ejronin Blog

Second Hand Citizens [UPDATED]

Shawn Gordon — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:30:00 GMT

Being a second hand purchaser leaves us as second class citizens in the nation of gaming. We're looked at as "double-dippers;" attending the gaming party with games in hand, reaching for the content salsa twice. The industry hates us and it's the biggest public secret, the pink elephant, and our biggest ultimatum. This is a proxy war wherein we're all soldiers of fortune, but who's fortune?

Double dipping, a clear violation of the rules in a gathering; a party foul. Double-dipping refers to the actions of an individual who takes a food item, dips it into a sauce, eats a portion, and then dips into the sauce a second time. Many people find it disgusting to eat or drink after another person, but it's totally cool if by yourself.

Double-dipping can also refer to illegitimate compensation for the same item two times. In the case of games, people who buy used titles are scorned and penalized by having to pay for content access, thus paying for the content usually already on the disc twice; once for the opportunity to access the content, and a second for the actual content. Whether this is "illegitimate" remains a point of debate, but it feels illegitimate to some.

The industry spends thousands of dollars paying college educated executives to figure out new and exciting ways to get gamers to part with their money. I enjoy gaming so I don't have a problem investing in my own entertainment, but I'm a person who also enjoys some semblance of choice in how I go about being entertained. Apparently choosing what to pay based on the perceived value of a title is beyond my grasp and I have to pay an additional fee to get what is already on the disc I've paid to "own," er license, er... lease?

Slowly the gaming industry has tried to sell the idea that investing in new games helps the industry more than buying used. The industry argument however is that used games create industry poverty (and in a year I expect they'll attempt to imply that buying used games means we hate America and that the terrorists will win). To some extent new games do help the industry but so does buying used games.

Publishers pay developers for their indentured servitude (or maybe that was just Rockstar and EA). When we pay a premium price to publishers, theoretically it pays for future development of future games. When we buy used, it maintains interest and keeps people engaged. With some developers saying "no" to yearly sequels, keeping interest and engaging the audience is important. How many people will go back and buy Halo 1-3, Reach, and ODST when Halo 4 comes out? Probably a lot just to have the collection and relive the story leading up to 4. If their support and interest wasn't there, the revitalization wouldn't be nearly as profound as it may be. Poor initial sales is a steep price for cutting off the nose of used game buyers to spite their face.

Long gone are the days where a used game comes with all the bells and whistles a new copy came with. As the evolution of things like EA's loathed "Online Pass" continue, Sony suddenly locked the entire multiplayer experience of Resistance 3 without the one-time use pass code on the booklet. Meanwhile, EA brings out Season Ticket, and Activision invades the wallet of frugal gamers with "Elite." But wait... there's more. Capcom was "discovered" to implement permanent game saves that can't be wiped. Namco followed suit lending credit to the idea it may be an early experimental "ruination" method for used game buyers much like the ink tags on department stores ruin shoes, pants and dresses - or rather, simply detracting from the assertion of either company that no intent to thwart used sales was present. What really begins to get my goat is the upcoming title "RAGE"

Id Software’s Creative Director Tim Willits has revealed that purchasing Bethesda's upcoming title used will keep several “hatches” on its map locked during the games single player campaign. From an interview with Eurogamer Willits remarks:

If you bought the game new, that would be open for you,” he explained. "You still have to download it, but you don’t have to pay for it. Those 'hatches' are all over. Most people never find them. But as soon as you do, you’re like, oh. And then you start to look for it. That’s our first-time buyer incentive.

From a consumer perspective, I suddenly feel like a second class citizen for a second hand purchase. Used games sales are a primary indicator for the impact of a title and franchise. When retail establishments offer a used title at $20 off new retail six months after release, it is stupid to question why people buy used over new. A few closed hatches might not be that big a deal and this will boil down to what a gamer is willing to go without.

I wonder... have these guys heard the fable about the Goose That Lays the Golden Egg? The moral is you don't kill it. Gamers, new or used buyers are each half of that golden egg laying goose. Killing half the goose may not stop it from laying golden eggs, but I'm pretty sure it'll lay less often and in fewer troy ounces.Either way, when an industry forces a portion of the supporting community to fold and submit, there's the risk of losing that portion of people. With reports of lagging game sales and so one, it seems strange to want to act in spite toward some of the support.

Used item sales have been around for over a century and has not been exclusive to the gaming industry. Pawn shops sell everything from rifles to cameras, and often a console with video games. They may not offer the consumer much in the way of profit return or quality assurance but they're undoubtedly a common source for used consoles and games. They make money from selling the items like GameStop. Rather than try and and adjust the EULA to make explicit lines within the First Sale Doctrine. Currently the term "buy" with regard to software really means "license" but publishers openly admit that what they're doing is "selling." Looking back at Vernor v. Autodesk from a few years back, it seemed Autodesk "won" the battle of used software sales when Vernor was selling used software. Shortly after Autodesk "won," the case went to an appellate court. From an Ars Technica article:

...as Vernor's lawyers pointed out, the distinction between a lease and a sale is based on the actual characteristics of the transaction, not merely on how the transaction is described by the parties. And characterizing AutoCAD as merely licensed, rather than sold, barely passes the straight face test. AutoCAD customers pay a lump sum at the time of purchase, with no obligation to make further payments or to return the software at the conclusion of the supposed lease....In a 21-page decision, Judge Jones sided with Vernor. Citing the 1977 case of United States v. Wise, which involved the sale of used films obtained under dubious circumstances, Jones found that the Ninth Circuit's precedents suggested that the circumstances surrounding the sale of AutoCAD software constituted a sale, not merely a license. Therefore, the First Sale Doctrine applied, and Vernor was not bound by any of the terms in Autodesk's license agreement.... If software is sold, rather than licensed, then no license is required to install and use the software, and the terms of shrink-wrap licenses may not be legally binding.

Of course, this was overturned again and the ruling now stands that we don't own our games, period. They're licensed. If one opens the EA EULA, it states clearly the game was not sold to you (yet doesn't mention anything about resale). In response to the final ruling, the American Library Association states:

...judicial enforcement of software license agreements, which are often contracts of adhesion, could eliminate the software resale market, require used computer sellers to delete legitimate software prior to sale, and increase prices for consumers by reducing price competition for software vendors.

Enter again EA's "Origin."

Other rather interesting supplemental reads, should one be able to acquire them or have the desire to obtain greater depth beyond my personal opinion, I would suggest the following academic and legal opinions:

Digital Exhaustion

Why License Agreements Do Not Constitute Control Copy Ownership

"Glider Case"

A lot of this stuff

It could be argued that "service" can imply support by way of patches, but patches often fix issues within the game prior to sale; a warranty repair of sorts. Sure, we could argue a warranty doesn't have to extend to the second-hand user. I'd agree with that. What I would point out however, is that in a way patches are also ensuring the software is at the ideal based on intent. Developers and publishers selling software have the obligation to sell their intention. I don't believe Dead Island was intended to ship with 37 bugs, so if I buy the title used, there's an entitlement to have the game as the developers intended.

Could there be a case against this on the grounds that no indication is given at the point of sale (or license) that secondary users will have degraded functionality? Doesn't this somehow seem like sale of items under false pretense? Is there justification in crippling the software and charging consumers to reinstate full functionality over a disagreement in philosophy between retailer and publisher? Where is the ethics in enforcing a binding agreement between user and publisher via EULA upon opening a product, if the only method to review the EULA is to open the product?

Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but looking back people have said the same about previous worries only to find themselves in the midst of wolves once thought lambs, yet I'm the arrogant ass for wanting to buy used games, save a few bucks to invest in a greater number of titles with higher frequency and maintain interest. Pardon me while I crawl back into my hole and await the reappearance of my goat.

In the meantime, ponder this:

Buying and selling used is about the original media and the license with it. The licenses don't actually state the disk cannot be given to another for a sum of money and they don't state an individual cannot lend the software without the involvement of money. So long as the original licensee transfers the original license, it seems legally fair. Look at OEM copies of Windows, volume licenses, enterprise editions, and so on.

What it seems more to me is that developers and publishers want to charge per license, which is fine; they practice this now. If we look at this as though publishers are not selling the software, they're licensing it, then re-selling is not a sub-license (retaining the original license and granting equal rights under the original), and since a disk is required to execute the software, both software and license are transferred as required by law. However, publishers are arguing that despite the number of initial licenses "bought", they'd prefer to get paid per personal experience - attempting to charge for a used title on the grounds that the next person to have the experience or access the content has not paid the publisher directly, under the same context as the original licensee.

When we play games, we all have a slightly different experience. Review sites such as GIO, IGN, CVG, Eurogamer, et. al., often rate games differently followed by droves of gamers commenting on whether they agree or disagree with the review score, lending proof to different experiences or at least different perceptions, thus personal experience in context to a game played isn't qualifiable or quantifiable. Publishers are essentially asking (or slowly forcing, take your pick), authority to place a qualifiable value on social opinion and then charge a set price regardless of time passage while also reserving the right to set the value at zero and stop the support (read: access) at their leisure (read: when it is no longer profitable). Gamers could vote with their wallet, but even games that no one likes have published sequels, rendering the entire concept of wallet based voting rather moot (DJ Hero anyone?).

[ADDENDUM]

In response to Fever Ray - and because his comment prompted article worthy response, I'll also put my response to him here]

"If you want to make the car analogy..."

But I don't. It's an apples to oranges comparison that people make, and it's heavily flawed which is why I avoided that analogy in the first place. I get you derived the car argument from the term "lease" but you can lease more than a car. Other leasable items are an apartment, power equipment, a house, furniture; lease is just another word for rent. I can rent a game from Blockbuster for $1.99 a day. And, if the CSR isn't paying attention, get the bonus DLC code if i'm the first to rent it. Where's the outrage from the industry on renting games? How about the outrage where Blockbuster will sell previously rented titles for more than GameStop. the value of the game to the consumer is the same between both retail establishments, but it's GameStop that catches heat - why? because used sales are the majority of their business.

If I were to go lease an HD TV would it be justified that if I didn't buy directly from the manufacturer, I lose HD or function of my HDMI ports? No. I don't repa the benefits of a warranty or repair services from Samsung if I get a used LCD, but that's okay. I don't expect Samsung to grant me a warranty. I do expect that I have full access and functionality of the product, however. Bear in mind that places that lease, buy them outright from the manufacturer - they've been sold already.

"The whole second-class citizens argument is weak to me; if you don't buy from the manufacturer, I fail to see how you're a citizen at all- you're giving no custom to the creator- what do they owe you?"

Hmmm... interesting point. Would you use that same argument in a debate about illegal immigration? If so, then are you aware that the US Constitution provides for people on US soil, not just the citizens? I know that's not the debate here but I'm interested in seeing if your principle is as conditional as it sounds.

A rule of marketing is that the best business is return business and the best advertising is word of mouth. Used games promote return business and shares the experience with others. You don't think Activision doesn't tally their "sales data" with "used" games and reports a general number there do you? The creator has already been paid for the projected value of the item through the publisher, and the publisher through retailers. Like most industries, the developer is paid a certain percentage to start the work, then upon completion paid the rest.

What's more is that used games don't typically appear until months after the initial release. By that time the game is considered 'old' and the publishers don't count of income from the title. The only reason they're mad is because someone tapped the market before they did.

No publisher or developer has yet to present factual data on exactly how much money is lost to them in the used game market and no publisher or developer has responded to the fact that when a consumer saves money on a used game, it puts more money in their hand to buy a new one. Additionally, no data supports that there are a group of gamers that ONLY buy used.

Point of fact - less rotation means less money, yet publishers choose not to see that. Used and second-hand sales have been a part of numerous industries - books, clothes, cars, houses, small electronics and yet each one of those industries survive and flourish (partially because of it). I find it laughable to think that an industry that prides itself on creativity is the only one to complain and cry foul.

Cultures do need to change, but how is this "evolutionary" for gamers?

"Conversely, publishers are well within their rights to restrict access to things like online content- or really anything else."

I agree ONLY if the online mode of play is through dedicated servers set up by publishers or developers. In that case, developers and publishers would incur cost when people buying used went online to play. Typically, publishers don't have a dedicated server for a title thus incur no cost when I play online. Madden doesn't use a dedicated server... Medal of Honor wasn't using a dedicated server... Resistence 3 was a first party title so there's a stronger argument for Sony locking the multiplayer, but I did pay full retail for my PS3 and if multiplayer is peer-to-peer, I'm running my game through the hardware I paid for.

Speaking of which, do you seriously think Sony or Microsoft are stepping up and saying "hey, if you buy a used console then we can't make any money?" No. Why? Because it's a false argument.

What about with Capcom and Namco who implemented a permanent save? You don't think it devalues the game when you can't erase the save? In what appears to be an effort to break the incentive to buy a used game cart, a permanent save also means that if the person keeps the game there's no real excitement in playing it a second time. The game is good for a single experience to a single user.

In essence, if I'm to believe that selling or buying used games rapes the industry, then I guess I shouldn't take part in sharing a great experience I had with a game with other people that play games. "Too bad a$$holes, buy your own."

I still feel that to some extent the publishers are sour grapes because they're a leaner middle man than used item retailers. They're using developers and consumers as pawns, and no one thinks that's low - but *** me to hell if I want to get something second-hand?

To quote Michael Pratcher from GI.biz back in '09

If trade-ins occur at GameStop, they should position the trade-in customer to buy more new games than he/she would otherwise normally purchase. Because the average used game value is around 20 per cent of the new game price, we think that used game trade-ins fuel incremental sales of over six per cent of total new game sales, suggesting that the cannibalization from the used game ‘push’ is more than offset by the benefit from used game currency.

Off Topic: I Wonder...

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:29:00 GMT

Breaking from the traditional intellectualism (or alleged intellectualism) of my normal posts, I was compelled to share a list of things that keep me up at night.

I wonder why:
"Where's Waldo?" caught on. Don't we generally look for things we lose? What is the point of paying money for a book full of the same man someone else continues to lose on the very next page after you do all that work to find him. That is why I sent the book I was given one Christmas back to the author with a note that read:

"Mr. Handford,
Poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine. You lost Waldo, you f*cking find his a$$ for a change.

Sincerely,
Shawn 'next time, buy a leash' Gordon"

I wonder why:
Handbags are called handbags. Other bags with a prefix hold what that prefix is, for example a trash bag; it holds trash and it's designed to hold trash. The handbag however, contains no hands, and is not designed to. It's also expensive. So, I think the next time my wife wants to spend $300 on a Kathy handbag, it better have a hand in it.

I wonder why:
Parents encourage imaginative and creative behavior until their children are around 15, and then if they continue this lifelong behavior past 15 the children suddenly have ADD?

I wonder why:
If God is everywhere, it's "wrong" to go into a porn theater, too?

I wonder:

If everyone poops, does the Pope take Holy Sh*ts?

I wonder why:
Guys are afraid of buying tampons? I mean, it's pretty obvious that we're not buying them for ourselves.

I wonder why:
Phonetic isn't spelled phonetically and palindrome isn't spelled the same forwards or backwards?

I wonder why:
Kamikaze pilots bothered with helmets and a seatbelt?

I wonder why:
Self-Help comes in groups and you hear about it through other people?

I wonder why:
There's not another word for synonym?

I wonder if:
Antonym is its own antonym.

I wonder why:
It's okay to point at your wrist to inquire about the time, but rude to point at your crotch if you want to inquire about a bathroom?

Battlefield: Modern Ware-Fare and the Required Elitism within Industry vs. Culture

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:33:00 GMT

This article is a response to Jimmy2tymes's blog Why Gamer Elitism is Bad for the Industry.

It's football season. I sat on my couch with my 8 year-old son last Sunday and watched happily as Manning lead the New York Giants to their first loss of the season against my home team, the Washington Redskins. You may not be a Redskins fan, and I respect your choice to like sh*tty teams, but nothing you say or do; no degree of valid points or strength of arguments made will dissuade me from my fandom.I think they're the best team. I think no matter what your team accomplishes they still suck and no matter what you think or why, you're stupid for thinking it. My team rocks. When they do good, I look good by association. My tastes are creme de la creme because I only like things that are good. No, I'm not one of those misguided emo-hipster types (you fool) - I'm an elitist (duh!).

Elitism has become generalized over time, much like "gamer" or "hardcore," because they're self-applied. A lack of accepted standard definition has lead the gaming culture down this road and although it's really depressing that despite the overall unity as a culture we claim to want, our labeling of one another speaks volumes to the contrary.

When I talk to some Modern Warfare fans, they tell me that they're "so hardcore, they bought the Elite edition of the games on both systems - didn't care how much it cost, they're that hardcore." Well, by that logic I must be a hardcore "dresser". I have suits that cost more than the down-payment on a brand new Mercedes.

