if it exists anymore), but I still feel it's important to give, just so some kid in D.C. (the closest hospital I could find to Boston) might be a little bit happier.

Friends & Frustrations

So I was playing D&D yesterday, and I'm beginning to come to some conclusions I don't want to come to. Let me 'splain. This weekend was one of the best I've had since well before my dad died. Heidi and I acheived a new level in our relationship (I'll write more about that later), and when I was working at church the following morning, we were joking around about a guy with the initials of ASS not being able to have monogrammed underwear, especially on the front, because then it would be confusing. When I got to Richard's house, I was in the best and most playful and silliest mood I'd ever been when I met up with these people. It was wonderful. What followed was a series of personal attacks that I haven't experienced at such a level since early high school. I mean, seriously, there were attacks about my physical appearance (and I'm a fairly handsome man these days), my laugh (which usually brings me into a crowd, for some reason it tends to separate me from this crowd), a whole mess of really juvenile things. None of it was intended to bring me down, I'm sure, and perhaps the contrast from my emotional state when I got there magnified the whole deal, but it really ended up pissing me off. A lot. I stayed the whole evening, but didn't have much fun, and left tired and crappy. And it got me thinking. When I game with the Mensa crowd, I have fun, I feel energized, sometimes a little shagged out, but still alive and happy to have done so. When I game with my friend Jon, I leave wanting more. I have a lot of fun, we all are really happy to be together, we laugh together and it's great. I leave happy and excited. When I game with this crowd, I pretty much always leave tired and annoyed. I have to think about it a bit more, because these are all peole that I do like, ultimately, but I may end up leaving that group.