The DM Has Spoken

Child's Play

2009-12-05T07:10:00.003-06:00

I have donated to this charity numerous times, and will continue to do so. I urge anyone who reads this to do likewise, every dollar helps.
(shameless C&P from the Child's Play website)

Since 2003, over 100,000 gamers worldwide have banded together through Child’s Play, a community based charity grown and nurtured from the game culture and industry. Over 5 million dollars in donations of toys, games, books and cash for sick kids in children’s hospitals across North America and the world have been collected since our inception.

This year, we have continued expanding across the country and the globe. With almost 70 partner hospitals and more arriving every month, you can be sure to find one from the map above that needs your help! You can choose to purchase requested items from their online retailer wish lists, or make a cash donation that helps out Child’s Play hospitals everywhere. Any items purchased through Amazon will be shipped directly to your hospital of choice, so please be sure to select their shipping address rather than your own.

When gamers give back, it makes a difference!

Videogames Appreciation -- Why We Game 1

2009-11-16T18:19:00.032-06:00

Recently I stumbled upon a posting on NeoGAF by GDJustin, a fairly respected poster (at least that's the impression my lurking gets me), who hit his 10,000th post in October. For his 10,000th post he "wanted to do something... different. Something special. This is dedicated to all the [Neo]GAF members & lurkers out there that actually make the games the rest of us play, praise, deride, and discuss. My hat is off to all of you. This is a long topic, but please read it. Consider it your gift to me, for achieving 10K posts :)"

I was completely taken in by his post, it expressed all the reasons I play videogames and table top RPGs, and also the driving force behind me starting my own game company. So I present his post, reproduced here in full (though I have picked a couple better images, same subject matter though for the changed images).

---

About a year ago I was conversing with someone when the topic of my work came up. I mentioned I work in the video game business, for a company that publishes websites focused on games. They asked if I was a big fan of video games in general and I said yes, absolutely. But then they asked me something that caught me off guard:

"Why do you like games so much? What is it about them that is so attractive to you?"

I didn't have a good answer for them, at the time. In the following months I've continued to turn this question over in my mind, and I still don't have a very good answer, to be honest. But that isn't going to stop me from trying, here in this topic.

The best answer I've been able to come up with is that the medium of video games, unlike any other, presents people with a sense of endless possibility. As an adult, the majority of my life is mundane. Enjoyable and fulfilling, but... mundane, nonetheless. Things simply don't happen in the "real world" to spark one's imagination.

Actually... that isn't 100% true. Things DO happen in the real world to spark the imagination. It's just that, in the end, that spark will end up being extinguished, rather than nurtured and encouraged. A perfect example:

The other day during a typical Wikipedia crawl, I landed on a piece on the Great Lakes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes. I read that Lake Superior is over 1300 feet deep. 1300!

"Jesus, that's amazing!" I thought to myself. "There could be ANYTHING down there, at the bottom!"

But the truth is... there's nothing down there. Because that's how the real world operates.

But in a game, a mysterious, deep lake is always worth exploring. There will always be something there, waiting to be discovered.

It might be a dangerous eel in need of a teeth cleaning:

Or an entire underwater dungeon might be waiting to be explored:

Or there might just be no further reward than some treasure:

I think a lot of people "grow out" of games when they reach adulthood because they don't need video games anymore to feel powerful or in control of the world around them. When you're a kid, saving the world, being NFL champ, defeating the Nazis... it's pretty obvious why games are attractive.

But when you're older and have kids of your own, have real responsibility at work and are just better able to shape the world around you... there's less drive to drop into the world of Albion and wander around, rescuing strangers.

My theory is that those of us that didn't grow out of games into adulthood (ie those of you here on GAF and working in the industry)... we're the ones that didn't lose that spark of imagination. When we hear about some incredibly deep lake, or deep-space discovery, or recorded ocean sounds of unknown origin, our brains light up and we think "wow!" But... the real world lets us down in that regard, in ways that games almost never do.

I know oftentimes on GAF we can be cynical. Yes the Eely Mouth bossfight in Mario Sunshine had wonky camera issues. Yes raiding that underwater dungeon in WoW can be a pain because travel time takes so long. Yes treasure hunting in Wind Waker can be pointless. But I think deep down we all derive a certain amount of thrill from these and other set-ups... because in games, you really, truly don't know what is going to be inside that lake or around that next corner.

In some ways, that explanation is a little bit of a cop out. Several of my favorite games of all-time feature no exploratory elements of any kind.

In those cases, instead of having robust game worlds to explore, they all have robust game systems to explore. It really isn't that different. Experimenting with a level in Monkey Ball or Advance Wars... ferreting out the perfect way to exploit the stage layout and game systems to achieve my goals... that type of game exploration isn't too far removed from crossing an overworld in Zelda or an RPG.

It's always a little sad when you finally do wrap your head around all of a deep game's systems... a subtle shift happens. It ceases being about possibility ("this game is so deep!") and becomes more about exposing all the game systems' bare parts and how they fit together, and exploiting them to accomplish your goals as quickly and easily as possible.

It's no surprise, then, that the most acclaimed and beloved games of all time (and the bulk of my top 10) are games that allow the player to explore game worlds AND game systems... both intertwined in a beautiful mix of genius design:

Video Games have the ability to surprise, engage, absorb, and challenge individuals in a way that nothing else in the world can. Time spent with games is not time wasted.

It's a cliche, but I don't know a better way to put it: when you pop in a game cart (or disk), you're transported to another world. I have a tiny stack of misc. DS games on my desk, and I marveled the other day at how this little 2-inch stack contained untold-number of challenges, mysteries, stages, battles, characters... entire worlds.