I've heard some of these "hardcore" Modern Warfare fans claim their status on the merit of obtaining every achievement or trophy in every game in the franchise and play on nothing less than elite mode. Get ready - was a "hardcore" student. I went to school on "elite mode" by taking nothing less than honors or AP classes and graduated High School with a 4.2 GPA a year early, joined the military, and still managed to earn four college degrees before I was 30.

Reading the above I do sound like an elitist. Actually, I sound more like an an a$$hole that needs to be punched in the face. We'll just agree that the above sounds like I'm an elitist a$$hole (read: I'll dictate to you the context and definition of terms you will accept, without question). To be honest, I had a hard time controlling myself just in writing that; I was compelled to kick my own a$$ (but I threatened myself with an a$$ beating if I did that, got scared, and backed down.)

Like Jimmy2Tymez, I'm in my 30's (I'm only a year older than he), I have a job, a family that becomes priority, a long gaming history that overshadows most, and have an education . I wasn't always the mediocre level 11 GI member, I started out as a level 1 during the site reboot and dealt with the same elitism from users transitioning from the old site. I wasn't always the average level 14 PSN account (I have more substantive life goals than trophies), I didn't even get a PS3 until 2 1/2 years ago. I could go on and on about what I have and how I got there from what I didn't, but it's not at all important. The long short of it is I started out like everyone else in the world, wet, ignorant, naked, and hungry. I will also die like everyone else; alone, likely in some measure of pain, and unable to take anything from life with me. It's not a reality we readily accept, but it's the reality we get and I think running from that unpleasant reality is just another self-disservice.

I don't agree with Jimmy's conclusion or how he draws it. This isn't to say he's "wrong" or that I'm better than he is - only that I think there's some important things missed in the reflection upon the issue, and that I simply disagree. I applaud Jimmy for stating his case openly and freely. I wish more would.

From Jimmy's blog I gleaned:

"I'm a gamer just like anyone else despite the various standards among the smaller cliques and sub-groups that work hard at setting themselves apart with divisive labels. I've been around as long, if not longer than most of the people with the elitist attitudes, but you don't see me with that attitude. Get over yourselves"

Technically, yes - that attitude is there. 2/3 of his blog reads like a justification for acceptance into the same group he admonishes, and uses "I'm like you" as both the causality and qualifier of his opinion. The remaining 1/3 seeks to tie in the reasoning that elitism works against the hand that feeds us. The former is merely Jimmy's opinion and I can't say I disagree completely with the sentiment. The latter however, I think conflates "industry" with "culture" and lacks a certain context that clearly defines either. In either case, the underlying image I get is that someone on the Internet is upset that someone else on the Internet thinks less of them over something unquantifiable about something unqualifiable. Now it all seems a sophomoric, but understandable nonetheless. I've been there before and will be there again on some things. I'm not as perfect as I make myself out to be in my opening (shocked?).

ELITISM HELPS THE INDUSTRY

Elitism is one of the most helpful things in the gaming industry. From a cultural aspect many people hate it. It makes some of us feel bad, embarrassed, or second-class. That's the objective of the attitude by definition, so complaining won't do anything. It's a useless fight. That said, I think a great example of how and why elitism is great in the industry is the heated rivalry between Battlefield and Modern Warfare.

Personally, MW as a franchise has done little more than stagnate and this crap with the "Elite" mode is merely condensing methods of organization players previously sought outside the game, usually for free, and charging money on the justification that the actions are sanctioned by Activision in-house; a one-stop multiplayer experience. Along with the Elite subscription, players get monthly updates of maps and non-subscribers get the quarterly releases of map packs per usual. What's not said is if the monthly updates will be one or two maps a month and if the quarterly maps packs for non-subscribers will now be more expensive to encourage subscriptions. My personal opinion on this is of very little consequence to the die hard fans. These fans will get the game and pay the money regardless of what it is I say. Some of them will act like elitists. So, how is this good - to have people acting like children and promoting superficial rivalry?

It makes money. The strange thing about money is that it's required to do things, fun things - like gaming.

Similarly, for every Washington fan there's a Dallas fan just like for every Battlefield fan there's a Modern Warfare fan. When these fans go at it with each other, the franchise owners bet on making a lot of money. Even now, gamers are making pre-orders on Modern Warfare, some, simply because they don't want to hear "Battlefield outsells Modern Warfare 3 over Holiday 2011." Likewise, there are some people that like Battlefield or just hate Modern Warfare and will buy Battlefield just to help the headline. It's stupid, and I'll agree to that, but it's exactly what pushes the market to some extent.

Additionally, when fans go at it and start listing reason why a title is loved or hated - especially in a rivalry, it would be moronic to think developers aren't listening. Developers and publishers listen to people go to war just as much as they watch and copy other successful aspects of games for their own. If you think Modern Warfare or any modern FPS is totally original and brought truly fresh ideas to the table... then you're probably under 10 years-old or stupid (I'm not ruling out the possibility of both, either).

The point is, elitism is one of the many ways industry taps the pulse of the consumer base. What people like and hold above groups of another become incorporated in the perceived underdog group. When both groups have the same relative talking points, there's a unity and a bridge toward camraderie is built. How this is "bad" escapes me; why this would be "bad" remains ever a mystery to me. I had the impression that fans of any team sought to encourage the evolution of the team.

ELITISM HURTS THE CULTURE

If you've read my past blogs, I've written a couple times about the divisiveness of group labels and how "hardcore" is a misnomer for "enthusiast." In fact, two of my pieces address Jimmy's thoughts directly among the points made:

No ma'am: gender superficiality

Love and Hate of the Gaming Culture

Other users have written on the same topic of Elitism with sentiments of their own and the concepts and feelings expressed are not unique nor exclusive to gaming. In that, we all need to get over ourselves.

To rehash and summarize the points of the two listed blogs - elitism is divisive to a culture, if not moronically superficial but undeniably necessary for the industry to improve, thus a taint we must endure in doses. Going back to football, who cares how many Super Bowls Dallas won, or how many yards John Riggins cleared in his career? Who cares if someone thinks MW if better BF? Will it change our buying habits and perspective of someone else hold an opinion independent of our own? The statistics on sales between rival titles don't amount to anything of tangible value and serve to only fill some kind of emotional gap some can't find anything better to fill it with. The problem, is that once it's filled these people are putting themselves in a position to where they have to choose to remove and replace it. Why not just leave it open for something that actually matters?

It is because there is a lack willingness to be seen as "average." No one strives for second place, and no one steps up and declares the role of "sidekick" by choice. Those who do, simply settle and in the modern world where everything in the gaming culture is about what gains can be represented with an icon of some sort, we'll have elitism. Will it end? No. it's not something that manifested with trophies and achievements - it was displaying Collectors' Edition titles on a shelf and posting pictures of the useless trinkets that came with them on profile pages before that. Prior to that it was buying imports and prior to that it was having a coin-op in the garage. What will it be in the future? I don't know, probably something equally stupid. The purpose of it though is what I find most unsettling. It has become apparent to me that it's about making ourselves feel better about something we care about. We don't need to look at new or different ways to keep ourselves feeling better, we need to look at what we're trying to feel better than and why we need to feel better in the first place.It's a pretty shallow and worthless cultural community when people respect something like a gamerscore or a list of trophies more than the parenting ability of a father to his children. In that, I can't blame Jimmy for being upset by the elitist attitudes within our culture, but that's not the basis of all elitism or enough to lambast elitist attitudes across the board.

It's not elitism that's to blame and it's not elitism hurting the industry, it's where it is applied, to whom, and under what contexts. Unfortunately, the culture of gaming has spread to much younger generations where a decreasing number of people have the ability or time to teach them the right way to behave and act. Us "old" gamers are too few and the middle-ground gamers are enjoying the peak of their existence within the culture, leaving the next generation to shape what everyone will deal with in 5-7 years. If we don't fix it now, then when? If you don't fix it, then who? We could spend all day b*tching, but last I checked talking is much less effective than doing.

Website Community Achievements and Trophies? No, Thanks. [A meta-blog]

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 07 Sep 2011 05:43:00 GMT

Spurred by Saint’s blog about incorporating achievements into the GIO website, I felt the need to create a separate meta-blog on the same topic. I don’t want badges. I think in the end, it is a very bad idea. I don’t say this to devalue the thought and effort of those proposing the idea or because I like debate. I’m saying it because I honestly feel badges are the very last thing this community needs. On the other hand, who doesn't like the idea of "mutually equitable ubiquity on the premise of purpose driven reciprocal exchange," or rather a system that benefits groups and individuals through positive interaction by way of a universal reward structure - I did at one point, but have rethought my position and I think it's worth sharing.

Years ago, I was a member of another website named Newsvine. Some of you already know this about me; it is where I developed my interest in writing. Back then, most of my writing was political (and it was just as acerbic, if not more). In those days, “gamification,” or implementing badges and achievements on sites was still a budding concept as many sites were turning to “user generated content.” It was a win-win for these sites because all they needed to do was sit back and allow users to fill pages with things visitors would love to read. The setup is a perceived mutual exchange that favors the website more than the user –writers had free bandwidth to use to write and sites got free content. At the same time, these sites would generate ad revenue based on the number of visitors reading the blogs of unpaid authors. The justification was that these blogger, or “citizen journalists” were not professional writers and therefore did not write to the same quality and consistency of a “real” journalist (which isn’t entirely false).

As with any community-based site, the community attempts to better itself and gain a bit of control over their realm of contributions; responsibility without authority ends badly. Naturally, community members will eventually devise plans to introduce various incentives to increase retention and many modern communities will try and incorporate a way for users to display their accomplishments on the site. There’s no harm in that right? People should be able to take credit for things that strengthen a community and doing so gives other ambitious users a goal. A win-win, agreed?

I personally feel that the path to success with the idea Saint and Born4This present more difficult than currently realized. I think that in their idea they miss the pitfalls for what they are. In this case they don’t seem to have thought about the value of the achievement over time, the divisiveness between those who have and those who don’t, honor vs. obligation, and the measure by which an achievement is given only aims to increase quantity and not quality.

Don’t get me wrong, I love that the idea has presented itself and the effort Saint and Born4This are taking in thinking about. I took a similar stance to Saint in 2009 and presented my idea to the Newsvine community. Now, years later, I’ve come to realize that had my idea taken flight the mess it could have created.I'd also like to add that I'm not writing this to "shoot down" or poke every hole I can think of in the reasons for a reward system, but spurr discussion that might weigh the cons against the pros so that if a reward system is implemented, it will be after serious consideration to more than "what we get."

“Gamification” is perfectly fine if (and only if, in my opinion) the objective is a short-lived numerical run to encourage rapid growth; 50,000 users can play snatch-n-grab every month in rotation, but what will they do or where will they go after that? More to the point, what will happen to user retention once the reward system resources are used up in the eyes of the user?

Usually, users will flow to the next site that offers the same thing in a different package. Clearly this isn’t a community that desires high turnover and I would prefer to think the staff of Game Informer place value on the user base, and since users come here without the reward incentive, I see no logical reason to create one that would serve to instill the desire to find it elsewhere later. .

Back in 2009 when I joined Gaminformer.com (at its reboot) there was a huge clash between “old heads” and new users. The last things we need are groups of people running around feeling entitled because they have some silly badge, or in an attempt to get a silly badge make generally worthless comment (“first!” comes to mind here). There is no way the idea and practice can measure objectivity and substantive participation so the mechanic must default to a number of posts made, or how many people vote a comment up or report it for an infraction.

The concept of voting was to indicate objectivity, but people most often use it to agree with something written or to give written comments a general approval, thus it becomes a tool for subjectivity. Some may argue that to combat subjectivity, moderation of the tool take place but how can anyone truly be subjective given the type of comments people leave? The system becomes fascist at that point, clearly not an ideal construct.

A prime example of this is the star rating on blogs - if people disagree with what it written they rate it low, whereas the actual purpose is to rae it based on how well it is written or if it covers solid points. If you look at this blog's star rating, there's no way to tell if it rated based on the merit of the blog or whether someone just disagrees with what I've said.

The biggest caveat will reside in a sub-layer of subjectivity, and was presented in a comment to what I wrote on Newsvine. Badges gives the appearance that as a community we’re striving for social acceptance, that we turned our focus not to substantive and constructive participation out of a desire to see a better community, but to materialism and envy of the intangible. Are we so insecure we need to have a badge to display community worth? Does the ability to “earn” a badge elsewhere necessitate the same here? We cannot on one hand strive to be taken seriously and say that our passion is something to be respected, and then turn around and dangle a carrot in front of the user just to make them run on a wheel . If you truly want the hamster to stay on the wheel – build a better wheel.

This is the same problem games have with the introduction of trophies and achievements – They amount to nothing and most people stopped caring for them because they’re not functional beyond the game. And, they require someone take the time to care enough about what you’ve done to look with the only reason for looking is to be that *** that has to “win” at things in which there’s no competitor. Why foster that kind of attitude?

Similarly, badges blur the line and will conflate the method of participation, not unify the community. If you want people to stop, stare, and clap/boo with approval/disapproval – go to Hot or Not or Rate My Poo.

The next problem is that it can be divisive. As was made painfully obvious to me in the beginning of my first stay here in GIO, not everyone is going to use GIO equally or take from GIO the same things. I rallied very hard against divisive attitudes and other non-standard methods of operations demonstrated by others – and lost (a few times). Some users are here simply to get “news” and leave light comments on staff topics. Others come for the forum discussion, reading the blogs, writing reviews, etc., and take the full experience of what GIO offers. Setting up a system of badges leaves behind the group of users that don’t choose to participate on the same level as other users by not differentiating between people who choose not to participate and people who just suck at participating. The public will lump the two in the same group and those who choose not to participate will have a stigma they do not rightfully deserve. As I said, this same divisive attitude was painfully obvious. Old users would complain about new users and the “problematic nuisance” they had become, the disruption to the site in their wake, or their inability to take a joke (usually an inside one that the new users was unaware of), etc. Badges will present the same kind of attitude where new users will be discredited based on the lack of badges. I would like to say I believe the community would not behave this way, but I can’t read the future as well as I can the past.

If people are motivated in a community to act for an award, it becomes obligatory, thus arbitrary. Think of it like this – The United States military is the greatest military on the planet because we have one of the few military forces that still fill its ranks with volunteer citizens. The best people for a job are the ones that show up because they want to do it, not the ones that want a prize.

A badge system only tracks accountability and the completion of a set of prerequisite tasks, not the quality of the task done. In the end, the community will see an influx of “fail” with little or no increase in “win” and though there’s a balance in that concept, it’s clearly not the objective. And, even then, a badge doesn't represent a common opinion shared by all, but of a select few that deem whatever content presented worthy of praise. It does however; represent a standard action anyone can do regardless of value and in that, there may be some good, but is heavily outweighed by the negative potential and side effects of the bad. It makes little sense if taken as part of the big picture. If we stop treating community interaction like a game, maybe people will take it seriously and stop trying to “Win the internet.” I vote taking that route prior to thinking of incentivizing our experience. Better yet, lets pool our collective resources and come up with site-wide features that developers could work on to enhance the existing experience rather that worry about faux new ones:

Blog Linking at a user level
Better notification (or notification at all) in reference to comments and replies outside of the forum
Designated, sanctioned groups that foster positive interaction among new users
Increased control over group creation
Ability to follow blogs of selected users and display them on our user dashboard

To name a few…

Jensen to Public: "I didn't ask for this [accusation of racism]"

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:57:00 GMT

Hello fellow humans and transhumans. You may recognize me from the critically acclaimed video-game, Deux Ex: Human Revolution. My name is Adam Jensen.

Recently there's been a complaint that I'm a racist or have in some way engaged in behaviors that may be construed as racist. I'm here to assure you I'm not at all racist. In my game you can witness my many indiscriminate acts. My primary concern is objectivity and truth; my only acts of extreme prejudice are against an obstructed path.

I did not ask for my "gifts" or the present situation, but I am not upset by them. In fact, I had little choice but to embrace my situation and move forward. When my accident happened I knew that "normal" life would become my distant past. It would be a lie to say there is part of me that does not miss what was, but the linearity of time offers no respite for those who linger in the past and cling to the false hope of a return to normalicy. Someone doesn't get beaten to death and reconstructed against their will, only to have the the complex gravity of social direction embedded in an epistemological / nihilistic narrative wherein any outcome is very grey, perspective based "evil" and expect "normal" to factor back in to their daily life.

In context to these current accusations, "racist" was the very least of my immediate concerns, yet at the forefront as well. We are all the same race: human, and all else is categorically a sub-race with no value. People will forever have their flaws despite physical changes and evolutionary progression; the mind can be shaped, swayed and altered, but our soul is what makes us "human" - it is what we do with who we are that determines how we progress.

Though I'm no longer human in a strict sense, mine is a story of a struggle for racial identity, hanging on by a thread to remain a part of the human race. On the outside I may look like a slightly above average "white" guy, but underneath this military grade weaponry, endoscopic armor, optic enhancers, re-breather, and built-in sunglasses, I'm just a guy looking for the truth and my humanity.