My time spent in dracula's castle, in Midgar, in Ironforge, Brinstar, Hyrule, on Halo rings, tropical islands... this has not been time wasted. These experiences have enriched my life, not detracted from it.

So to all of you that create these worlds and these game systems in the pursuit of putting a little bit of adventure back into people's lives... in the pursuit of ensuring that spark of imagination isn't extinguished by the boring and unsurprising "real world" but is instead rewarded... my hat is off to you. You have all accomplished something monumental. Something important.

---
NeoGAF Video Games Appreciation Topic -- http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372111

Gaming vs Controversy Video

2009-11-08T05:39:00.002-06:00

I really have nothing else to add except, except as you probably guessed, I agree with this video 100%.

Comrades In Arms... Or Not.

2009-11-03T03:34:00.003-06:00

It's really scarring me that Activision is in charge of Blizzard now (after all the company is Activision-Blizzard). Activision has been dropping the ball lately. From DJ Hero not exactly blowing up at retail to the Modern warfare 2 server debacle, to them showing NO pictures of Modern Warfare Reflex for Wii they have been really fucking up.

Yes it's true that Modern Warefare 2 has more pre-orders than the Bible has followers, but a pre-order is not a confirmed sale (I for one pre-order games at multiple locations when I do pre-order a game just so I can be more sure of getting one). That is nit picking though, Modern Warefare 2 is not the problem after all. Infinity Ward make a good product and justly deserve their success... but at what cost?

Recently there has been a theory going around that Infinity Ward, with their huge influence at Activision, have been trying to seperate their CoD games from other CoD games. Call of Duty 3 was the only numbered Call of Duty game that Treyarch ever developed. Every game they have developed since then has had no number, or had a different subtitle tacked on. Every single game that Infinity Ward themselves havn't worked on has has a major subtitle change to differentiate it from their efforts with the IP.

Case in point, Modern War Reflex for the Wii from developer Treyarch. This is a port of a game from 2007, to an underpowered console, using an engine that was optimized for higher end hardware. You can expect some issues to exist int he graphics department, but Treyarch reportedly has dome an amazing job with their port of the game if everyone is to believed... but why hasn't Activision released anything but pre-alpha screenshots?

For those of you not in the know, pre-alpha comes before any real development has happened on the game. Essentially it's just the engine running on the hardware, no optimization or anything, and 999 times out of 1000 it looks like crap.

The game releases on Novembur 10th, the pre-alpha screenshots were released in August of this year... that is over two full months and not a single shred of graphics have been shown since then. And of course having the screens released in August does not mean the game was at that level back then either.

Treyarch are a talented developer capable of keeping pace with Infinty Ward on their turf. they made Call of Duty: world at War for the Wii which looked very good considering the level of tech inside the Wii. So why haven't they released new media to combat these horrible ones? Remember hwo I said that Infinity Ward might have a hand in this? Turns out that any screenshots for this project have to go thru Activision PR (obviously, you expect that of the publisher) but it ALSO has to go thru Infinity Ward.

Now why might Infinity Ward not want screens for the Wii version being released right now? They have a highly-anticipated game for the high-end consoles coming out the same month, and if you think for a second they will sacrifice just one of those sales because of some customer confusion you are very deluded.

Infinity Ward has never done anything new with any of their games yet. Everything they have done, they've done well, but I don't think they deserve their giant egos. Hell, Treyarch are the ones who started the whole class system in Call of Duty 3 which Infinity Ward then used in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.

Maybe if Infinity Ward backed the Wii with their titles like Treyarch does (World at War sold well over 1 million units on Wii) they might garner some respect from me. I can't stand these shallow devs, they backed the damn PS2 with every single damn game ever created, but the Wii blows up out of the gate and they have to run "tests" to see if the thing has a market for them. YOU MAKE THE GAME AND ACTUALLY ADVERTISE IT AND THERE WILL BE A MARKET!

Anyway I digress. Infinity Ward might be a great dev technically and design wise... but man do they suck at the whole comrades in arms thing. Kinda like their games where it's you and you alone with a bunch of AI who follow you and do nothing to help you...

I will update my blog when screens are finally released, I avoided it now because no way in hell will the game look that bad upon release.

Controversy In the Gaming Media

2009-10-29T03:21:00.005-05:00

I know it has been a long time since I posted, and I really have no reasons. Commenting on gaming news is hard, especially when so many other people rant and rave about gaming news online that I can't really hope for this little blog to matter much to most people, if anyone other than myself.

I had a post being written where I was going to be discussing Robert Kotick [Activision's CEO] who received significant criticism for stating, "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games." Kotick later stated he tries to promote an atmosphere of "skepticism, pessimism, and fear" in his company and, "We are very good at keeping people focused on the deep depression." Obviously this is not a position I, or many people in the industry of just gamers in general agree with... but really, enough has been said about him, and it's old news by now.

But I had to comment on two things I heard about today.

First is the inclusion of potential same-sex or transgender relationships in Bioware's new game Dragon Age: Origins due out very soon for PS3, Xbox360, and PC. I have seen some peopel applauding the move, and other calling it a step back for gaming, making the gaming industry more like Hollwood.

I have always wanted to see the stigma of "games are for kids" wiped from the mainstream consciousness, and I do believe that having sexual encounters in a game pushes us towards that. Some people have heard me say how much I am a proponent of choice in videogames. I have even lamented that my male Shepard in Mass Effect couldn't have a romance with Kaiden (not that I wanted to, but I felt the option should have been there).

Being the open-minded individual I am I find it very annoying that some people have canceled their pre-orders for this game based on the fact that it has a homosexual sex scene one some obscure branch of the game probability map. Especially when the game so far has been getting glowing impressions and seems to be a very very solid game all around.

Even if the animation is bad, the acting forced, the storyline not the best (not saying any of these are necessarily true of DA:O), these perceived boundaries and taboos have to be pushed for the medium to move forward and grow.

The idea of sex in any media has always been a touchy subject here in the US, much less so other western countries where it's violence that is frowned upon. On that note, we move on to another bit of controversy:

Obviously we're not worried about Epic Mickey, an amazing hold in one, or ZOE3, but the CoD: Modern Warfare 2 footage.

Do I think the footage is disturbing? No, I don't. I have grown too accustomed to the idea of digital characters that violence in games doesn't affect me so much. gore would, but even form that aspect this CoD installment is less gory than it's predecessor CoD: World at War. However I also didn't find the footage of the WTC falling down on 9/11 disturbing until almost 5 years later when I first heard the sound of the towers falling without anything else being audible.

I don't believe the controversy here is over the depiction of the terrorists shooting people in an airport, but more that the player is put into the role of one of those terrorists. I can already hear people saying that this is a simulator to teach terrorists (which is complete BS). Again, I think it is a good thematic device to have the player play the good and bad guy and see a resolution to the struggle from both points.

It's strange that this is a controversy about this at all in my opinion. At least it's strange for gamers to be arguing it, as in games like GTA and such killing people is semi-encouraged, but like this game it is a choice. It's not like the gun in the bad guys hands will automatically fire if the player isn't pressing the trigger, and if the player doesn't... will that change the game?

I say wait to hear if this is even in the game or was it an idea that was tinkered with and then dropped? After all, Hot Coffee was never in the retail version of the game (as much as certain news outlets claimed it was), and Mass Effect wasn't a intergalactic sex simulator (as much as FOX news claimed it was).

The only thing is, games have grown up, maybe it's time the mainstream figured that out.

"Talking Heads Vol 1" or "Pachter Speaks"

2009-08-12T20:33:00.002-05:00

Michael Pachter, Wedbush Morgan Securities gaming analyst, has opened his mouth again, and honestly he's really starting to annoy me.

"...consoles offer a far better gaming experience, as they’re connected to a big screen TV in a comfortable setting, typically with a great sound system. Browser-based game [services like Instant Action, which delivers fully 3d graphically intense games] are typically going to be accessed through the PC, which offers a generally inferior experience. I know that the flamers will say that PC gaming rules, but the numbers speak for themselves: console gaming will be an $18 billion market this year, and PC gaming will be under $3 billion. The super hardcore PC gamer will be attracted to browser-based games, ...but I don’t see them putting much of a dent into the console market."

So consoles make more money overall, except that the console industry has several things going for it versus PC gaming.
A) Console gaming includes sales of consoles and peripherals, as that is their only use is to play games and maybe movies. You can't do the same for PCs. PC sales are not regulated to one industry or even a reporting agency.
B) NPD sales, widely used for the sales data in the gaming industry is not accurate (they don't take figures from Wal-Mart as far as I know, or online PC digital distribution channels such as Steam)
C) PC Gaming is region free for the most part, a game sold only in europe can be bought for a north american PC and vice versa, where as consoles are region locked usually, restricting their sales to specific territories. Import games are generally not reported.

"...The “core” Wii audience is a Mario/Zelda/Smash Bros./Metroid audience, not a Conduit audience. To the extent that the Wii is the only console that the core gamer owns, it’s likely because the only games he/she cares about are first party core titles. Most core Wii owners who care about shooter games other than Metroid already own an Xbox 360 (to play Halo or Gears), or own a PS3 (to play Resistance or Killzone). So when a game like The Conduit comes out on the Wii, these core gamers are making a comparison to Halo or Killzone, and are deciding accordingly. High Voltage did a decent job with The Conduit, especially given the graphic limitations of the Wii, but the game didn’t look and feel as good as games like Halo or Killzone, and if a gamer had both a Wii and either a PS3 or Xbox 360, it’s easy to see why they would pass on The Conduit in favor of a hard core game on one of the other platforms."

Everything is wrong with this statement... The Conduit has been considered a success selling over 150,000 copies in the first 3 weeks, and while that might not be up to the same levels of Halo 3 or Killzone 2, The Conduit probably took much less money to make requiring a lower sell-thru rate for it to be a financial success. Also, there is a big 'core' audience on the Wii, the problem is they are more willing to pass up C+ and B- games in exchange for the one or two A games that come out a year. No More Heroes was the best selling title for developer Grasshopper Manufacture. Call of Duty: World At War sold over a million units on the Wii, and games like Resident Evil sell very well on the system, as well as all the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games.

The Conduit, for all it's hype at conferences, was not the best game ever. It simply has one of the best control schemes ever created for the Wii and uses a powerful game engine. The storyline, level design, and character design are all C grade efforts, and it seems that developer High Voltage Software was worried more about the tech than it was making a cohesive game all around. Given the fact that SEGA, publisher of The Conduit see the game as a success and want to push more 'core' titles on the Wii since they do sell decently, I think we will see more 'core' games, and maybe next time High voltage will have a huge hit on their hands. (This of course assumes that The Conduit won't have a long tail and continued sales via word of mouth like other wii games seems to)

I use the term 'core' because 'casual' and 'core' are completely bullshit labels. Guitar Hero used to be core, now it's casual (especially since the Wii versions sell the best now)... Call of Duty used to be core, now it's casual (according to some)... Tiger Woods is casual, but Madden isn't (again, to some people)... obviously it's arbitrary and subjective.