That's why I'm speaking out to you now - for truth.

See, I think that in the end the world deserves to know the truth and make a choice about direction on their own without conflated propaganda and divisive agendas that benefit corporations or individuals only. Believe me, I've had to struggle to get to the bottom of things and could write books about my trials and tribulations. I could have chosen the easy route and let Sarif lie, let Taggart lie, or killed myself in an explosion to bury the world in ignorance. The difficulty in bearing the truth does not justify a lie, the difficulty in acting upon truth does not justify inaction, and the difficulty in paving a way doesn't justify following a predetermined order. My belief in these gave cause for me to make the tough choices, and I choose truth and integrity in spite of the challenges set before me.

It would be easy for me to deflect the accusations made against me and refer to my treatment in Hengsha and the numerous times I was called a "gwilo". "Gwilo" is a racial slur for "white person" and I was called that more often and for a longer period than the total speaking part of Letitia back in Detroit. In contrast, it would appear the implication could be rerouted to state racism isn't part of American society in the future. Although divisive and prejudicial behaviors still exist in 2027, they are on a much less superficial basis.The riot which broke out in Detroit against the augmented was spurred by fear and hate, not unlike many of the racial tensions between ethnic groups during your 1960's, and similarly facilitated by the propaganda of a few individuals to propel personal and political agenda. Apparently this point was lost and not the primary focus of my accusers.

Like augmentation, skin color is not an inherent causality; people do not act a particular way because of of them - people may re-act in a particular way because of them but that evidences the qualities lacking in those who do. More to the point, Letitia spoke as she did, not because of her ethnicity but because she's obviously uneducated, presumably homeless, and an established drunk. It was clear she was a "CI," or confidential informant with whom I dealt extensively during my tenure the police force. None of her behaviors are specific to an ethnicity or sub-race and I admit a bit of confusion as to why anyone would make such an association unless it was their self-image on public display that caused discomfort. Perhaps I've been accused of being racist because of my own skin color?

I would lighten the mood by stating "I'm not racist, I'm Black from the waist down" if it weren't also true.

Before I continue, let's examine the definition of racism. Racism is, "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

So as some of you in the public point your bent fingers toward my direction, clamoring for "justice" and making hollow accusations of "racism," question whether the portrayal of Letitia was a play at labeling ethnic people a certain way but also question whether the behavioral characteristics are confined to a single ethnic group. It is entirely possible for people of the same ethnicity to have opposite spectrum behaviors and people of different ethnic backgrounds to share common behavioral characteristics. For example, another former associate named Jenny Alexander was an undercover police officer dressed as a prostitute to lure criminals. She was also am ethnic woman that shared my passion for justice and truth. If we suppose that the portrayal of Letitia exampled all members of the same ethnicity negatively, why does Jenny not equally portray them positively? I can only assume the motive of my accusers, but there lies a deep suspicion that they choose to see only what they want.

Many people calling me racist, do so under the false pretense of being underground social civic leaders and instigators of change; they claim their cause is just and their fight a moral one - that no person be treated unfairly. I would implore that these same people consider what a leader does and how and what a leader behaves. Does a leader respond or react, and in that, have these self-proclaimed leaders responded or reacted to something they do not understand? I say they have reacted and in poor taste without first thinking beyond their own prejudices and in turn ask if their actions evidence the message of their words.

My name is Adam Jensen and I thank you for your time.

L.A. Noire: Good, Not Epic

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 25 May 2011 00:45:00 GMT

Set in Los Angeles, California during the late 1940′s, L.A. Noire is an open world sleuthing action adventure game that follows the police career of former U.S. Marine, Cole Phelps as he solves a series of seemingly unrelated murders. As the game progresses, Phelps moves through the various sections of the police department discovering a link between events throughout the game. Keeping with the Rockstar method of delivery, L.A. Noire isn’t without material some audiences may find repulsive or objectionable (such as full frontal nudity, sexism, intense graphic violence toward women, racism, etc.). However, the game is intended for mature audiences but doesn’t handle the material appropriately for the setting in all cases.

L.A. Noire seemed like the perfect candidate for developers to take from Quantic Dream’s Heavy Rain niche influence and show desperately needed industry progression toward a controllable and emotional cinematic adventure, but didn’t. My initial hopes for L.A. Noire were grand; I looked for the title to take some core concept cues from Heavy Rain by way of compelling storytelling, unannounced critical decision points, limited operating time-frames, and a control mechanism that barred corrective restarts (working to “perfection” by starting over repeatedly). What L.A. Noire felt like in the end was a mixture of common pre-existing elements found in most open-world action adventure games, but instead of reliance on the expansive environment, it relied on the dialog choices and ability of players to read facial patterns that ultimately have no bearing on the final outcome. In addition the title also felt like a mixture of The Fugitive, L.A. Confidential, Two Jakes, and Red Dead Redemption with a literal facelift. It was a good game worth the effort to make, but it’s not “epic” by any means.

WARNING: This review has some spoilers and reveals the end of the game. A majority of the spoilers don’t reveal the end or how it plays out. Avoid the “Phelps: Why I don’t give a rat’s ass about him” section if you don’t want to know the end.

Games that pay homage to certain styles and topics often become a double-edged sword; by capturing authenticity they lose originality. In this, homage titles take huge risk in becoming too similar to existing formats or becoming so different that considering it a true homage comes with difficulty. L.A. Noire pulls off the developing landscape of Los Angeles, greedy opportunists, pre-reform police, and moral ambiguity of the late 1940′s. It also carried the film noir presentation poorly along the character personalities, but did well in implementing the unique aspect of having to watch suspects to decide how to gain useful information leading to case closure.

The game concepts are marred, unfortunately, by some underdeveloped mechanics and environmental inconsistencies. Random comments from bystanders and pedestrians that do not fit the game setting interrupt an otherwise sparse but appropriate soundtrack; simply walking the streets of L.A. players will repeatedly hear “*** you!” or “I used to be indecisive. Now, I’m not so sure.” I was given the impression that either I missed an inside joke among the citizens of this L.A., or they all suffer from a mild case of Tourette’s syndrome. Truly, these “additions” shows signs of fan service by way of Grand Theft Auto.

Where the film noir aspects were poorly done exist primarily in the “homicide” section of the game. I find it very difficult to believe that Phelps as a person with “better” moral character would allow female murder victims to remain naked. His character seems as one that would ask they body be covered, save for hands and arms (which are the only pertinent parts of the naked bodies in the game), to give the victims some final dignity. At the very least, the coroner and other police officers would have done this much. America has become more modest over time, not less modest and police today will even cover a body in public for privacy and to keep dignity. Noting and harping on the lack of covered bodies isn’t my aversion to nudity, offense at the female form, or to encourage distance from graphic violence in games – the nudity in L.A. Noire just comes off as serving no purpose other than an immature gratuity; “oh look, boobies! tee hee,” and I would have expected that “mature” material be handled maturely (seems far-fetched, I know).

I would understand if the bodies contained clues on the chest and abdomen, but they didn’t. I would also understand if the bodies seemed to give any character resolve and duty to justice above their respective job title, but again, they didn’t; one murder seemed as bad as any other murder and though it is understood that Phelps has seen death by degrees and he’s just a cop doing his job, his unchanged attitude helped neither his weak back-story or the playable present. Furthering the oddity of how nudity is handled, the extra-marital relationship between Phelps and Lichtmann is merely displayed via innuendo; there is no outright nudity, exchange of words, not even a light kissing scene – yet murder victims are left naked in a park with with evidence that certain forms of intimate hygiene weren’t common practice fits well? I don’t see it.

L.A. Noire can arguably stand alone from other Rockstar titles on a few facets, but not enough to set itself apart as a flagship title. The base form and structure don’t take risks in the right areas. As a player, I felt comfortable in the game because nearly everything was familiar, but also felt disappointed for the same reason. I have to give pause to whether Rockstar is either too afraid to break completely from Grand Theft Auto formula because the risk may be too great or if they are showing the symptoms of a “one trick pony.”

The game mechanics are handled rather well. Controlling the characters, save a few odd camera angle moments, are as fluid as the facial animations and I didn’t notice a lot in the way of jerky motions or robotic movements (though a “rail slide” to knock on doors was a bit odd). There are some other issues with the game mechanics, however. Drastic change in tone during investigation break the consistent tone of investigations and give Phelps the characteristics of an individual with bi-polar disorder; Phelps goes from mild mannered cop with a strict sense of duty mixed with self-righteousness to a raging *** whether he can back the accusations or not. This wouldn’t be terrible if the game didn’t present Phelps’ an accusation of “lie” as knee-jerk.

Redundancy in facial “tells” from suspects during investigations and interrogations lull the sequences to a point of mundanity. Over time, players should become acquainted with how to read suspects by paying attention to what they do after making a statement and interviews cut to little more than a glorified game of “paper/rock/scissors.” The trick to interviews is understanding the difference between clues and evidence, going over available evidence, and asking questions in the right order. From this, the challenge of reading faces unique to each character is removed almost completely.

Phelps as a character is clearly a leader, but he never fills the part in mechanics and doesn’t give the impression that he leads more than superficially;” he’s given responsibility without authority and a leader without authority and all of the responsibility is just a “tool” in anyone’s book. Phelps collects every piece of evidence in the cases he’s involved with, is repeatedly told how to behave, told where to go, and told how to do his job: “Forget a warrant, kick that door in,” “He’s running away, chase him,” “Maybe we should go back and talk to this other guy now.” Yet, the only order Phelps gives to others with any consistency is the optional, “You drive.” When things go badly, Phelps is the guy to carry the blame and punishment (usually being yelled at by the desk captain.) Oddly, regardless of case rank status, Phelps is not demoted for doing poorly on cases and in fact, he gets promoted whether he gets one, two or five stars on cases. Instead, Phelps takes a demotion for cheating on his wife (not for cheating with a person of interest, but just plain old infidelity).

An added feature that is completely useless save for collecting cars, is the ability to commandeer cars. Players will recall Grand Theft Auto and hijacking vehicles to roam the city, though there’s no risk of attracting unwanted attention in L.A. Noire by commandeering vehicles, there’s also no real point in it. For the most part, the populated areas feel like filler; when walking around the streets are full of cars and when driving it’s like everyone stopped driving and started walking (except in chase scenes, then everyone decides it’s time to hang out in the city and walk or drive around). However, citizens will jump out of the way of an oncoming car would players have difficulty operating any of the vehicles. Conversely, citizens operating vehicles rarely do anything to avoid a collision with the player beyond applying brakes. Players will also find that some of the action sequences where players are chasing a suspect, will have to evade citizen drivers swerving into oncoming traffic for no clear reason. I can only guess that these citizens are scripted to offer a challenge in chasing and apprehending a fleeing suspect. Unfortunately, no reason would make it less annoying and stupid.

My last issue with the mechanics is chronology. There is a lack of time passage in the game. Players know whether it is day or night but not what day of the week or time of the year. The case sets build the idea that weeks and months may pass, perhaps years, but nothing really solidifies a timeline. Perhaps showing some seasonal changes in the environment would help keep the game from feeling like The First 48.

The story of L.A. Noire is shaky at best. Understandably, the story is designed to be taken bits at a time and connect plot points over a series of smaller cases while working toward the overall theme. However, there are many things that don’t seem to fit perfectly in developing any one character. The ability to peek into concurrent events via newspapers give players a sense of the elusive main protagonist in terms of what they’re capable of; it adds to which side of a moral fence they sit, though because the game never washes every character with shades of grey, the newspapers feel like cinematic filler and isn’t a very effective method of story delivery. A better way to have pulled off the concept is to allow Phelps to review case notes and show “what we know so far based on the information obtained.” This would provide players with a reason to pick through the evidence and pay closer attention to how they conduct an investigation.

Between some cases, players are given a cinematic history of Phelps and his men during WWII. Supposedly these flashbacks help tie a motive to the actions and attitudes of characters and events at the end of the game. Phelps is, as discussed, an overachiever with a penchant for “by the book” behaviors to a point that gets results if nothing else. However, the developers seemed to have given Phelps a character flaw for the sake of adding moral ambiguity to an otherwise “straight and narrow” character; he’s self-serving (but who isn’t?). Even when Phelps has romantic interludes with

Graphics in modern games seldom rely on poly count and color, but texture and lighting; we’re nearing an “end” to the graphics war for the time being (which, in my opinion, is an apparent reason for the industry push to 3D; a technology proxy war). The lighting and textures in L.A. Noire are pretty good. They’re not too different from Red Read Redemption, so in that, the new format didn’t diminish what was learned in the past. Where L.A. Noire truly shines in terms of visuals is the facial animations. The faces animate and show expression with authenticity (albeit a bit of over-acting here and there, but so what…), and it draws the player into an experience of interviewing a person rather than attempting to rationalize motive based on dialog and action.

By now, many have seen the technology interview detailing how faces were captured for the game and what the idea was behind the concept. For those that have not, seek out the video online.

Final Say: Good, Not Epic

L.A. Noire should be applauded for the effort to bring a solid detective story to the current generation but condemned for such a number of poorly executed minor concepts, objectively overlooking them is difficult.

On one hand, Rockstar is known for raw violence and to step back from that would disappoint some fans. Rockstar could have followed the cinematic style of the 40′s and left many things to the audiences’ imagination, but modern audiences feel slighted if they can’t “see” the blood, some aren’t smart enough to imagine the depth of the content, and leaving things to imagination is always a risk because it means non-standard interpretation. On-the-other-hand the biggest detriment to the game is that it tries to be many too much to too broad an audience. The games may have done better if developers attempted to be a few big things to everyone or, at the very least, if developers had diverged from the tell-tale GTA formula more. Audiences are left using their imagination but only to fill gaps in game inconsistencies and not intentional gaps in a unified plot and systemic theme that allow players to draw conclusions based on earlier revelations. Perhaps the goal was to produce a title that could appeal to everyone in some way (like Red Dead Redemption), but I believe the approach and execution lacked in too many important ways to suggest any single corrective measure; it’s a great concept worth exploring, and as a first try it is good, but the staying power will come in contrived DLC packs and maybe a sequel involving a different character.

Undoubtedly this is a solid title worth the play and exploration, if for no other reason than to see what doesn’t work – but it hardly deserves the degree of hype floating around. The game isn’t all bad, and there’s a lot to like, though that may not be readily apparent in this review. The effort and concept of interviewing is a massive step forward toward a long and involved type of game that should appeal to many people in the future, especially since most of our social interactions with others occur asymmetrically. There is almost as much that I really don’t like about this game. And, it isn’t that the flaws were so large, but small and many – and worse, glaringly obvious – so that L.A. Noire literally nearly beats itself to death in the attempt to innovate and forgets what really drives the this type of game: the story and characters.

This isn’t a game that at the end of the year people should still rave about. I expect within a month-and-a-half, “used” shelves will be populated with the title in quantities on par with Black Ops and Red Dead Redemption, making this game consumable, but of little substance beyond proof of concept. I also suspect the sequel will better join existing tech and more focus placed on character and story development. With Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3, Eldar Scrolls V: Skyrim, Deus Ex, Guild Wars 2, Uncharted 3, and a handful of other highly anticipated titles yet to appear, L.A. Noire will be remembered but overshadowed. I don’t expect many people will find themselves “okay” with the game; they’ll either like it or they won’t, and if history tells us anything about gaming – that’s not how to win an award or franchise fans but is how you test a market.

**SPOILER**

Phelps: Why I don't give a rat's ass about him

Phelps isn’t ever clearly defined as “good” or “bad.” For a game that places emphasis on “moral grey,” it is important to decide which aspects of a person are good and which are bad. When using several characters good and bad need to overlap to present varying degrees or altering perceptions in context to the character and their nature, and to allow characters to compliment each other. L.A. Noire does a poor job of this. If a player is familiar with police work, they’ll point out several instances of violating the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendment rights. However, the 1940′s were a time in police history that was a little more than decades away from police reform. Police officers often played to the politicians as personal servants to earn extra income and ultimately served private interest and not the community.

Today, obviously police work in a very different fashion, but L.A. Noire stays true to the gritty grey area that police operated in during the 1940′s. Unfortunately, placing more emphasis on the ambiguity of character morals by attaching them to the common practice of police at the time instead of human nature was a poor method to define contrasting moral values. In the end of the game, players are urged to like Phelps and feel a degree of loss through his final self-less act and words, whether because the players see the few attempts to repair the relationship between Kelso and Phelps by a shared love interest that never really develops beyond the superficial innuendos, or because they’re both working toward an alleged ethical standard shared between them from opposite ends. In either case, I wasn’t left feeling one way or another about Phelps dying and accepted it as “it just was;” I was not impressed by Phelps or his actions in any way because they were made arbitrary by the “one way” finish immediately apparent in the middle of the game and greyed overtones of every game character.