You wanna know what a core game is? It's something you play because it's fun for you or you enjoy it for other reasons. you wanna know somethign that is casual? Something you play, but can easily not play it, no hard feelings. To me, Command and Conquer 3 is core, so is Myst. Call of Duty is casual, but Unreal Tournament is core. Far Cry 2 is casual, but Guild Wars is core. Mass effect is core (but only for the story and RPG aspects, not the gun play).

Casual to me are games that don't draw me in, they serve as simple distractions. Far Cry 2 might be 'core' because it has guns and great graphics and require a massive PC to run at high specs... but honestly, it's bland and boring after a few hours. It's repetitive. Same goes for Call of Duty, I can only take -kill giant group of enemies-|-more enemies spawn and take up exact same positions-|kill enemies moving slowly forward-|-cross invisible line-|-new group of enemies spawns- so many times before I grow sick of it... same goes for it's realistic multiplayer... it get's boring after a while, gimmie some huge ass guns that take out 5 people with a shot... spice it up a little.

"Opening A Can of Worms" or "Minorities in Video Gaming"

2009-08-09T02:39:00.007-05:00

Given d20Sapphire's previous posts about racism in videogames I felt it was time to throw my two cents in on minoroties in videogames... but I hope to cover a bit more then she did. But first we have to cover the basics.

The reason people are rascist in my opinion is inherited ignorance. People are afraid of the unknown, the different, and it's from their very few glimpses into the unknown that a stereotype is created. They live in communities that segregate them from these undesirable people, and when they finally procreate they imbue this form of thinking on their children.

The majority of this country is white and of christian faith. In 2006 White people accounted for 221M people, 74% of the total population. Second highest is Hispanic or Latino at 44.3M, 14.8%.
According to an article in New Media & Society with research done by people at the University of Southern California, Indiana University, Ohio University and Virginia Polytechnic:

Latino children play more video games than white children. And they're really not able to play themselves. For identity formation, that's a problem. And for generating interest in technology, it may place underrepresented groups behind the curve.

Ironically, they may even be less likely to become game makers themselves, helping to perpetuate the cycle. Many have suggested that games function as crucial gatekeepers for interest in science, technology, engineering and math.
~More Info Here

When was the last time you saw a Hispanic player character in a videogame? Unless you made them yourself in a game that allows character creation you really don't see them except on the business end of weapons pointed at you in a action game set in a contemporary setting.

For that matter when was the last time you saw a black player character who wasn't in a gang? It's a rare occurrence. I think the most recent one that come to mind is Jacob from the iPhone Mass Effect game (who is supposedly in Mass Effect 2 as well, so that's good).

The problem is those stereotypes to work their way into development houses, as they do all aspects of society. People create what they know or feel, most game developers are white, just like most people in the country. Most game developers are also men, which explains why another minority, women, are still treated in a frankly shallow manner.

Think of every woman you see in gaming... a large majority have huge tits, and wear clothes that are generally inappropriate for the scenario they are put in. In Unreal Tournament females have generally wore midriff, neckline, and cleavage revealing armor, which is great for stopping bullets... where it covers.

I can understand fantasy gaming, I can understand visual appeal and marketing... but has there ever been a female in a videogame that was normal looking? Luckily the answer to this one is yes, character from numerous games are starting to look more real and normal, in the aforementioned Mass Effect series character might look good, but they aren't super models, they have realistic figures, especially for people trained for combat and special ops. Also another great series Half Life made great stried with Alyx Vance, a normal looking half Asian/African-American.

Playing as a Hispanic character or an African-American character wouldn't be a problem, nobody would be up in arms if the option was given. Same goes for a female character, wether she;s huge breasted of normal looking... the options only have to be given... but...

What about a homosexual character? I will bet cold hard cash there would be a shitstorm just from the press release. Mass effect was banned from certain countries because of a lesbian sex scene in the game (which is no worse than anything anyone has seen on primetime TV). Jade Empire had a homosexual relationship possible, but it was so mired in circumstances most people still don't know about it, it was practically a cover-up.

Homosexual characters in games are generally used for humor, and almost never taken seriously. Even though I'm straight... why can't my Mass Effect character attempt to start a relationship with Kaiden? Why can't my female vault dweller in Fallout 3 hit on Amata without being chastised?

Brokeback Mountain caused a bit of an uproar when it came out, V For Vendetta got chastised for portraying gays in a favorable light, and CSI teaches us that homosexuals are flimsy in their relationships and kill their new partner's lover. But they have them, favorable light or not, and the tide is slowly turning I think in media to more equality... yet games are far behind other older media (which is to be expected), but I think it's time for the industry to grow up.

"The Long Road Back" or "It's Been a Long Time Since I Posted"

2009-07-24T08:10:00.002-05:00

I would like to apologize for the extended period of time I have not been posting on this blog. A myriad of circumstances kept me away, work on projects and just a general writer's block where this blog is concerned. I completely missed talking about E3 and the new motion based gameplay but the girlfriend seemed to so that well enough.

There was also a couple weeks where I had no desktop computer, and for some reason I hate trying out long diatribes on my laptop unless is some game design document. However, $400 and I have fixed up the 4 components on my PC that were either broken or severely out of date (as a PC gamer, 'severely' is anything more than 3 years old these days). Even with a background in PC repair and knowing all about the new technology some stuff still suprises me, like the new videocard I got (HIS Radeon HD 4870 IceQ 4+ 1GB GDDR5) feels like it weighs 2 pounds, which is crazy for something so small.

I will be back posting after this weekend since I'm taking a trip, I intend on covering some PC gaming and a little on DnD and RPGs in general next week, and we'll see where this blog goes from there.

The DM

"The Art of Hype" or "Bioware Teases with Teasers of Teasers"

2009-05-17T22:09:00.004-05:00

How to make a videogame trailer.
Step 1: Do not show anything of the gameplay, use only cutscenes with the GUI turned off
Step 2: Use music that will most likely never even be in the game at all
Step 3: Title your trailer something edgy that is bound to get attention.
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit

Humor aside (though only like 1 person who reads my blog got that meme), I have been looking forward to Dragon Age: Origins for quite some time. I like what Bioware has done in the past with titles like MDK2, KoToR, and Mass Effect. I find the concepts behind this game interesting, especially the fact that the characters you create completely changes where and how the story begins and affects the whole story of the game.

On another note, Bioware has put up a video teasing what they will be showing of Mass Effect 2 behind closed doors at E3. So, this is essentially a teaser... for a teaser. Bravo, and yet the internet still exploded and my girlfriend talked about it for two days.

"Wii MotionPlus" or "E3 is Next Month People"

2009-05-06T17:44:00.004-05:00

In recent years publishers and console makers have kinda stolen their own thunder a bit in regards to the Electronic Entertainment Expo or E3. There always seems to be announcements the month or so before hand showcasing games that would have been pretty big news at the conference. This year Nintendo seems to have dropped the ball a bit. Last year they had a horrible E3, showing almost no titles that a more old school gamer (I refuse to label gamers casual or hardcore anymore) could get into save for Animal Crossing, and that itself is more than a bit of a stretch.

This month has seen Nintendo Power spill the beans on Red Steel 2, a sequel to the Wii launch title from Ubisoft that, despite annoying controls and shallow storyline, went on to be the best selling third party title in the launch period.

Last year at E3 Nintendo unveiled the Wii Motion Plus, a attachment for the Wii remote that gives it almost flawless one-to-one interpretation of the remotes position. Techradar.com has said: "Playing a tennis game with Wii MotionPlus after playing the same game without the new, improved controller is the equivalent of taking the stabilisers off of your first bike. It is taking your first baby steps into a world in which gaming is going to be a whole lot more fun than ever before. It's like going from VHS straight to Blu-ray."

Many games announced so far (mainly sport titles), use MotionPlus. These include all of EA Sports titles for the Wii, and the aforementioned Red Steel 2. And I'm sure many many more will be announced at E3 this year. It's next month, and it looks to be exciting with all three console manufacturers expected to make very big announcements (though oddly, Sony has been talking mostly about PSP rather than PS3.)

Today the trailer for Red Steel 2 went up, I leave you now with that trailer for your enjoyment.

"Open Source... Manga?" or "Ubunchu!"

2009-04-13T16:04:00.004-05:00

This is a weird one.

Linux, as many know, is an arduous and impossible to use operating system used by nerds and IT professionals, as they are the only ones who could ever use such archaic things as a command prompt.

Okay, well, that's the mainstream view of linux circa 2000... these days there are linux distros that are even easier to use than MacOSX, and ones that require a lot of code compiling. For a good middle ground though, something akin to the difficulty of running windows and such (which is very easy), there's Ubuntu and it's spin offs like Linux Mint.

I have linux on installed on four computers in this house... (Ubuntu 8.10, Linux Mint 6, Fedora 11 Beta, and Damn Small Linux). I also have Vista 64 on two computers, XP on three, and I'm trying to get MacOSX 10.5.6 installed on my AMD laptop (stupid chipset is holding me back) multi-boot with vista, and two linux distros. So I know a thing or two about OSes.

I would have never guessed that a linux distro would be the subject of a Japanese comic or manga.

I am currently downloading the manga, which is available free in PDF form (Open Source Comics?) Ubunchu is comic of 3 school students in a system-admin club who are getting into Ubuntu. It's just a little out there in my honest opinion.

Get the PDF here: Ubunchu PDF

Source: Doctor MO's Blog

"Splitscreen Gaming Revisited" or "8-player Wii Racing"

2009-04-10T06:00:00.002-05:00

A long while back, when this blog was brand new, I did a post about splitscreen gaming and how I felt that it should be brought back as a viable option for multiplayer gaming. Imagine my surprise when today, in Glenview, IL (a few miles away) a publisher announced a racing game for the Wii that supports up to 8 player splitscreen.

The Wii is by no means a graphical powerhouse, this much is true to be sure. But any console would quickly be brought to it's knees with 8 player views being rendered to the same screen. The game is currently in the ALPHA stage (as in so early it's basically the first build worth showing off at all and is by no means the final version) and the art style is simple, yet I don't know what other direction they could have gone with the art style given the number of players they want to allow. Realism would have killed this game.

The other thing that makes me interested in the game is the designer, Archer MacLean. He was the designer responsible for the successful PSP title Mercury Meltdown as well as the Wii game Mercury Meltdown Revolution (though it escapes me if he was involved in that version directly). The guy seems to favor a minimalist art style and seems to put gameplay above all else.

With all that in mind I present the ALPHA trailer for SpeedZone:

"NoA Doesn't Actually Listen?" or "What The *&$# Is Going On In Redmond?"

2009-04-08T02:30:00.000-05:00

So a while ago I wrote a post about how Nintendo listens to consumers and gamers and delivers to them... the problem is that while Nintendo as a whole might, it's North American branch, Nintendo of America (NoA), seems to be forgetting the gamers and customers who got it where it is today.

Now it's time for examples. These following games have been clamored for by North American gamers, and have been released by Nintendo elsewhere in the world:

Disaster: Day of Crisis

Fatal Frame 4

Earthbound 3

So we have three games listed (this is a small sampling just to keep videos short) but there are others like Metroid Prime 1 and 2 for the Wii (updated controls and other features) or Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask for the Virtual Console.