GAmeR: The Self-Entitlement Proxy

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 20 May 2011 19:57:00 GMT

"An escalator can never break: it can only become stairs. You would never see an 'Escalator Temporarily Out Of Order' sign, just 'Escalator Temporarily Stairs'. Sorry for the convenience.'"
-Mitch Hedberg (Comedian, 1968-2005)

Though intended for humor, Hedberg makes an accurate observation toward a technological mishap: an escalator is simply a flight of moving stairs; when not in motion becomes a flight of "regular" stairs. The concept however, appears to be lost on modern gamers as the PlayStation Network outage reportedly caused more gamers to become enraged at the idea of having to walk up a proverbial flight of steps than worry about personal financial information abuse. Equally confusing is the opportunist attitude toward Sony displayed alongside threats to change platforms to Microsoft XBOX 360.

Aside from the threat to convert to XBOX, Sony's "Welcome Back Package" met responses like, "So, it seems like from what I can tell they're "gifting" unpopular / horrible game titles to angry users... they should give a bit more compensation then that."

So, what is an acceptable compensation package? The short answer is, "anything" because gamers are not owed anything for three weeks of offline gaming; gaming didn't disappear temporarily nor did online gaming disappear permanently - online gaming on a single device disappeared temporarily. The "reward" isn't technically a compensation package though, rather it's a "thank you" for patience and loyalty during the involuntary rough patch gamers dealt with. Many gamers will gladly take offered items and still complain about waiting (giving gamers a "thanks" for nothing). If viewed closely, Sony didn't offer a paltry package to gamers for their wait - two of five games for keeps, 30 days of free services for non-subscribers, 60 days free for subscribers, and free movie rentals is substantial savings to any gamer whether or not they've played the games before. Here's a full list of the "Welcome Back Package" for more information on what Sony is actually offering.

Though the titles are "old" thus argued "unpopular" isn't an accurate point. For example, Little Big Planet is a framework usable across two titles (one of which isn't "old") and the game has user tools allowing continued growth and ability create levels adding to player experience long after retail "value" dissolves. The game inFAMOUS 2 is right around the corner, and it isn't uncommon for previous owners to repurchase the old game before the release of a sequel to rehash the story. In this, giving out inFAMOUS lets anyone interested prepare for free at the cost of some HDD space. Also it lets Sucker Punch Studios have dominant presence on the platform right before a major anticipated title release. WipEout HD w/ Fury is still enjoyed by many (it is a cult classic franchise), and one of the most downloaded games on PSN. Dead Rising is the "odd man out" but there's a niche market for it; everyone for some reason loves a zombie shooter. Super Stardust is a casual shooter and a game many PlayStation owners have enjoyed over time. The offer equates to giving people the option to get two full-blown blockbuster titles for free or a heavy hitter and a casual title, and it doesn't begin to touch the extra savings of PSN plus (which can be argued to revolve, to some degree) toward titles not listed but people would also possibly like.

Some people have complained that Sony isn't giving away new release titles or games that fewer people have already played, but this isn't a well thought-out complain either. Newer titles aren't offered because it further hurts revenue of developers and publishers in the industry and because Sony doesn't have the rights to give away third-party titles. A developer and Publisher have to agree to giving away merchandise and given that many newer games are cross-platform, it really wouldn't bode well for XB owners to have to pay and PSN owners not. In this, the titles also have to be PlayStation only. Imagine some hacker taking down the XBL network because the opinion was that it isn't fair to XBL subscribers to pay for a game (on top of already paying for the service) their PSN brethren got free. Other PlayStation only titles like Uncharted 2 or God of War 3 would have been met with the same scrutiny, even if their respective developers gave the green light; they're "too old" and it becomes a "no win."

Some gamers have asked, "What if users already have the 'free' games?" My opinion is, "Great, so you own them. Have a cookie and trade the disc versions of the game in for something else and download the games from PSN for free,you're still ending up on top."

Sony shouldn't be asked to make special arrangements for gamers that have previously invested in their products at will. If Sony made arrangements for people that had any one of the games offered, the list of available games would be endless just to ensure everyone was blissfully happy. It's not a day-care and whether or not any of us are happy with the offering, I cannot find any legal documents of business practice guidelines that indicate Sony (or any business) has such an obligation. Consumers are forgetful creatures and will reinvest their money and time the moment a hated company brings forth a seemingly better product. Activision does this twice a year and despite the chiding and lamenting of yet another Call of Duty title, they sell in record numbers. Either people are stupid and forgot how much they hate the franchise, or despite lamentation, people reinvest on the gamble that the next installment will fulfill their desires. What reason would Sony have to see this as any different? None.

Of course, there are still gamers that refuse to see that PSN was and still is a largely free service. PlayStation network is part of the consideration in purchasing the PlayStation, true... just like Facebook is part of the consideration when paying for Internet Service. That said, Cox Communication should be weary that if I cannot log into Facebook, I'm going to demand free swag.

Bearing all this in mind, Sony still has a corporate obligation to investors and needed to find a way to appease the affected while using the package to increase potential income to offset losses. There's no philanthropic "generosity" here, as Sony has devised the plan to market-by-association, but it doesn't remove the fact many gamers are set to get something for nothing. The alternative, I think, was to bring the system back up as a "paid" structure and that would have been fatal given PSN's free past and the recent gamer experience and in that, would these free items have been free? No, I don't think so.

The point is that demanding Sony or any company that has implements optional (and largely free to use) facets of service into their platform, repay the consumer for a temporary reversion to the earlier method of use (which was a standard for close to 90% of gaming history), is the kind of attitude that forced gamers to distance themselves from the mainstream to begin with. It serves as a sharp contrast the to respect and dignity many gamers feel deserving of the lifestyle, spits in the face of arguing "games as art" (unless whining is an art or a temporary subsection of a game is art), and deflates any hope of proving the merits of participation (unless someone can argue that pissing on the floor because of a superficial wound promotes cognitive problem solving). It's time the culture take at look at itself and realize the difference between "1up" and "man up."

However, not everything about the recent outage was horrible and the ability learn and grow presented itself. Unfortunately, I believe the following opportunities will be readily passed up by the gaming culture and the submissive and complacent normality will return:

1.) Reliance upon digital distribution is a bad idea.

Many are familiar with the phrase "Don't place your eggs on one basket." Though publishers use a variety of distribution networks to maximize impact and profit, the general reliance upon digital distribution is as convenient as it is dangerously narrow. The moment PSN fell, gamers took to sharing varying degrees of disgust. In this display, gamers show their submissive and dependent attitude toward what developers and publishers have handed them. Developers and publishers have long seen the monetary gains in subscription based services and micro-transaction features. The difficult part is convincing gamers that this method is beneficial to them as a collective. Their answer was to remove the option to back out of the plan through incentive based pre-ordering, unlock codes that open up data already on disc, and regurgitating maps and characters from previous titles under the guise of added fun through pre-existing ability. The problem however is that for any of this to work properly, developers and publishers have to rely on the delivery platform stability. Obviously, when that platform (in this case, PSN) falters, so too does an ability to provide these other features, and the reduced functionality and contrived business models lose their illusions. If developers, publishers, and gamers were more self-reliant the cultural impact would remain superficial.

On a larger scale, some developers complained that the PSN outage cost them "Hundreds of thousands, if not millions" of dollars (Capcom for that claim specifically). Yet, Capcom, EA, Activision, Atlus, etc, have not barked at Sony to give them swag - and these are the people most effected. Between missed deadlines and patch development because of testing limitations, loss in sales on the network, and decreased popularity developers have a larger mess than inability to sign-on to PSN. Additionally, these factors all contribute to the income and expense of a game title. It may be foolish to build a title with reliance on an external and intangible system, and that is the fault of the developer and publisher but it doesn't change that the reliance exists nor that it cost developers and publishers time and money.

The silver lining here is that we can truly see digital distribution methods of delivery are not ready to roll out as the game industry would like consumers to readily believe and act upon. If in any way, a service interruption occurs the impact on the industry and culture can cost billions, and as seen through this event, consumers aren't the most rational or forgiving in the gaming market. With physical media, it is what it is - good or bad, and gamers know what to expect and can at a minimum rely on the disc to work regardless of whether a console is connected to anything other than the television and power outlet, as it should be. Infatuation with connectivity, the concept that from our living room we can accurately survey the world is false. These facets have done little more than give corporations a method to decide how best to sell an unprompted product or service with the same level of convenience found in a desktop computer already in place usually several rooms away or a laptop computer a few feet from where we sit.

2.) Reinvesting time in the backlog of existing offline modes provides greater reason to focus on single player mechanics and concepts

I was never much of an online gamer. I have issues with instances of 30-year-old men (some of whom claim themselves a woman), looking forward to reliving their Middle School glory days (diminished behavioral age and IQ included), by shouting obscenities into a microphone as though anyone with the tolerance to keep them off mute isn't equally self-absorbed. Additionally, I take issue with the group of women or "girl gamers" that run around telling everyone they're a girl, especially when they do well, as though their vagina has an impact on their ability (tip: if the vagina doesn't hurt your ability, it's not the source of your power either; but don't blame me, blame that pesky equality stuff everyone drones on about).

I get that not all online gamers log in wearing diapers or point to their genitals as the source of their powers; many of them are simply looking to take on a different persona and carry on with a bit of late night fun but I don't ascribe to the belief that games have little or no value if I can't also play with a pre-packaged, single serving "friend" whom otherwise could simply sit next to me on a couch in person with honest social interaction without the constant racism in the background.

Few games are explicitly designed for an online method of play. This isn't to assume that games with online modes are always better offline, but the core design of non-explicit online games are for offline always. For games to have a diminished level of fun offline, like Modern Warfare or Black-Ops shouldn't speak highly of their online design and multi-player ability, but instead speak poorly of the core development and prompt gamers to demand increasing quality, not just contrived maps, skins, save slots, or character packs. This was a perfect opportunity for gamers to reassess the value of their games and let developers know that working on the initial concepts and mechanics should take the front seat, not backseat, to the nickel and dime DLC and online features given current focus.

3.) Success comes from failure

The phoenix, a symbol of rebirth and immortality, in gaming is best likened to Nintendo and not Sony but the two corporations have commonality in that they've had equal share of defeat. If we look at the GameCube, Virtual boy, power glove, we can see that each project may never have been completely abandoned. With the virtual boy conceptually integrated with a Nintendo DS as the 3DS and the GameCube paired with the power glove as the Wii, Nintendo is a master of burning hotly, dying off, and coming back as a slightly modified replica of its former self. Nintendo didn't allow former failures to stop future success, and judging by sales records of the corporation over the past 30 years, Nintendo has a great handle on how to take failure and convert it to success. The Wii may be laughed at by many, but it has consistently outsold competitors despite the broad technological bottlenecks and limited functionality - there's a reason for this. Nintendo doesn't over diversify; they find a market, stick with it, and produce consistent and reliable pop titles; like Justin Beiber, it's really easy to hate him and there is a clear lack of artistic ability and originality in his work, but it doesn't change his success.

What we should learn is that failure, regardless of reason, affords an opportunity to rebuild a stronger system, and if Sony suffers in the long run it can only mean good things for the gaming culture and industry. Don't confuse this with a wish to see Sony fall down, rather delighting in the idea that this event could lead to innovation away from the stagnant industry into something the culture desperately needs to regain some independence. I point again to the Wii and how Nintendo used the failures in their past to inject a bit of comparative variety, thus granting broader horizons for gamers.

The best thing to do now is simply be thankful Sony made an offer and bear through the temporary experience. It's bad enough that gamers quickly lost focus on the security issue and barely mentioned concern about financial data floating around the Internet, but to show greater concern toward not getting what they don't deserve is disappointing.

Man up.

PHOTOS: GT5 Collection

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 02 May 2011 19:04:00 GMT

While in my travels to one of the other sites I frequent (albeit specifically for a single game) earlier today, I realized that I have not shared the potential of the Gran Turismo 5 photo function as I've discovered it. I understand that Gran Turismo 5 has been available to gamers for several months now and that many of the would-be readers and viewers have probably tampered with the photo mode. However, if you were like me when I first started playing with it, it can be a bit dry and lose the point of itself.Not until I was really bored with the A-Spec and got tired of managing B-Spec did I really sit down and explore the creative gestures of photo mode. I even discovered that several sites dedicated to the game had forums full of people playing around and using the images for a personal artistic outlet. I'm an art fan, and have been involved one way or another with varying degrees of art projects since I was a child (same with music). Naturally, I just continued to putz with it and explore the options on a low level.

Some of the images are complete manipulations while others are just adding film grain or text. In all, I never adjusted the shape or color of the vehicle beyond what from from the game. The main point of this display however is to make aware that GT5 contains a pretty powerful (and consuming) photo function that with a little practice can output things far better than anything here, and, I'd like to see what other people come up with.

Before I start, I'll apologize for the pixelation that occurs in some of the images. Most of these were originally in the pixel width of several thousand just so I could get in and do fine adjustments when I wanted. Other times I was working with CMYK print colors because I tend to prefer paying attention to the details of a competition (e.g. if it's a concept for print, then it makes sense to be in the habit of working in print colors, but that's just me).

First up is a set of fake ads. Some were for competitions and others were the result of boredom. All of them were pretty quick and easy, but most importantly fun for me to play with .

"TUNING FORK"

Tuning Fork is a play on "Spoon," the Honda exclusive engine modders. This was just a bordom manipulation.

"ARMY OF THE OWNED"

This was a competition piece that required only one make of vehicle, could advertise anything (which I took the movie route, and could incorporate objects not found in GT5. In this, it was a pretty liberal competition. Others took things like tires or headlamps). It didn't place in the competition - humor isn't always the safe bet. The winner actually used a Audi R8 and placed it on a tunnel ceiling with the words "Pirelli: Keeps you glued," which was a brilliant concept that deserved the win.

"KARMANN GHIA"

When I was younger, I loved the bodystyle of the Karmann Ghia. It wasn't powerful like it's Beetle cousin, but it was slick and in driving one, was rather fun to drive on country roads where I didn't have to deal with the lack of acceleration. In this image I didn't add anything remarkably physical other than the text with thrown shadows. I did however adjust the lighting and colors quite a bit as well as added the film grain and smoothed the sky. Since I'm not particularly handy with adjustment layers this was the result of some crash course, hand dirtying, nose to the grind, learn as you go trial and error. I'm happy with the result, but I know it could be better.Incidentally, this car was run on the same track as the vette image later.

"SPOON CRZ"

Another winless competition piece, this Spoon CRZ was used in a competition that required:

Honda only
Japanese tracks only
no modifications to the image outside of GT5
premium cars only
no race modified cars
only one car pictured (as in not in a race with other cars).

I went with black and white with the photo in a Special Stage tunnel focusing in the car and letting the surroundings blur for the laser line effects to naturally occur. I think B&W add impact and sharp contrast to make a visual statement. Adjusting the camera to show both Honda and Spoon coupled with an aggressive headlamp design make enough statement. Unfortunately someone used the same idea a couple of days with a Honda NSX and beat me out on it. It was fun all the same. This image took me no less than 50 shots to get and the tilt of the car is actually the tilt of the track. Moving the camera would put the headlamps at an asymmetric angle lose the light points on one or the other as well as the distinctive Honda logo. Tough break, really.

"BLITZER"

The photo that pushed me to continue exploring the photo mode of Gran Turismo 5, the BLITZ Dunlop Skyline was really fun to drive in the game so, I decided to see if I couldn't capture both the power and the fun contained in driving it. This was a steep angle, high speed (around 67 mph) drift that lasted for close to 9 seconds, but I can't recall where (and without landmarks I can't justify a guess). To get the car in this kind of slide I played with the camber angles and other fine adjustments in the suspension. I pulled this off without doing a 180, colliding with a wall, or leaving the track. The only additions to this photo are the text and D1 logo.

"TIMING"

As the title implies, this photo was possible only through perfect timing. I can't explain how frustrating this shot was because there's a 30 second window to move the car and camera, and apply the proper aperture and filter adjustments. After 30 seconds the sun sets and everything goes dark for a nocturne shot. What I was attempting to capture was the setting sun in the backdrop over a rich red classic Alfa Romeo, so positioning was just as key a component as timing. I must've done 140 shots to get this right. For those interested in a challenge, this is:

Red Bull Museum, station 1
Car flipped 180 and pushed about 50 scale yards forward of the stock position
The camera is set two scale paces away from the car
An f-stop of about 2.2
Manual zoom to frame the edges of the car
The "minature" filter
Aspect ratio of 16:1 vert.

The clock starts the moment it loads up and if you're slightly late, the sun sets and the color washes too blue. If the car position is not far enough back, it reflects the museum building in the shine. If you don't take enough steps back the framing and details become too crisp for the lighting. If the angle is wrong, runway lights get in the image after the sun dips below the mountain ridge. To be fair, this was a fraction of a second before everything goes dark. Enjoy.