The problem is that the now president of Nintendo of America, a Mr. Reginald "Reggie" Fil-Aime, seems to have lost touch with the core gamer. He was quoted as saying that Animal Crossing was Nintendo's core gamer title last year, a viewpoint that is viewed as an insult to the core gamer community. This is in stark contrast to the Reggie of only a few years ago when he was "about kicking ass and taking names" at E32006.

Now the issue may lie with Nintendo Corporate Limited in Japan, but I don't think Reggie is keeping in touch with the gamers he impressed just a few short years ago. The problem is that Nintendo of America as a whole seems to be out of the loop in terms of what the core gamer wants, they are content to focus on the more mainstream crowd while giving us lip service that they care about core gamers.

There is a slight caveat here though, Nintendo delivered more iterations of their core franchises sooner this generation. Within the first two years we had Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Smash Bros. but the problem is those are all great games, but there are new IPs out there that can and should be introduced to North American gamers that Nintendo refuses to pay attention to.

In the end, I like the Wii, I have some great games for it, and I don't need more and more and more like some gamers who seem to always want a backlog... but I am sick of the lip service. I will definitely be watching E3 in June with great interest to see if Nintendo wakes up or not.

"Something Random, Something New" or "Jailhouse Rock"

2009-04-03T04:24:00.003-05:00

I know that many people are aware of the CPDRC Inmates, but I was not even aware of this frankly amazing penitentiary and it's story. Apparently this system of discipline is now being used throughout the Philippines.

Embedding of the more important video (a 20 minute documentary on the prison) is not allowed, but here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAjItY7X0Yc

And now for your viewing pleasure, Cannon in D:

"These People Hate People Like Me" or "Everyone's a Hypocrite"

2009-04-01T02:41:00.003-05:00

No lengthy dissertation this time, just a video.

I do have to say, these people are culturally bankrupt to think that gaming has nothing to offer a person. I can spend my time on twitter, facebook, myspace, collecting comics, or watching E!, but I choose videogames because I find it to be a fun hobby that allows me to experience art and some culture, as well as allowing me to be exposed to some new ideas.

"Gaming In All It's Forms 4.0" or "Time to Cover the RPG Side of This Blog"

2009-03-27T05:45:00.004-05:00

I would like to apologize in advance to two people whom I know greatly disagree with my feelings on the topic of this blog post. First is my girlfriend (I love you :)), second is a good friend downstate (nothing but respect for you man)... I just don't see your point of view on this and I hope you don't get too angry with me.

I have swung heavily towards the videogame side of my worldview in this blog, that seems to end today as I cover something that has bugged me a great deal as of late, Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition. I had to do A LOT of research for this post which is why it has taken me so long to get up.

For those not in the know, Dungeons and Dragons, or DnD for short, is a table top pencil and paper game originally birthed from table top squad combat games of the early 70s. In 1971 Gary Gygax and Jeff Perren created the table top game Chainmail, a combat game where each figure on the board represented 20 men, a squad of soldiers. The squads were divided into classes as follows: light foot, heavy foot, armored foot, light horse, medium horse, and heavy horse. Combat played out like so: Melee is resolved by rolling six-sided dice, for example, when heavy horse is attacking light foot, the attacker is allowed to roll 4 dice per figure, with each 5 or 6 denoting a kill. On the other hand, when light foot is attacking heavy horse, the attacker is allowed only 1 die per 4 figures, with a 6 denoting a kill.

Eventually Chainmail was whittled down, spawning DnD, a game where each player is in control of one single character. The original version of DnD, released in 1974 by TSR Inc., assumed players had access to Chainmail miniatures and rules, and used the same measurement systems and combat systems. However there was a secondary combat system included with DnD that would eventually become the system used in all subsequent releases (with some modifications).

The initial Dungeons and Dragons offering by Gygax and David Arneson was somewhat sparse: 3 character classes (fighting-man, magic-user, cleric), 4 races (human, dwarf, elf, hobbit), and 3 alignments (lawful, neutral, chaotic). DnD at this time had no rules for outdoor exploration and general adventuring, only combat for the most part. The game also assumed players owned Outdoor Survival, a game by Avalon Hill, which had rules for exploration and such. DnD did include some adventures in the first edition in the booklet entitled Underworld & Wilderness Adventures.

Supplemental Material for the first version of DnD was plentiful, with Greyhawk being the first (which facilitated the removal of the some of the Chainmail systems), Blackmoor followed, and Gods,Demi-Gods, and Heroes also released. Several unofficial supplments were also created, some of which ended up being incorporated into later official versions of DnD.

Dungeons and Dragons Version 2 was published in 1977 as the first Basic Set known as a Blue Box set. This was a more basic and easily comprehensible version of the original rules made for players not familiar with the wargaming history of DnD. This version of DnD was arguably the most popular with the mainstream audience until later systems. The Blue Box set only covered characters from level 1-3, that's it. The Blue Box was the first DnD system to have only 5 alignments as opposed to the 3 of the original, or the 9 of the subsequent versions. Once players completed the Blue Box set they were supposed to continue in Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.

1977 also saw the release of the aforementioned Advanced Dungeons and Dragons which was published with the Monster Manual in 1997, followed by the Player's Handbook in 1978, and the Dungeon Master's Guide in 1979 by TSR from rules compiled by Gary Gygax. This revision saw the complete abandonment of the Chainmail rule set, as well as the inclusion of new classes for players to use (Bard, Illusionist, Ranger, Paladin, Thief, Assassin, Monk, and Druid) This was also the first time the three core rules books were used, and sold separately. It was also the first version to have more than three core books when Monster Manual II came out.

In 1981 Dungeons and Dragons Version 3 was released. The Basic set of the 3rd version was known as the Magenta Box, and still only covered levels 1-3, but also released was the Light Blue box a.k.a. the Expert Set, which covered from 4-14.

Dungeons and Dragons Version 4 was released in 1983 with the Basic set (Red Box), Expert Set (Blue Box, and last colored box), and Companion set (levels 15-25). In 1984 the Master Set was released which covered 26-36. !985 saw the release of the Immortal's Set which was for levels 36 and up (hard core nerds ;)).

In 1987 a group started working on a new version of ADnD, which was finally published in 1989 as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd Edition. This version saw the classes grouped according to abilties, as well as the more prevalent use of THAC0 of To Hit Armor Class 0 (this was introduced in ADnD, but wasn't as prevalent). Essentially the lower a characters Armor Class or AC, the harder they were to kill. The idea that a creature is harder to hit when its armor class nears zero was felt by some players to be counterintuitive and yet other players foudn it logical. It produced mathematical inconsistencies in the game system though. Magical armors have a modifier that is always denoted with a "+" although it was actually to be subtracted from the AC .

Also in ADnD 2nd ed. players saw the time measurements encounters were split into change drastically. Initially each round was to be 6 seconds of in game time, however ADnD 2 changed everything with turns being 10 minutes of game time, or 10 rounds of one minute each. eventually another timing system was introduced where one "melee round" was 12-15 seconds as opposed to the 6 seconds.

Descriptions of artifacts were removed from the Dungeon Masters Guide, tables for the random generation of dungeons were removed, exchange rates for choins in the game were changed drastically, The Monster Manual was removed with the Monsterous Compendium coming out as a looseleaf spiral bound book. Angels and Demons were removed from the monster listings.

Despite all this chaos and confusion surrounding ADnD 2nd Ed is seen by some to be the best version. Personally I can't see how that can be with things like the counterintuitive THAC0, the wonky timing system, but it still had what made DnD DnD, party based combat and a lot of room for user creativity.

1991 saw the final release of the original DnD line with Dungeons and Dragons Version 5 version. It released as the Rules Cyclopedia which encompassed all previous books (except the Immortal's Set) and was for levels 1-36. The following year Wrath of the Immortals (a revising of the original Immortal's Set) would be the final supplement in the original DnD line and would take players from level 36 onward.

In 2000 Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition was released. However the heading of Advanced was dropped as ADnD and DnD were finally merged with this edition. This was a major upgrade to DnD and saw many many changes. This version saw the creation of the D20 system, the confusing THAC0 system was replaced with a simple Attack Bonus system, Ability scores simplified and no longer had a cap of 25. Saving Throws were reduced from 5 to 3 types. Feats were introduced to allow character more special abilities and customization. Prestige classes were introduced, which allowed character to take on specialized classes and roles. Any race could now be any class (a few prestige classes are the exception). Initiative was simplified and followed a cyclical system where once determined play moved along the same order until the encounter was over. Diagonal movement and range are simplified. Barbarians, Monks, and Half-Orcs are brought back to the player's handbook.

DnD 3rd Edition however wasn't the only 3rd edition, as 2003 saw Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 come out. More an update and revision this edition saw a balancing of the Ranger and Druid classes. The Player's Handbook was also modified to focus more on grid based movement and combat, bringing back the originals DnDs combat roots.

Last year saw Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition released. Thhsi most recent version fo DnD made many changes, movement in the books is now given in squares (a continuation fo 3.5s section in the Player's Handbook on grid movement), numerous races and classes from 30/3.5 were removed or altered, and new ones added. New races were introduced as player races (Dragonborn, Tiefling, Deva, Goliaths, and Shifters), and Elves were split into three different sub-races. The Core books now encompass up to Level 30, which brought epic level character play BACK to DnD since the Master Set of the original DnD. Character between Level 11 and 20 now choose a path for their character to follow, bringing more advanced role playing and thought into 3.0's prestige classes. This version also saw a revision to the healing system (character are given healing surges as well as other mild healing powers), as well as a change in how spells are handled.

$th Edition saw a few major revisions to magic: Changes in spells and other per-encounter resourcing, giving all classes a similar number of at-will, per-encounter and per-day power types. (This applies to all classes, in contrast to previous editions where each spell was cast on a daily basis while non-casters were more likely to receive combat and noncombat bonuses than any specific powers.) Many non-combat spells (such as Knock, Raise Dead, Tenser's Floating Disc, Water Breathing, etc.) have been replaced by rituals. All rituals have a financial cost in the form of material components, such as herbs and alchemical reagents. Item creation feats are also replaced by rituals.

So where does this leave us? Many old school DnD players have begrudgingly accepted the new system. Many eventually are won over by it, though obviously not all of them are. In my mind it doesn't make sense why people don't like the new system. Every version of DnD is a great system, but as time goes on, each version the game becomes simpler to play, which is a good thing. It also brings more order to the game, leaving players free to worry about what their character does, not the arbitrary numbers that the game was based on for so long (which in turn led to unnecessary complexity). It shouldn't matter if I roll for reflex or if the attacker does, in the end, it's still random... does the fact you don't roll the die change the chances? Unless someone is using loaded dice it most certainly does not.

What 4th edition did was take the mindless rolling out of the player's hands. It brought back the DnD Version 2-5 five alignment system which was a popular and simple system, and also changed the way spells are done. Combining class specific powers with the rituals can make for some great combination and creativity, but unlike 3.0 and 3.5, people seem to just want a freaking huge spell list to get lost in, which in the end is counter productive and confusing for many players (myself included as ther number of spells is too much in 3.5).