"VETTED"

The first competition I entered with photos from photomode allowed for any car, provided the photo was during a sun set. This is a "Toscana" track (custom) with an RM Vette. In hindsight, the image is too out of focus and disregards the rule of thirds. At the time I was worried about clarity of the brand, but it was also an early shot with little to no experience in the photo mode or concept of in-game "photography." Is it horrible? not really, but it is a pretty good color palette in spite of the amateurish approach.

"LEX"

Of the many cars in my garage, few engage my visual interest as the IS F Concept because it was designed to take the Germans on in their own game - LM races. For a Japanese car manufacturer to build endurance engines isn't uncommon, but to make a direct attack on race mode is. The IS F already came with an aggressive body style but the additional body kit took it a step further with flanged wheels, an agape front intake and a high angle spoiler (among other things). This fascination was further realized in how reflective the paint was. So, naturally I explored black on black with a Tokyo photo shoot at night. The HIgh reflective paint with the finely detailed environment made for an awesome experience to have light naturally contour the body of the IS F.

"MERCenary"

The broad nose and headlamp layout make for a very aggressive front end, then to complete the package the Mercedes SLR teems with unbridled power from its engine. Driving it in the game is a bit underwhelming compared to a few other more responsive cars, but the peak power and speed are thrilling all the same. Matte grey at night in Tokyo just under a street lamp with a low aperture and fast snap speed created this soft yet aggressive shot. The problems with this shot are that the color processing in the game wreaks havok on any kind of post processing. Because of the low contrast and, reflective property in the paint, and paint color, colors will separate to neighboring colors in groups and create pixelated patches (a fault of the GT5 photomode). The nose for example, will have to be blurred and blended before it can really be called "finished".

From here I'll just leave you with a variety of other shots I have for you. If you draw inspiration from them, great. If you hate them - that's cool too. In either case, enjoy and let the work speak for itself.

Jaded Gamer Rant: Licensed or Non-Licensed, it’s not really a question.

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 02 May 2011 07:43:00 GMT

Few things in gaming culture make me want to burp a baby using the claw end of a hammer than when I see generally decent publishers and developers make a game licensed from a television show, movie, or comic book. Although not all licensed games hurl luke-warm pork in an ashtray all over the gaming culture, a majority of them do. Take for example, the staple butt-end of a joke game, E.T. Or, if you would prefer:

Tangled
Tron Evolution
Hunt for Red October (originally a book)
Harry Potter
Jurassic Park
Space Jam
Reservoir Dogs
The Polar express (based on the film that was based on the book)
Saw
Krull
Last Action Hero
Robocop
Miami Vice: The Game
Transformers: Rise of the Fallen

Most licensed games try to expand a 90-minute movie into 6-7 hours of gameplay, which means the writers and developers abuse the term and privilege of ‘artistic license’ in conjuring up ugly gameplay with sub-literate story lines used connect the main plot points of a mediocre movie with the mediocre plot points in the game (if we’re lucky). In short, the games are an ad that generate increased revenue for both the movie publishers and game publishers but all we get as gamers are a couple of lousy trophies or achievements that prompt the question if our achievement board lists also come in “mens.”

With consideration that justification for the development practice manifests in the game culture’s continual consent to theft of their $60 and 7 hours time, it is no great surprise that the games of this nature see the light of day. Otherwise, game publishers would have rightfully told the movie publishers to piss off by now. They have not, so remember to keep your wallets, er, eyes open for Captain America and Thor, the games, and keep believing that every time you don’t support the onslaught of movie-turned-game titles, Uwe Boll further endangers the Panda Bear species with another game-turned-movie.

I have to admit though, the thought is tempting. I have often wondered what it would be like to play as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho: The Game. Would I ask Jared Leto if he likes Genesis or just kill him outright? Would I have tried harder to feed the ATM a stray cat? What would the chainsaw action sequences as I ran naked down the hallway entail, would I have to hurdle annoyed neighbors or could I kill them too? Indeed these questions keep me awake at night.

Not all licensed games are horrible, some turn out pretty damned enjoyable. Games like Ducktales , Golden Eye 007, Batman Arkham Asylum, and Metro 2033 were awesome games to play because despite the unifying core between the game and its original media, they didn’t rely on the original media to script all aspects of the game. Instead, the games were created with scripts independent enough that the original media was a guideline and advertising the original media wasn’t a major objective.

I am surprised however, at the lack of success in the mono-patterns evidenced in this tiny, flawed facet of the industry because other broad facets of the game industry mimic the same mono-patterns with huge, often nauseating success; FPS shooters are generally all the same:

Crysis 2 was Killzone 3 on earth against Aliens instead of in space against humans. Well, and Killzone was compelling in terms of story, Crysis 2 was just a plot rewrite and redirection to keep the franchise alive and an attempt to unify several dated themes in other FPS titles that previous developers shrugged at because they were dated. Mainly buying Crysis 2 is no different from buying and wearing a Tag Heuer watch just because it is a Tag Heuer watch.

Black Ops was Battlefield 2 except set 40-50 years earlier with a crazy person running around the set of factual wars escaping armies controlled by crazy dictators instead of normal people running around trying to stop the same fictitious war and escaping crazy dictators. Well, and Battlefield 2 was not batshit crazy implausible based on the mixture of settings to the level of Black Ops, and BF2’s multiplayer strengths didn’t give advantage based on connection speed or ruin everyone’s game if the host rage-quit. I will say though, I half expected a perpetually spinning top to appear while the credits rolled, that way I could feel the game was in some small way the least bit clever.

“Alex Mason, I, Ed Harris, have been chasing your sweaty man-bits through two decades of proxy wars as you’ve killed innumerable people of interest to the U.S. government. I will conveniently forget that this entire fiasco, and nearly all carnage involved, is the result of your delusional schizophrenic sociopathy. The false memories and programming by communist party in-fighters, Gary Oldman and the bad guy from Wishmaster, did contribute yes, but your direct actions ultimately undermine the U.S. government. Now that you’ve spent the better part of three hours wallowing in false memories, confusing players, and killing the wrong people on “accident”, I am going to let you go because we’re being attacked and because the CIA has sudden firm trust in you, it’s what we do – trust people, implicitly even. There will be time later to worry about your mental stability and loyalties, right now take this gun, and kill only the people I tell you. If you do this, I can build a case that proves the false choices I give you mean that you weren't really a schizophrenic sociopath all along but a patriotic schizophrenic sociopath. “

(Oh yeah, spoiler alert for the above - guess I should have put this higher in the post?).

Dead Space 2 was Resident Evil 5 in outer space that shoved the responsibility of turning otherwise poverty stricken mindless cultists into poverty stricken mindless bio-zombies (which means the change was only physical) on a religion based political faction functioning on corporate agenda, seeking hyper-progressive evolution instead of an evil version of S.C. Johnson Wax that sought weapons grade progressive human evolution on earth for political control. Well, and Dead Space didn’t utilize annoying assistive AI that depleted the same high-value / low appropriation resources as the player controlled counterpart and lacked a superhuman puppeteer with sunglasses grafted to his face, but at least in Dead Space there was the giant Twizzler to destroy (I hate Twizzlers). In addition, Dead Space had a soundstage and user interface on par with the awesomeness of flaming cyborg unicorns, rainbows that drip blood, and maybe a pack of headless Peeps (which are all pretty freaking awesome), while the UI for Resident Evil 5 was on par with itself.

In addition, some non-licensed games exist and “earn” too many accolades to validate ire for only licensed games with the biggest joke toward success and acclaim that comes to mind being Borderlands.

Borderlands was nothing short of a slick remake of Brute Force with the skill growth mechanic from Shadow Watch and Hellgate: London, wrapped neatly in the “new and unique” visual style seen in XIII, Crimson Tears, Fear Effect, and Silverfall, but with the tedious task acquisition of Fallout 3 except with archetype character personalities of a carrot. Seriously, why bother giving a backstory and purpose to a character only to abandon it (and them) the moment the player steps from the bus? I would have felt like less a victim of full frontal molestation if the game were upfront and said, “Here, just start killing things and run back and forth like a mentally deficient monkey on crack, in a safety harness.” (oh wait, it sort of did).

Of course there is always the licensing of games that spawn from licensing characters from other games – Super Smash Brothers, Marvel Vs. (insert nostalgic but defunct game franchise here), and Soul Calibur.

Having played and thoroughly enjoyed Soul Edge and Soul Blade, Soul Calibur was initially great until the release of Soul Calibur III at which time the story fell apart and tertiary characters appeared to serve as both marketing presence figures and as the game handicap character. Likewise, Marvel vs. Capcom and Super Smash Brothers were initially great because they evidenced a market for people that have a markedly surprising disinterest in the story sequencing and relevance between featured fighters that beleaguered other fighting games. These games were for people who simply wanted to punch and kick anything for absolutely no reason at all, never had the opportunity to play Rival Schools, and further hone the skills of timed, sequential button mashing - especially if it meant a match-up of scantily clad gravity affected busty women and egocentric musclemen with guns or tiny unitards with underwear on the outside. Well, to be fair - that is truer for Capcom Vs. whatever than Super Smash brothers, which basically took Nintendo first party headline characters and put them in a 2.5D sno-globe arena of multi-tier platforms with camera angles discernible to only a flounder fish as a profitable reminder that Nintendo didn’t forget Mario, Metroid, Pokémon, Kirby, Star Fox, and Zelda titles have a zombie following that have an orgasm when they hear any of the aforementioned in a more expensive re-release on a new platform. I do have to seriously wonder though, who sat down and pondered, “If Pikachu got in a fight with Samus Aran, who would win?” Regardless, that person needs a chastity belt made of exposed fiberglass and steel wool. I can only imagine some developer created the idea as a kid in the early 90’s, thumbing through Nintendo Power on the bed impersonating a one-armed bandit while in the middle of some furry fantasy.

There's nothing wrong with the games I apparently just slammed and simplified; they were all great games in their own rights. I loved Dead Space and actually enjoyed Resident Evil 5. Admittedly I sort of enjoyed Black Ops for more than 15 minutes before the multiplayer exposed itself as total garbage, and Killzone maintained my interest and I found it enjoyable. Through it all though, when we strip away the nuances and the visual styles, they're carbon copies of one another. Both licensed and non-licensed games have equal opportunity to be great or to suck. The major differences between the two types lie in frequency and modulation.

With some help from science, we can see that non-licensed games suck in pattern similar to licensed games, but with less frequency or modulation. Licensed games look more like an irregular heartbeat right before someone dies but non-licensed games look nauseatingly predictable and constant. Likewise, licensed games tend at least fire warning shots in the box office before maiming their victims, while media hype and PR spinsters propel non-licensed games to stardom, science proves it.

As seen above, licensed games suck harder than non-licensed games less often than the worst non-licensed games, but are more consistent in sucking. People expect licensed games to blow, so when they do it is no great shock; the expectations lessen the impact. Conversely non-licensed games carry greater expectations and when they're horrible it is proportionately devastating to the gamer. Both situations evolved over time to serve as counter balances for one another.

The result is a still an inexcusable void of suckage that if given life, would destroy North Dakota and possibly a noticeable chunk of Canada (or maybe no one would notice, sounds like a job for science). When someone has already experienced the original concept and presentation on the intended media, any divergence feels like Rachel Black sounds; these games become an ends to a mean. So, for as long as developers belittle themselves by churning out quick buck marketing products ad nauseam, I’ll continue to hate an abhor a majority of the licensed games more than shittiest of non-licensed games because production of such games are a choice and not a requirement. What then, should happen with regard to licensed titles? Well I'm not going to do a *** thing about it because I'm thinking of the kids. I'm a giver and if there's anything I enjoy, it's the look on their little faces as the feeling of disappointment sets in. Why strip them of that?

Opinion: Users May Account for 50% of the PSN Problem [UPDATED]

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 06:04:00 GMT

Yes. You, the user. I assert that you are a major contributing factor to the problem at hand. I'm fair though and claim some of that responsibility, or I would if I had my personal info on PlayStation Network (PSN) but I don't.

The recent Sony "debacle," or what some 'journalists' have penned as the Great Sony Debacle, has spun to mega-deluxe proportions by just about everyone that can spell their own name correctly and usess the Internet - as though 10 years from now a middle school student will be asked by their teacher to flip to page 212 of a U.S. History book and begin reading a chapter about this event right next to the mildly 'educational' blurb on "too big to fail."

Earlier in the week, The Escapist ran two articles. One alleging "a poll" (of about 2500 people) indicated 1/5 (or a less sensational 20%) of PSN users were looking to switch to XBOX. The other article contained an opinion from GeoHots, the hacker that cracked the PS3 and distributed the code for everyone on the internet, about Sony, PSN, and this "fiasco." (buzz words sure are fun)

What I gather from the referenced poll is that 1/5 of PS3 owners also think like total morons. I may be in that 20% moron, but not for jumping ship over superficial gaming after-thoughts. Heading over to the XBOX is the prerogative of the user undoubtedly, but to assume data is safer with any other network isn't very wise considering users will place the same trust and data on a different network that has been attacked previously (remember 2008?). With no word from Microsoft as to any additional measures taken to ensure they do not fall victim to a similar attack, it may be time to consider how seriously they take themselves and if at any point they are thought as "taking themselves too serious" then should we fear that it may be seen as "arrogant"? Obviously a group of hackers set the metric for the social norm, right?

Now, many XBOX fan-persons are claiming that XBOX Live (XBL) is superior; that no one will hack it. Whether XBL is superior is a matter of opinion and I'm not getting into that (aside from an irrelevant issue, I don't particularly care what someone else likes). However, "Major Nelson" and Stephen Toulouse would strongly disagree that XBL isn't hackable or hasn't been hacked as both have had their XBL accounts hacked maliciously. Additionally, neither case on XBL resulted in Microsoft attempting network investigation to discover the perpetrators and prepare to take legal action against them. Microsoft just bans the XBOX and the user pretty much walks away without an online account. On XBL hacking of accounts continues to run pretty high. Sony has however, brought in outside help - which countermands the concept of "gloating" or "prideful." At least it can be said they've recognized that the problem is larger than they can handle alone. This is something that should make people feel less angry because it indicates affirmative action rather than just sweeping the problem under a rug; it's addressed as a serious issue.

So, with that - it's just ridiculous that this event has spurred so much ire from the level and direction it has.

50% of it is the end result of unsafe digital practice from the consumer end - putting personal data and CC info saved to a server owned by a corporation always carries risk, and every site that allows the option has a disclaimer explaining it; it's not their fault someone is too stupid or lazy to read it.With that, risk is more or less a gamble, right? As a general rule - never gamble more than you can afford to lose, ever. I can't afford to lose, so I invest in PSN cards. Unsurprisingly people aren't really exploring the idea of blaming themselves too much and I guess it is because it's like telling a sexual assault victim that part of their problem soliciting strangers for sex, alone in a dark alley, dressed as cheap hooker - go figure.

10% of it is because someone, or a group of people, felt uppity about a policy they disagreed with; by taking it upon themselves to administer their idea of vengeance or justice on behalf of people who never otherwise really asked, they've created this ***-storm of nonsense that will ultimately cost the very people they allegedly intended to "liberate". Piss poor planning mixed with self-righteousness indignation never plays out well and like America in a proxy war, just because "we" like democracy doesn't mean "we" have the right to "enlighten" other people to it at will. Ironic really, forcing "choice" sort of countermands the concept doesn't it?

25% may be due to something similar to Pearl Harbor (and I mean nothing ethnic by this) - Sony may have known it was coming and didn't do much to brace for the impact. As a result the attack took the system to a grinding halt. I understand why Sony didn't come outright and immediately state that information could be compromised - because if it turned out to be false people would already be hysterical and Sony would look stupid. If true, then the demand for more information would be so great that anything said at that time wouldn't be 100% substantiated. It is bad practice to release potentially false information, and saying "maybe and maybe not" as an immediate answer is worse than not saying anything at all because it allows for further media speculation based on rampant second-hand sources.

15% is caused by the game and industry media that will fuel and sensationalize the reports for readership, link clicks, and ad revenue. The primary objective of any media business is to sell ads and ad space by generating views. This is especially true in a "community" based site. Truth and valid information backed by sound investigation into what actually happens get tossed to the wayside when in view of monetary gain, corporate interests, and industry desire - and the people are all the dumber for it.Notice how many "news" sources actually link directly to the PlayStation blog and cite the source directly (hint: very few).

As for GeoHots, he said:

Now until more information is revealed on the technicals, I can only speculate, but I bet Sony's arrogance and misunderstanding of ownership put them in this position. Sony execs probably haughtily chuckled at the idea of threat modeling. Traditionally the trust boundary for a web service exists between the server and the client. But Sony believes they own the client too, so if they just put a trust boundary between the consumer and the client(can't trust those pesky consumers), everything is good. Since everyone knows the PS3 is unhackable, why waste money adding pointless security between the client and the server?

This arrogance undermines a basic security principle, never trust the client. It's the same reason MW2 was covered in cheaters, EA [sic - he means Activision] even admitted to the mistake of trusting Sony's client. Sony needs to accept that they no longer own and control the PS3 when they sell it to you. Notice it's only PSN that gave away all your personal data, not Xbox Live when the 360 was hacked, not iTunes when the iPhone was jailbroken, and not GMail when Android was rooted. Because other companies aren't crazy.

Though he has a point, trusting the client is a bad idea - it's the exact thing he was previously angry about and a primary contributing factor to his previous actions. He felt that Sony, in their alleged arrogance, needed to be taken down a few pegs and by hacking the device attempted to prove that he could control what he paid for (then handed the keys out to the public while simultaneously telling Sony in order to gather up the keys, they needed to hire him). So, technically, Sony didn't trust the client, only themselves a bit too much (if we adopt the logic of GeoHotz). Many people are claiming "arrogance" and I really don't see it, at least anymore than any of the other console manufacturers or software developers. Sony has the "It only does everything" ads and Microsoft loves to update the media on how many units it sells by lumping in RRoD replacement units.

That aside, it is true that XBL and iTunes or Android never gave away user data - but neither did PSN. In all cases it was or "could be" ripped out just like any encrypted information has the possibility of decryption. Combine a determined self-righteous hacker and a wealth of user stupidity and it creates a skeleton key.

Then again, people will undoubtedly jump over to another console. As GeoHots explains "other companies aren't crazy," but social groups and individual idiots are. I wonder, how many people potentially effected by this "fiasco" have stopped for a moment and considered that other services and sites holding their credit card info may fall victim to a similar attack sooner or later; identity theft happens daily and the more places you place an identity the greater the chances it can be stolen. I'd wager not many people have considered this, as they are too focused on pointing out the alleged arrogance of Sony, whining about an inability to play with their brother in the next room, and making grand announcement that they're about to "jump over to XBOX" to notice their own stupidity. There's no real point in announcing it - but look on the bright side - you've got your rage quit achievement. Anyone care to back the GIO and Ars Technicha assertions that gaming is cheaper than ever now? Yeah, I didn't really think so...

#winning

[UPDATE]

Apparently an offer to sell credit card information is floating around the inter-webber-nets. Among the rumored offer to sell, one sale is rumored to have been made to Sony to buy the sensitive credit card and PSN account information back but Sony allegedly declined that offer. Patrick Seybold of Sony claims no such offer was made. Several reports have cropped up from a small handful PSN account holders claiming fraudulent charges to their account. The current estimate of credit cards pillaged is in the range of 2.2 million, roughly 3% of the total PSN account holders. This estimate could change in either direction over time, however.

If there's something true about community organizations (such as gamers), its that a cult of personality develops over time for certain entities, sometimes more quickly than others. With the heated statements directed from some gamers it stands to reason that some of the complaints will be fabrications by people attempting to "stir the pot" and others will be from disenfranchised hackers that fancy themselves more than what they are (every culture has a group that think more highly of themselves than actually warranted). Should users still be worried? Absolutely. It would be borderline mentally deficient if users that placed credit card info on the PSN didn't get nervous. However the same user could also find the label placed on them if they say.... didn't immediately call the card issuer and seek to be issued an new card immediately. Yes, it's inconvenient waiting for a new credit card for 2-4 weeks, but it's also inconvenient having to battle and prove you didn't buy $2000 of baby Jesus figurines off eBay. Besides, cash - it's not broken.

On a lighter note, between 66 and 70 million PSN accounts were hacked, so although 2.2 million credit cards is many personal accounts and very capable of devastating the lives of many people and companies, it is a narrow scope of users comparatively (about 3%). What remains important is that thus far, this string of reports is not confirmed by law enforcement, security investigators, Sony, or even hackers that have previously attempted to implicate themselves (assumedly for glory).

In closing I would like to share the details of the email I received from Sony roughly two days ago (April 27, 2011) for two reasons: To reiterate my point about security and because I'm sure that some users haven't checked their email or have corporate communications sent to spam (which is something I tend to also do at times).

From Sony (emphasis mine):

Although we are still investigating the details of this incident, we believe that an unauthorized person has obtained the following information that you provided: name, address (city, state, zip), country, email address, birthdate, PlayStation Network/Qriocity password and login, and handle/PSN online ID. It is also possible that your profile data, including purchase history and billing address (city, state, zip), and your PlayStation Network/Qriocity password security answers may have been obtained. If you have authorized a sub-account for your dependent, the same data with respect to your dependent may have been obtained. While there is no evidence at this time that credit card data was taken, we cannot rule out the possibility. If you have provided your credit card data through PlayStation Network or Qriocity, out of an abundance of caution we are advising you that your credit card number (excluding security code) and expiration date may have been obtained.

For your security, we encourage you to be especially aware of email, telephone and postal mail scams that ask for personal or sensitive information. Sony will not contact you in any way, including by email, asking for your credit card number, social security number or other personally identifiable information. If you are asked for this information, you can be confident Sony is not the entity asking. When the PlayStation Network and Qriocity services are fully restored, we strongly recommend that you log on and change your password. Additionally, if you use your PlayStation Network or Qriocity user name or password for other unrelated services or accounts, we strongly recommend that you change them as well.

To protect against possible identity theft or other financial loss, we encourage you to remain vigilant, to review your account statements and to monitor your credit reports. We are providing the following information for those who wish to consider it:

- U.S. residents are entitled under U.S. law to one free credit report annually from each of the three major credit bureaus. To order your free credit report, visit www.annualcreditreport.com or call toll-free (877) 322-8228.

- We have also provided names and contact information for the three major U.S. credit bureaus below. At no charge, U.S. residents can have these credit bureaus place a "fraud alert" on your file that alerts creditors to take additional steps to verify your identity prior to granting credit in your name. This service can make it more difficult for someone to get credit in your name. Note, however, that because it tells creditors to follow certain procedures to protect you, it also may delay your ability to obtain credit while the agency verifies your identity. As soon as one credit bureau confirms your fraud alert, the others are notified to place fraud alerts on your file. Should you wish to place a fraud alert, or should you have any questions regarding your credit report, please contact any one of the agencies listed below:

Experian: 888-397-3742; www.experian.com; P.O. Box 9532, Allen, TX 75013
Equifax: 800-525-6285; www.equifax.com; P.O. Box 740241, Atlanta, GA 30374-0241
TransUnion: 800-680-7289; www.transunion.com; Fraud Victim Assistance Division,
P.O. Box 6790, Fullerton, CA 92834-6790

An Open Letter to the Game Informer Staff and Editors.

Shawn Gordon — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:50:00 GMT

Dear Game Informer Editors,

I can live with some of the flaws within Game Informer the website and the magazine. However, the one thing I cannot live with is the poor quality of information and slow abandonment of integrity noticed within the written articles of Game Informer magazine and website, specifically within the 'news' articles promoted to 'feature.'

Erudite, concise, and responsible are all terms closely associated with quality. By a degree, they are also associated with the term integrity. As trusted journalists, you are aware that your audience relies upon your methods to glean worthwhile information from your output. Solid fact is the basis for solid opinion and unfortunately, recent behaviors and thus written material, has fallen alarmingly short of containing true integrity, edging dangerously close to the type of "honesty" seen in a supermarket tabloid. Neither publications (supermarket tabloid or Game Informer) tell an "outright lie", but the material omits easily resourced counter-facts, fail to provide a means to obtain balanced information, asserts itself as "the" place to seek information, suggests first-hand knowledge, or refuses to acknowledge alternative viewpoints fairly; it misleads, I believe with intention to do so, or at very least, the result of repeated negligence.

The general context of behaviors demonstrated within the staff and editors, I believe, speaks volumes with regard to the level of respect they have for the community. The erroneous, misleading, and sometimes baseless assertions insult the intelligence by implying that readers should not search for verification of asserted facts by spoon feeding the information and providing the resources for a half of a full story that best fits the means of Game Informer or Game Stop. If this is not a problem and considered ethically acceptable for the staff and editors, then I feel as though they owe their readers enough to at least openly state their reasons for justification.

The catalyst of this letter to this letter is Matt Miller's "Enemy of the State," an article I took a considerable amount of time to research and refute, but other recent instances include Bryan Vore's "Gaming Cheaper than Ever," which cites an Ars Technica article that fails to properly use the right economic formulas and eschews the distinction between inflation as buying power and dollar worth. It "forgot" GDP and CPI in the formulas and then overestimates by about $20 per game. Did Game Informer make the initial claim? No, but they did parrot false and skewed facts as though it was truthful and expects readers to assume Game Informer checked facts.

Then, with Meagan Marie's ( formerly VanBurkleo) "Rush Limbaugh Defends Games As Art," pundit Rush Limbaugh allegedly "defends video-games as art," when in fact the quote she used from Limbaugh states the contrary:

"Join me any time the government tries to impinge on anybody's speech," he said. "Join me when the government tries to tell you can't eat trans fat. Join me when the government gets involved in all these other behavioral and speech things that they try to tell you and control us we can't do: What kind of car we have to drive, whether or not we're responsible for global warming, the kind of lightbulb we have to have, where our thermostats are. Get on board, my buddy. If it's taken a video game to get you interested and have the light go off, to have you see what liberalism is all about, I'm glad to have you on our side, 'cause I agree with you. Leave your game alone. The people that put together these video games are artists in their own right. If you're gonna start saying that video games are raunchy, then how the hell do you leave cable television alone?"

The blue highlight is the only instance "art" may come from and it isn't used as a literal defense of "games as art." I'm not going to make assertions toward Ms. Marie's ability but I'd like to think that in middle school she figured out how to identify a topic sentence just as everyone else; the blue highlighted sentence isn't a topic sentence, the subject of the paragraph, or even an underlying point made. Tsk tsk, someone didn't do their research before parroting corporate agenda...shameful. Even if there could be any claim to "deadline," there's little excuse for taking something out of context when the majority of the piece is cut and paste from a secondary source; if it is worth the time to read to the author, then it's worth the time to research properly.

The yellow highlight is Limbaugh's main talking point and topic sentence; as evidenced in the transcript, Limbaugh is more concerned about defending Conservatism and defaming Liberalism than anything the GIO article headline asserts. The sourced Kotaku article titled "Rush Limbaugh Defends Video Game Free Speech, 'This is Where the Battle Is' states nothing about art, and denotes the importance of the Fairness Doctrine, the underlying point Limbaugh has been campaigning about. I fail to see how this can be considered any standard of honest journalism and the editorial staff of GI should feel shamed.

Ms. Marie doesn't alter the headline to reflect the content, cites a secondary source and the primary - which means she has access to the original material yet posted clearly misleading content and inaccurate headline, irresponsibly. She closes with an original entry pointing readers back to Matt Miller's "feature" for a 'refresher' on the importance of the case - but there's no 'refresher' because Miller's "feature" doesn't clearly state what is at stake. In all, This is an example of content taken out of context, a misleading headline, and another citation of a second-hand source. Why do the staff attach their name to sourced material? Why not just "sourced news" persona for this and be done with it?

To expand that list, other articles that made me raise my eyebrow classified as "news," were:

Federal Court Hates on Used Software Sales

The court wasn't "hating" on anything - judges are ideally impartial. The author did not disclose without pressure GameStop / GameInformer stock in the case and did not represent the counter argument. If a user hadn't pointed it out - there is no reason to believe that the article would have been corrected. It's good the concern was addressed, but a glaring mistake resolved with some backpedaling nonetheless. Currently the article fails to make distinction between the EULA in productivity software and game software. There is a huge difference between the EULA in Adobe CS5 Master Suite or Native Instruments KONTAKT and EA's SPORE or Activision's DJ Hero.

The Associated Press (AP) source used the title "Appeals court ruling threatens used software sales."

EA's Jeff Green calls Schwarzenegger "A Hypocrite."

This piece is a tough call, but what pushed it to raise my eyebrow was the statement that claims, "Jeff Green does an excellent job of explaining what is at stake in the impending case" (there were a few minor things, but they are too debatable for strict mention). Jeff Green does not explain what is at stake in a factual manner, only an opinion using naturalistic fallacies and an appeal to fear. In fact, it didn't explain or quote any portion of the proposed Bill with exception of a single word: excessive. What Green did well, was project a very good straw-man argument. Subsequently, it was parroted by GIO as an enlightened view from the inside without mentioning the heavy bias and faulty logic; it promoted a hive mind approach in assuming that position of the author validates a claim - not at all true and a dangerous method of operation.

GIO ends up appearing to support fallacious arguments or can't see a flawed argument and blindly leads the blind and these kinds of article that crop up just as often as reprinted PR feeds are not very encouraging toward the claim by GIO as source of "information."

"SACRED COW"
In Issue 211, vol XX of Game Informer magazine, The "Sacred Cow" piece in print seemed to fly in the face of the reviews GI gave them for the very reasons high scores were given. Strange in nature and if it was a joke, thicken it with obvious sarcasm or save it for an installment of "game-infarcer." There is not a problem with changing opinions when the facts change - the facts in the game did not change, yet opinion did. It doesn't generally work that way, and it erodes "trust" when there's reason indicated for a change of opinion - it seems fickle or 'bought'. I am left to think, "how am I supposed to look at these review scores and put stock into them at GameStop during a purchase when upon release they'll say how great this game is and then a month or two later express the contrary?"

Look at the glowing review of Medal of Honor one month and the condemnation the next...

Moreover, many might recall the whole cheating in Fallout 3 incident. Granted the staff ousted their colleague and lambasted him for it, but I still think it speaks to the character of individuals regardless of how finite the infraction. Lies are lies, cheats are cheats - there are no degrees of either. Fair?

Mock Trial Rules in Favor of Anti-Video Game Law

The presence of this is premature, and some degree of irresponsibility in the lack of verifiable source ensues. That aside, the law is not 'anti-video game' because no one opposes all video games nor was the bill about opposing video games. The bill, AB1179, is restricts sale of violent content in games to minors. Perhaps "Mock Trail favors California Assembly Bill 1179," or "Mock Trial favors content limitation to minors" is a more accurate relay of information and wouldn't make the author look as though they can't read properly.

Phil Kollar chimes in through comments and defends the 'credibility' by stating that the unnamed source is... second hand? wait - what? second hand sources are not credible sources. Then he states that there's a more in-depth article on the matter in the magazine (Enemy of the State). Enemy of the State was already vague, ambiguous, and misleading - to use it as a spinal column for any string of equally misleading "news" is like building a model blob - no structure, no fact, but lots of confusing and misleading.

Grand Theft Childhood author weighs in on Supreme Court Case

Cheryl Olsen is a co-author, not author of the book. Her husband, Lawrence Kutner, is the other author. In the link provided in the article (upon request), the source cites themselves a majority of the time. When avoiding self-plagiarism this would be fine, but as a viable source to support a claim, it isn't very solid. However, the source also argued counter intuitively in their book, specifically page 99.

How could that title look to be more accurate? "Grand Theft Childhood Co-Author Gives Professional Opinion on Impending California Game Law."

Maybe the suggestion is boring - but it's honest and allows the audience to draw their own conclusion via the content rather than instill a bias.

To go with all of this, none of the staff have felt much need to place links to anything that may get a reader to have an opposing viewpoint. There are links to a place where one may sign up to take action against the bill, asserted variations of what the bill allegedly means written by those who are anti-AB 1179, what is allegedly at stake in opinion form from people who oppose the bill, provision of all sorts of anti-Bill 'testimony' but few names sources - and no link to the bill itself. I would hope that this would seem strange to a professional journalist, because it seems strange to an average everyday person such as myself.

Perhaps readers are part to blame - it is partially their responsibility to investigate and seek answers However, the authors are making the claims and it is their responsibility to bear the burden of proof and not the responsibility of the reader to have to ask for the facts an opinion was based.

Please fix this, if not for the sake of your readers and the culture supporting the magazine and retail chain, then perhaps for the sake of the right to the title of "journalists" and your personal pride.

Sincerely,

Shawn K. Gordon

P.S. I cannot help but wonder if the staff is of such a poor quality, or at least the editors with such low a standard, that bait is required to manipulate interest. I've noticed that 'dry' pieces, that relay fact get low ratings (used as approval or agreement rather than something qualitative) but really opinionated and misleading pieces that play on the hopes and fears of the audience have higher ratings. I don't dislike the staff or editors as people - honestly, I have no vested interest in their well-being; I'm indifferent and impartial - but it is disappointing to see a self-proclaimed "most influential, most subscribed to" publication dive deep into the journalistic practices of a grocery store gossip rag.

OPINION: And Justice For Whom?

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 05:20:00 GMT

Enemy of the State by Game Informer Associate Editor, Matt Miller, was a piece of great interest to me. Legal issues in the gaming sub-culture are important and opportunity to honestly discuss how or why these laws will affect jobs, hobbies, or passion abound. Sadly, what articles tend to lack in proper focus and scope, is made up for in shock and hyperbole. The latter is the reason I found Enemy of the State disappointing. I believe that perhaps, the article treated the topic irresponsibly and presented facts poorly, when at all.

Many articles have surfaced concerning California Assembly Bill 1179 (AB 1179). I am not compelled to “explain” what the Bill says or what it means because I believe readers are intelligent enough to glean from it, true meaning; a link is sufficient. Proposed by Senator Leland Yee, Endorsed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, stricken by twelve judges and opposed by seemingly everyone in society, AB 1179 is perceived as a modern evil determined to undermine core Constitutional values by enslaving the gaming community, industry, and culture. Few articles however, explore the depth of the situation or provide accurate purview as to the potential effects to whom. As the situation develops, the journalistic opinions shroud facts to a point of inseparability and the public outcry in opposition to the proposed bill grows louder. Regardless of stance, gamers have voiced their concerns about what they think and feel, based on what they are told. Are their feelings based on good information, or is there more to consider prior to solidifying an opinion? What is really going on? What does the Bill truly say? How did it get to the Supreme Court? Why send broken controllers to Yee and is that even a great idea?

Many questions remain unanswered despite alleged attempts to answer them. Based on other articles on the topic, there is much information yet to uncover – and to get a clearer, less restrictive answer to certain questions, a long road lies ahead.

Review: Medal of Honor 2010

Shawn Gordon — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:10:00 GMT

The total package of Medal of Honor (MoH) is judged on the single player aspects alone because multi-player aspects of any game are subject to many variables and optional. Single player is the game itself and the portion of the game universally consistent with any other video game on the market (e.g., not all games have multi-player, but all games have a single player facet).

Some have claimed comparison between MoH and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (MW2) is not possible. The fact is that the two are direct competitors on more levels than fans MW2 of would like to account for, however they are different classes of games. Conceptually both games take place in the era of modern warfare maneuvers, invoke current technology, and are set in places familiar to the public as areas of recent conflict against a Middle Eastern enemy. The stories are vastly different and though MW2 has some Hollywood flair, MoH relies less on stuff blowing up and a ‘balls out’ action classic vantage point. What MoH lacks in flashy visuals, masks, and “muttonstaches,” they make up for in gilded beards, sunglasses, and an FDNY hat that cries, “Payback is a b*tch, ***.” MoH also has more focus on tight spaces, sudden white-knuckle intensity, and a reverent method of conveying the hardships and sacrifices during Operation Anaconda.

Exceeding MW2, MoH:

Tells a cohesive story and backed by recent historical reference.
Does not use “shock” for shallow impact via non-points and useless optional missions,
Does not present numerous filler conversations leading nowhere for no reason.

Similar to MW2, MoH:

The silent protagonists are at times hollow and shallow; empty.
Multi-player has contrasting issues that devalue the title (see complaints section).
Thought a bit longer (and at times tougher) than MW2, the campaign feels a bit brief.

Worse than MW2, MoH:

Shows texture loading. Minor, but considering the already tedious load times and contrived Online Pass and” unlock” heckling EA implements to their games recently, it adds to the daunting process of booting up the game, especially if players are in the mood for quick action.
Single-player campaign objective markers are often innocuous and sometimes misleading.
Scripted events do not happen ‘on time’ during some missions and players who get ahead of teammates are stuck waiting on teammates to catch up (exposed) or teammates leave players behind causing the mission progress to happen without them. This creates the feeling of being lost at times.

CONCEPT:

A modern period First Person Shooter, Medal of Honor is an FPS franchise reboot that tells relays various aspects of Operation Anaconda. Primarily highlighting that, although the operation was successful MoH successfully proposes several after action questions such as, “What is the metric of success and to the standard of whom?” In addition, MoH does this without detracting from the honorable sacrifices and selfless actions of American military. Finally, at the end of the campaign, a well worded and seemingly heart-felt “thank you” displays on-screen claiming dedication to the proud service members of this great nation, the United States of America.

STORY:

One of the better military campaign stories told in a modern FPS, players take on the role of SEAL Team Six member “Rabbit,” Delta Force Operative “Deuce,” U.S. Army Ranger “Dante,” and briefly, AH-64 Apache gunner “Hawk.” Transition between each character is generally seamless, and the presentation of CG segments adds flair to compacted intensity. One of the aspects of the story I quickly picked up on was the stark contrast between bureaucratic assholes who make decisions based on old information and the soldiers knee deep in *** living the real-time scenario, and allows players to get a small taste of how stuffed suits protect their own interests at the expense of lives. On the downside, numerous cut scenes may cause players to perceive the game as having more cutscene than play time (not true, but it can feel that way).

GRAPHICS:

Interestingly, the graphics for MoH are impressive with an appeasing frame rate compared to games of similar caliber and class. However, this visual standard may have come with a price: destructible environments within the multiplayer environment. Players have verbalized their desire to have a BFBC2 style environment where buildings can be completely destroyed thereby reducing hiding places for those ultra-annoying quick-scoping snipers. Address of player complains overheard online are at the end of the article under “COMPLAINTS” followed by personal suggestions.

In the campaign, the increased graphics add to the feel of desperation (number of combatants on the screen, volumetric smoke and lighting, etc.). One particular mission where players will find themselves playing as a U.S. Ranger features a washed out landscape, with the retina searing setting sun adding difficulty to distinguishing who or what targets lay before the player. Additionally, the higher resolution textures add much needed depth and provide good reason to check bush and rock formations while traversing the very linear landscape.

MECHANICS:

Medal of Honor does what few FPS franchises pull off: inverts expected progression by taking a huge step forward for the campaign mode of play and a huge step backwards on multi-player.

The campaign adds a few features that only a handful of FPS games have ever used, such as the slide to cover. Players can also lean incrementally instead of the toggle methods employed by other FPS titles previously. A nice feature added is the ability to as for ammo resupply from comrades if both are using the same weapon. If the player has a different weapon or is not truly in need of ammo, teammates do not give the player ammo.

Not everything in this franchise reboot is glittery gold however; the multiplayer has some serious flaws and the campaign mode will eventually display more mechanical faults via design than triumphs. Multi-player mode feels more like a watered down Battlefield: Bad Company 2 than anything associated with the single player MoH campaign. Players cannot obliterate buildings, often snag themselves on smallish ground obstacles, and strangely – cannot shoot through mesh, but can see and fall through it. Conversely, players can shoot through wood, sheet metal and at times, apparently concrete. Players were shown a handful of nice but common features with BFBC2, and in MoH some of the features were withheld. Players naturally expect that a newer title have more, if not the same features available - especially if it uses the same engine from the same developers. MoH lets players down on this front.

In one-and-a-half weeks of online play, I have adjusted to the inability to slide or go prone. Additionally I have adjusted to the inability of other players to pull themselves above the “run-n-gun” tactics so commonly associated with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. A bit of forewarning:

From a tactical perspective MoH should be approached more like MAG lite; communicate, use navigational directions (North, East, South, and West) rather than “left” or “right,” and never forget to fully clear an objective of hostiles before running ahead (unless you like giving out free kill points to the enemy).

From a strategic perspective, “run-n-gun” makes great sniper bait; everyone wants to get their medals and ribbons or rack up a high score to rank up – great – but “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” here. Attackers have limited reserves and rouge soloists contribute to losing a match because they do not provide good cover.

COMPLAINTS:

No game is perfect, and Medal of Honor is far from an exception. The single-player campaign resupply feature found logical implementation. Who better to get ammo from than a teammate, especially in a surgical operation where happening across an ammo depot or conveniently placed ammo boxes that fit carried weapons is chintzy? However, it makes no sense to provide that player with a modest level of ammo but teammates with ‘pack mule’ proportions of it. Granted the missions are not time consuming nor do they place players on a long trek but regardless of how many rounds players expend or the limited number of times teammates can hand ammo off, the teammates seem to have unlimited ammo for themselves.

On one hand, it was interesting to see a game implement the need to act conservatively with regard to ammo, but on the other hand, it was ridiculous because teammates hand off 3-4 clips at a time for four resupplies. This means that teammates are carrying upwards of 16 clips – yet the player stars with 4.

Multi-player gets the majority of complaints but not all complaints heard from players are truly valid , and there is little to no congruency between campaign and multi-player aside from maps and weapons. Medal of Honor multi-player clearly has faults, but some of the faults are with the player and not the game – for example, MoH requires a degree of teamwork and noticeably many people espouse the ironic “every person for themself” actions that often result in crushing defeats. The modes are less about points scored, number of support actions obtained, and more about successfully taking the objective, forcing the enemy to weakened positions, or protecting assets. What works for MW2 does not work for every FPS, nor should it. If players want the MW2 style of play – stick with the contrived style of MW2.

Valid complaints are in green, invalid are in red. It should be noted that the general feel of the Medal of Honor multi-player is strikingly similar to the beta and perceptively little if anything other than available maps and retaining screen settings were altered.

WTF? 5GB HDD SPACE AND DISK REQUIRED FOR FRONTLINE?

Yes. This is ridiculous. Requiring the disk for MoH: Frontline is understandable from a "rental" perspective and EA may not like the idea of people loaning their copy to a friend to pass the game around. However, pushing 5GB of HDD eating game files in addition to requiring the disk is contrived. This is a PC style anti-piracy tactic, that in most cases PC games install completely to the HDD and only require the disk to check that the player owns a physical copy. Often times, PC gamers simply patch the game with a NO-DVD fix and go about their day. But, with Sony fighting user freedom with firmware updates laced with anti-hack code and EA requiring the disc to play Frontline, it gives pause to EA's dedication toward download only as little more than control freak issues in high contrast. Seriously, Frontline wasn't a dealbreaker and with a 5GB HDD placeholder, I'm inclined to pass.

As an aside, it also makes me wonder why, with the methodology clearly designed to thwart rentals, EA or any publisher distribute a "rental" version of the game in the manner that movie publishers do? Something to consider EA... you're behind the curve (again).

LACK OF PHYSICAL MOVEMENT:

Players cannot lean or slide to cover as they can with the campaign, and neither feature is heavily used in the campaign which constitutes questioning their implementation at all. If there is any place these features would be helpful to players, multi-player is the prime facet for them. Another context of this complaint is a noted reduction in map size. Personally, the maps did not feel small for the type of game played. Something to keep in mind is that this game isn't about large open fields and a plethora of hills and valleys. Some maps are designed for close quarters with numerous exposed points of entry while other are designed to be an uphill battle with distinct advantages and disadvantages for players of either faction. People looking to simply get into sniper battles and creep around multiple floors of a single building should go back to Halo and Unreal.

The lack of physical movements may be the result of increased textures and a method of keeping frame rates acceptable. Regardless, people may have forgiven a reduction in graphics for an increase of ability.

CAMPERS:

Campers cramp style and generally contribute much less to the success of a team effort. They have trouble watching out for other players and often have trouble protecting themselves without help from others. In short, their tactics are for ‘bitches,’ or are they?

Specific classes of soldier such as sniper, lie in wait for someone dumb enough to expose themselves, or flank and attack from an undisclosed location from afar. Anger toward a sniper for camping is akin to anger at a fish for getting wet; it is what they do by design. Do not stop a sniper from sniping – they might stop that humiliating ‘knife’ kill from ruining your kill streak. However, other classes such as the Special Force and Rifleman are not designed to camp (and many do). They are the force movement and roving security. One or two of them may have to keep the snipers safe, but that is a small price to pay in retrospect.

SPAWNING:

Spawning is a major issue within the game. Countless players express frustration with spawning. The spawning issues pose three major problems:

When spawning, at times, players will spawn in the midst of an attack (support or direct fire). This grants an opposing player points, possibly additional support actions, and detracts from reserves an attacking force has available. Though opposing players cannot directly manipulate this flaw, it makes for a very frustrating experience all the same.
The game has intermittent issues differentiating between “deploy at front” and “deploy at base” and respawn is a crapshoot; players cannot dictate where they spawn at the front and will respawn at the back of a random player, thus contributing to the aforementioned. Also, this often acts as a detriment to the archetype players choose prior to respawning (e.g., a sniper spawning in the middle of a close quarters fire fight and a SpecOps spawning on a mountain ridge half a mile away from action).
In certain situations, deploying directly to the front allows players to populate an objective control point almost immediately. This allows players to ‘win’ an objective by instantly overpowering defenders irrespective of how hard a defender or defenders are working to stave off attackers.

SPAWN KILLING:

Few things create an imbalance like spawn killing / camping. During the spawning process, players will sneak close enough to the base spawn point and noobtoob with support attacks. Successive kills create killchains, which in turn create bigger attack support instances. Spawn killing may not have been a huge issue had it not been for the system using a clustered spawn mechanism. Players will spawn practically on top of one another on the front or in the base. Spreading people out (as per military doctrine) would significantly reduce casualties and make individuals harder to target en masse.

MASS KILLING:

Mass killing is when support actions kill of a huge portion of players. Only a handful of players have voiced frustration at mass kills. It is true that spawns will cluster people together, and this is bad – remaining clustered up is not the fault of the game. Spread out, increase the number of attack points the enemy must visually engage and distract them. Concentrated fire does best TO a point not FROM a point. Also, do not be ‘that guy’ – you know, the person who decided launching an RPG is a great idea whilst standing next to a sniper. It tends to give away the position of everyone around you.

“WHY CAN’T I [INSERT ACTION BASED COMPLAINT]?"

The short answer is, “because you can’t.” Many of the complaints such as “why can’t I drive the M3 over this box?” are stupid questions. The M3 can’t drive over the box because it is not programmed to. If players could jump into an M3 and roll over any and everything then what challenge would the defenders provide the attackers? The same is true for “Why can’t I blow that building up?” the fact is, that despite the minute visual failures of MoH, wanting it to be BFBC2 does not mean that the game is “stupid.” Conversely, the number of players that say and do stupid things that ruin the multi-player experience for others (which is another reason why the multi-player aspect is not graded in the review) is exponential. If I could record a session of multi-player and broadcast it in a scoreboard style it would appear as:

NERFING:

When a shotgun with a red dot sight can snipe from halfway across a map, tweaking is in order. Admittedly, I enjoy the over-powered shotgun at long range as much as the next guy but it’s also a demoralizing aspect of the game that saps the fun from an otherwise well played match between players. What makes the shotgun issue in MoH doubly frustrating is that DICE has had the same issue in Battlefield: Bad Company 2 multiplayer, and MW2 has dealt with the issue

HIT REGISTRY:

Open mic multi-player action reveals many of the player complaints; hit registry is a common issue “discussed” online. The game features various attachments with which players can enhance their weapons; none of them would create an imbalance such as ones witnessed in multi-player (or should, anyway). Watching as a player unloads a full P90 clip into the back of an enemy as they turn to fire two bullets from a pistol into the chest of the attacker, killing them – is ridiculous.

LACK OF WEAPONRY:

Some players have remarked that the lack of available weapons. Frankly, this is a ridiculous complaint. Realistically, soldiers don’t’ carry a wide range of weapons, as they do not make them safer. Additionally, the weapons within the game are adequate to do the job. Whether a player can carry a MP7 or an MP5 doesn’t matter in the end.

TURKEY SHOOT / LINEAR:

Players have complained that both single and multiplayer modes of play may reduce to little more than a “turkey shoot” and have a lack of open range to maneuver. Although true, all FPS games typically equate to a shooting gallery and MoH is no exception. However, MoH does not funnel players into a single route, only a single direction; players cannot choose to take a wide detour, but they may opt to dogleg and weave through obstacles instead of shoot straight in openly.

NO KILL CAM:

Lack of a “kill cam,” or after action camera that details the location a player scoring a kill, is not a bad thing. Some players have adjusted to hunting down and seeking revenge on snipers or players hiding in ambush. The only thing a kill cam does is remove the realistic challenge for players to cautiously seek out the sniper positions or check and clear an area prior to blindly advancing on a map. One of my favorite tactics in objective modes of play is to allow a handful of players to pass so that I can knife them in the back. It is the price of stupidity – and I get massive points and a ribbon for it. On the rare occasion this happens to me, I cannot help but become disappointed in myself because I should have checked and cleared the areas prior to advancing. Kill cam would not teach anyone to be a better player, but only expose smart and resourceful ones thereby forcing him or her to move from a good position. If a player cannot survive without a kill cam - they should unlearn the term “hardcore,” never use the term in a sentence in which they are also a subject, and consider migrating to a title that would best display their skills; “Fantavision,” perhaps.

CONCLUSION:

MoH isn't a resounding success, but it is far from a complete failure. There's much to improve upon and at times I ponder if the failings were intentional - to incrementally release updates and bring the game to the expectation of players while slowly attracting new players over time (given the "taliban" issue and the AFEES ban, EA may have concerns about initial sales). Players looking for a solid story, a well done campaign, above average graphics and an addictive multi-player mode despite the problems, MoH is a worthy addition to the FPS collection.

"Taliban"-ned

Shawn Gordon — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:08:00 GMT

The news regarding the change from Taliban to Opposing Force brings mixed emotions. I reflect upon the classic tale of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet in contemplation on what is in the name “Taliban.”

'Tis but thy name that is my enemy;
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
And for that name which is no part of thee
Take all myself.

Some terms and names are intentionally hurtful; the poorly received “N” word, for example. Try running down the street shouting it, and see if you make it to the other end alive. However, racial slurs and pejoratives are not politically correct, incite, do hurt, and largely unaccepted in most social circles – not to mention not protected by the 1^st Amendment under “hate speech.” Does “Taliban” fall into this category? No. The Taliban is a group of non-fictional radicals currently operating in Afghanistan, hated by many people. Changing a name does not alter the reality. Therefore, in this sense, a name change simply coddles a minority group – but that minority group is valuable beyond any amount of money and is deserving of the utmost respect.

I understand that to a majority of gaming community, “it’s just a game, get over it” will be a staple remark. We, the gaming sub-culture, are largely unaware of what really goes on in the rest of the world. Most of us know the top executives of several game studios by name and image, yet cannot list by name the sitting Supreme Court Justices or The Cabinet. So many of us fight over hardware dominance, b*tch at the price of DLC, and get aggravated at having to wait two extra weeks for a game. I have yet to hear a fellow gamer in a non-game forum ponder the price of oil, worry about China’s economic stranglehold on the US economy and Korea, and haven’t remarked about waiting months to years for the troops to come home . On second thought, I guess it’s just easier to sit and revolt over a subscription fee and go verbally ballistic over an opinion about a CPU encased in plastic.

That said, my concern-o-meter toward the opinion of these people is dangerously in the red. I have a very hard time taking into serious consideration the concept that “it’s just a game” when it leaves the lips of self-absorbed community members in relation to a small subset of dead self-less individuals and the people who remember them as living beings. Someone who has never once stood and saluted during a 21-gun salute for someone they personally knew has little (if any), room to remark “it’s just a game.” I am sure that these people believe ‘that’ it hurts, and understand ‘why’ it hurts, but it is entirely different to know ‘how’ it hurts and still respect the intellectual laziness directed at soldiers as a matter of principle.

I understand EA’s move to change the name – personally, I would rather piss off a large crowd of uninvolved people than risk the emotional displacement of the very people I seek to honor. Leaving the name as was originally intended may scratch the integrity of the game slightly and it indicates that monetary gain fell to the wayside of homage. Principally, I agree with EA for protecting their honorees, or at least having enough conviction to double back and risk angering the larger consumer group for the sake of the minority. That is a bold move in my opinion, but strangely one I feel was by degree, incorrect.

Perhaps looking at this from the perspective of flag burning may be of some help. I do not particularly fancy burning the American Flag, nor do I smile upon those who would choose to do so in my presence. However, flag burning is protected under the Constitution and considered an expression, thus 1^st Amendment issue. Burning a symbol is in my opinion, a clear indication of intent to cause harm or incite. I stand in a legal minority on that issue; therefore, I must uphold and protect the right of a person to do so regardless of whether I agree (though, I may wrap them in the flag while it burns…win / win).

I begin to feel slightly uneasy toward the alteration however, not with EA, but with the angry mobs in either direction. Numerous sources point out that changing the name changes nothing. The” OpFor” is mechanically, objectively, and geographically unchanged. A seven-letter word reduced to a five- letter truncated conjunction is the only action taken – that is all. Why then would I agree with the principle of changing the name but also feel it was incorrect to do so?

Changing the enemy force in name alone, but not altering the set of actions performed sends the message that what we call something is more important than what it does. There is a serious ethical and moral disconnect in this disgustingly one-sided action. Apparently, it’s okay to shoot depictions of a US soldier (and I don’t condemn the game or the game creators for that), but it’s not okay to reveal who the shooter as a factual entity.

I wonder if the grandchildren of Nazis feel that despite the participation in the most famous acts of genocide the world has known, feel it a bit strange that it is perfectly fine to kill depictions of their ancestors and combat their heritage (as jacked up as it was)? I wonder if Japanese Americans felt strange playing as an American in WWII shooting their ancestral images. Now that I think about it, I wonder if Native American Indians will condemn Civilization 5 for allowing Washington to utterly crush Hiawatha (not to mention included “Manifest Destiny”) or if people would find it unacceptable to play in them in contest to each other.

The thing is, when creating something based on fact, honor hinges on accuracy and that’s why it was wrong, but understandable for EA to change "Taliban." They're caught between two important groups - one which impacts a nation and the other that sends a statement of ethics and morals used to govern that nation; truth or emotion? They chose emotion.

Front Mission [d]Evolved

Shawn Gordon — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 23:55:00 GMT

They say imitation is the greatest form of flattery, but why in the hell would anyone want to imitate a series of games that already made their last stand and are noted for more faults than fruits? This is a question that will haunt me every time I stare at an image representing Front Mission Evolved. Why? It's not a total ruination of the franchise though, only mostly.

CONCEPT

As strange as it sounds, the concept is unique but only to the franchise. Unfortunately the concept of Front Mission Evolved (FME) is not mutually exclusive from the other titles it shares core concepts with. Titles such as Mechassault 2, Exa Skeleton, Armored Core, SHOGO: Mobile Armor Division, and Virtual On, converge on FME and effectively accomplish what few games ever hope to achieve: a total loss of original identity and complete devolution in search of reinvigorating interest in a nearly abandoned style of game. However, there’s no way to tell if Double Helix and Square would have been successful with the title if they had maintained the turn based tactical RPG archetype on which the Front Mission franchise was founded .

The idea of the game is to pilot a walking tank, called “wanzers”, and fight other wanzers who are part of a larger unknown terrorist force determined to wipe the planet clean of warmongering entities (the irony is thick in this). The game is presented in mission based, point to point, linear battles and maps reliant upon piloting a wanzer the player can alter all aspects of (body, arms, legs, weapons, and color of individual core body parts). Some missions require leaving the wanzer and navigating a map on foot, mostly in an urban style indoor situation.

Front Mission began as a turn based tactical RPG using sprite based images and employed a 3/4 view released on the SNES console. It was not the most popular mainstream title, but it gained a decent enough following that a franchise was warranted. On the PS2, the franchise retained many of the core elements: 3/4 view, tactical RPG, but moved away from sprite based images and used modeled ‘wanzers,’ voice acting, and some impressive CG cut-scenes to tell portions of the game story. Now that the PS3 and XBOX360 are household standards, it makes little sense to develop games that do not use the capabilities of the modern systems. Turn based Tactical RPGs use very little resources and have a small footprint, but take a long time to finish and appeal to a shrinking audience. The highly influential and short attention span of Western audiences may have killed the traditional style and setting of the Front Mission franchise. That said, FME seems to be built upon a test bed of old ideas designed to provide feedback about direction more than a substantive addition to the franchise. Unfortunately, I don’t predict that the R&D teams nor marketing analysts will have anything positive to report.

STORY

In the future, the world is a changed place. Technology has advanced. Countries have merged into massive geopolitical blocks. But one thing, sadly, remains the same – humanity’s appetite for war. When a terrorist attack destroys one of the U.S.C.’s prized orbital elevators, the military is mobilised [sic] to eliminate the threat.

Dylan Ramsey, a young engineer, finds himself quickly caught in a swirl of destruction, conspiracies and crumbling alliances.
(Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd., 2010)

At least, that’s what the publisher gives as the game synopsis. In actuality, most of that is poorly covered, leaving players to draw assumptions based on implications in story FME presents in cut-scenes and dialogue. Then again, the game is a huge divergence from previous installations of the franchise so the days of pedantic multiple boxes of text are a thing of the past.

Playing as Dylan Ramsey, a civilian Wanzer test pilot / engineer (more the former, less the latter) didn’t really excite me as a player. The characters come off as having distinct personalities, but The voice acting was well enough, but the story itself was too centric for what was going on. The idea is that the characters are playing out a series of events that may lead to a large scale war. However, as a player, I was uncertain whether the characters were driven to stop a war or if Dylan was motivated to save the girl and get revenge for his father. The story did a poor job of keeping proper focus and as a result, the two-faceted story remained very weak in both areas. Things were presented without much emotion, and perhaps the character modeling and animation had a larger role than the lackluster dialog in the way the story was absorbed.

In general the story is formulaic, not unlike the previous Front Mission titles, but it does introduce an entirely new cast of characters to match an entirely new style of play. If the developers at any point henceforth switch game archetypes, it may lead to an incontiguous franchise (or force the franchise to multiple platforms thereby further frustrating fans in the same way Final Fantasy VII spin-offs aggravated many people).

MECHANIC

Dovetailing a number of popular concepts, FME dovetails their mechanical feats and failures as well. The mechanics are a bit disappointing in terms of what the environment consists of and the abilities granted to players. A pre-summary; FME ‘curb stomps’ the franchise mechanically – read on as I cry about it.

In-wanzer the levels are fairly dull. There’s a complete lack of living environment – where are all the terrified people who are allegedly being terrorized? Players will note abandoned buildings, cars, and roads, but even during the beginning of the game there is nothing signifying the life found in cities the size the story takes place – it all feels artificial and I want my burning cities full of burning bodies. I want to see why I should care about incoming missiles beyond the selfish, poorly hashed out subplot of avenging Dylan’s father. I’d like to be able to look beyond the agenda of corporate run military industrial complex and ‘feel’ the antagonist antagonize. I’d also sort of like that a XXX ton walking tank have an impact on the environment beyond minimal prop destruction. I’d like that the developers have enough faith in either the ability of the player or the adjustments to attacking targets, that there be no need for a health or ammo replenishment every few seconds. (how about slightly less ammo drops, and the ability to pick up weapons from other wanzers provided they don’t cause overweight warnings?) Apparently, I ask too much.

On-foot, the game took a sharp decline. The idea is not at all a bad one, but when players reflect upon other third person shooters like Mass Effect 2 and Gears of War or slightly dated ones like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil, a void manifests within the game. Levels are plain and static, attempting to encourage exploration with menial monetary bonuses by destroying ‘scramblers’ and ‘scanners’ attached to obscure places and corners (also done in wanzer mode) or by hunting down decal emblems (rarely seen when applied anyway), briefcases with gold bars (they add up, but it’s a grind to maximize profits), and ‘data keys’ (that do nothing). Regardless, there’s room for some major improvement in the on-foot game – a cover system, multiple avenues to a location, more than 3 weapons available total, levels spanning more than one building, the ability to leave the wanzer at will and collect research on parts from other wanzers – something beyond ideas from 1995. By the end of the game, I felt as though the on-foot missions could be scrubbed completely from the game without detracting from the already weak story. As a method of prolonging the active play time, the idea is solid – it just needs vast improvements on execution and implementation.

The light at the end of the tunnel manifests in the slick player controls. Basic and generic, the controls are relatively smooth and despite the occasional odd camera angle, players won’t have problems transitioning between on-foot and in-mech. A la Armored Core, different missions are going to require players use different loadouts. To add challenge, some missions require parts and weapons that force players into uncomfortable situations. One mission specifically required I use a four-legged Wanzer (slow as hell and not very agile, but adds power output and increased weight limits). Typically, a four-legged wanzer will have a weapons load-out that compliments the concept of long range, strong attacks such as shoulder fired weapons (grenades, Gatling guns, rockets and missiles), and for good measure I generally carry a melee weapon for when things get up close and personal. The mission requiring four-legged loadouts also threw an almost overwhelming number of attacking wanzers with melee weapons in both hands with ballistic wanzers for support. My support? a light assault wanzer with AI that would struggle against comatose opponents; pot shots, getting in the way of fire, attacking enemies with weaker, slower attacks, etc. It’s shameful. Victory is little more than a numbers game – number of rounds fired should be exponentially greater then the number of attackers in a swarm situation; given there’s no fine tuned method to monitor quality, it’s best to control quantity. Despite the range of combat styles FME confronts players with, the point of changing a solid set-up never presents itself, or rather, players aren’t given much reason to willingly alter their load-out because there’s an overt lack of strategic need programmed into the game.

Unfortunately, the lack of depth ultimately ruins the apparent potential of what may have been a decent title. Fortunately for some players, ease of use makes up a majority of the average user experience in this title so the game itself isn’t hampered nearly as much as it could be by control snags.

The multi-player portion of the game is fairly standard and uses a rank structure similar to other popular FPS titles. I don’t expect people to buy the game for the multi-player experience and based on the single player experience, general interest shouldn’t be high enough to discover a plethora of players chomping at the bit to have a generic experience with other potentially disappointed players. At least, I didn’t find much to convey other than, ‘meh.’

GRAPHICS

FME has some impressive looking wanzers, but beyond that there’s nothing that sets it apart. It’s not a visual marvel, and there are no ‘eye popping visuals.’ FME didn’t make a full transition from one genre to another, and the graphics point this out; motion blur and HDR carry visual only so far. The scenery is blocky and as previously mentioned, static. The focus is on the battles and avoiding waves of jittery enemy wanzers so many players probably won’t spend too much time trying to figure out how and why the landscape looks similar to painted Styrofoam and the charactes move and act like play-doh. Additionally, the environments aren’t necessarily large or expansive, but they’re large enough that most of the time there’s no feeling of being caged in or as though players have limited range.

CONCLUSION

I can’t in all honesty write about how wonderfully thought out or well put together the title is, nor can I lambaste the sharp directional change when the entire video game industry is desperate for original IP, but I can write that Square is showing signs of desperation. NIER, Kane & Lynch 2, and Order of War are just recent examples of lackluster moves beyond the typical world renowned RPG blockbusters that Square Enix publishes (though, some there are some RPG titles that haven’t been worth the fanfare of announcement also *cough* The Last Remnant *cough*).

Just as a prediction, the general interest level thus far seems low and will likely remain low primarily because FME lacks any originality and does not offer unexplored substance to the audience, nor does the story make a provision for the future of the series in this area. In this, FME comes off as an adjusted safe bet, relying on the popularity of past titles with hopes of uniting a scattered fanbase. The Front Mission franchise may offer an additional title ore two, but if Front Mission remains action oriented in the manner presented in FME, I believe it is doomed to obscurity and will likely leave a generally sour taste in fans of the classic titles. This is sad because it was one of the few remaining untouched franchises dating back to the SNES that had a strong niche, yet global fan base.

Can the franchise recover? I do not believe that the franchise yet crossed a threshold it cannot make a retreat, but given the current market trends and hardware capabilities I fear Square and Double Helix will see no point in reverting back to class styles for the sake of fan service, but hope that the current curb stomping of Front Mission was truly done as a way to test the audience and that the audience reacts negatively in return. On the bright side, players can still enjoy plotting instances of the rock, paper, scissors formula found in previous installments of the franchise and swapping pieces / parts on their wanzer to custom build the walking tank of their choice (and as an added bonus, Metal Gear Solid decals can adorn them – like that’s a compelling reason to do anything, right?).

To quiet some of the fears gamers have expressed over the directional change, WIRED.com’s Gus Mastrapa writes:

Jeremy Lee is the development director at Double Helix Games — the U.S. company developing the game for Square Enix. He reminded me in an e-mail that the Front Mission series has made detours into different genres over the years, such as the action-oriented Front Mission: Gun Hazard for the SNES.

“The world of Front Mission is rich enough to support multiple genres,” he said. “We worked very closely with Square Enix to ensure a lot of strategic elements made the transition into the third-person-shooter style.” On top of rich wanzer customization, Front Mission: Evolved players will still be able to strategically disable different parts of their enemy’s vehicles during combat.

Square Enix producer Shinji Hashimoto, also interviewed by e-mail, echoed Lee’s assurances. Just because Front Mission: Evolvled doesn’t happen to be a strategy game this go around, he said, “It doesn’t mean that the SRPG is completely over.”
(Mastrapa, G., 2010)

Some hope may exist for fans who are dissatisfied with the directional changes, and in all honesty, I prefer the classic style but don’t deny that FME contains a bit of merit in concept for players looking to interact on a more active scale with giant walking combat robots. Still, Double Helix seems to have rerouted the talent of Shiny Entertainment, developers of Earth Worm Jim, Messiah, Wild 9 and MDK since the 2007 merger.

Hopefully, future installments will lean more toward going back to the tactical side of the series and add some strategic elements found in titles like R.U.S.E or Valkyria Chronicles (a severely under appreciated title that had a wealth of well done concepts executed perfectly, if I may say so), and further expand the ‘battle front’ experience by allowing players to allot groups of customized units to a front, but still allow for play from the cockpit to have a greater role in the direct outcome.

If players are looking for something fresh and new, this isn’t it. However, for those who are just compelled to spend money, spend the least possible and rent it; there no reason to buy one more mediocre title.

References

Mastrapa, G. (2010, Mar 24). Front Mission: Evolved Creators Assuage Fan Fears. Wired.com. Retrieved October 4, 2010 from Wired.com: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/03/front-mission-evolved-2/.

Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd. (2010, Jan 22). Front Mission Evolved to arrive in North America Spring of 2010 Retrieved October 4, 2010 from http://na.frontmissionevolved.com/.