DnD 4.0 has been the fastest selling version of the franchise, the initial print run sold out on pre-orders alone, something not done before. Purists who are blinded by their view of 4.0 not being for them should remember that in the end, a game is not the rules, it's who you play with, and how you play, you can ignore and change the rules at will after all. In the end, you get what you bring to the gaming table, if you come with a feeling of "this game sucks" you will get "this game sucks" back, regardless of how objective you think you are. You have to come wanting to play, and in the end, if you don't want to play, why are you gaming?

Addendum:
Many people have claimed that the square based combat system used in 4.0 is just a way for Wizard's of the Coast to make money selling miniatures. I think these people forget that the Original DnD was designed to use miniatures and rules that you had to buy separately, and even now they are not a requirement to play at all. It should also be noted that there was a version of Chainmail made in 2000, which was eventually morphed into the Dungeons and Dragons Miniatures Game.

Also of note is that people complain about DnD now being released in yearly core books (Player's Handbook II has just come out in fact) and yet, like Advanced DnD, these supplements are not required to play. All you still need to play DnD is three books, a few friends, some dice, and imagination. That hasn't changed, the only thing that has is how easy it will be for new people to play.

I would also like to point out that in my mind, people who rag on 4.0 for changing so many things sound exactly like gamers when the Wii was first unveiled in 2006. They snickered and stuck up their nose. It started to do very well in the market, and they cried foul, claiming it was the end of gaming. Yet here we are two and a half years later with some great Wii titles on the horizon as developers and gamers FINALLY start to wake up to the fact that pretty graphics do NOT a game make. I just hope the purist DnD crowd can be smarter and wake up a little faster to a paradigm shift in their industry that is for the betterment of their industry.

My Girlfriend's Response: 20 Sided Woman -- Why I'm Sticking to 3.5 -- A Long Analogy

"Finish Him!" or "Midway Really is Dying"

2009-03-02T03:04:00.004-06:00

So I just found out that Midway is selling the Mortal Kombat franchise, pretty much their only franchise remaining with any real selling power after the marginally successful MK vs. DC Universe earlier this generation.

Even though I do think the company pulled a lot of bad choices over the years I still have fond memories of some of their games and franchises. Obviously Mortal Kombat and most of it's incarnations were decent, sometimes completely awesome, in my opinion, I'd even say I enjoyed what I played of Mortal Kombat: Mythologies. When Deadly Alliance came out for the Gamecube I was actually impressed, they had turned what essentially had become a parody of it's former self into something with a decent and intriguing plot, it was a breath of life in the series.

Other fond memories include Crusi'n USA and World on the N64 and in the Arcades, as well as Gauntlet: Legends on the N64 and Arcades (Disney Quest in Chicago was so much fun back in the day when we Gauntlet: Legends there).

Midways major troubles started with the downslide of videogames that still hampers the industry as developers try to be more like Hollywood. They are all working on being the next big thing, for a little while. Midway's biggest blunder was arguably Stanglehold for the PS3 and 360, a John Woo directed game featuring Chow Yun-Fat, and the spiritual successor to the cul classic Hard Boiled. The game was well received, but did not make up for it's tremendous cost.

Also, late last year Midway changed hands as Summer Redstone, owner of National Amusements Inc. (which holds CBS and Viacom under it's control, amongst others), sold his 87% share in Midway to private investor Mark Thomas. Thomas took on $70m of Midways debt, however the sale of the stock caused Midway to have $240m in debt as clauses in bond issues triggered allowing for full repayment to be requested on $150m.

However, there is a silver lining to all this... Midway has filed for bankruptcy, but a company rep has said "We felt this was a logical next step for our organization, considering the change in control triggered the acceleration of the repayment options...we're looking to reorganize and to come out on the other side stronger"

It will not be with Mortal Kombat, or maybe not even Gauntlet, and for all intents and purposes Nintendo owns Cruis'n as much as Midway does... but Midway will return someday. When that is, and what form they will take is anybodies guess.

NOTE: Acclaim, the people who published Mortal Kombat I and II back when Midway was still Williams Entertainment have also come back since they dies last gen, but in name only it seems. Acclaim now does MMO games, including a dancing MMO... not quite sure how that works.

"What Have You Done To My Wii?" or "Holy Crap Nintendo Does Listen"

2009-03-02T02:03:00.005-06:00

First off, please excuse the crappy quality of my pictures here, they were taken with my phone as I can't seem to find my camera, besides, off screen photos always stink.

I have not turned on my Nintendo Wii in like two months. Today i wanted to play some Gamecube games, which meant turning on the Wii. After an arduous time setting up my wireless router for the n-th time (that thing can't hold settings to save it's life), and a LONG, LONG, LONG download time for the update (almost 30 minutes!, this isn't a PS3 guys) I finally updated to the 3.4 firmware.

I realize this firmware has been out for a while but I was obviously in the dark, however I have not seen this posted anywhere as of yet.

For a long time people have been complaining about the speed of the shopping channel, the download speed of the system in general (ie. updates), the small amount of internal storage on the Wii, the sluggish speed of the SD Memory Card interface, the lack of core games, and more. It seems to me that maybe Nintendo has been hearing the cries of the core and tech elite and have started to do something about it.

Not only does the Shopping channel download games much much faster than it used to, not only does everything transfer to and from my memory card faster, but the games now take up less space after you download them.

For instance, I just downloaded Paper Mario, a fairly good N64 RPG. First I was greeted by the standard download screen with mario running on the bottom collecting points and such (I should also note that I also saw a new mario animation, him and luigi swimming like the ocean levels)... and the following screen:

As the download finished (much faster than it did when I downloaded the game for the first time months ago (though I have since deleted it)) I saw the screen still saying 11 for Blocks After Download... the screen changed to the confirm screen and this showed up instead:

So it would seem Nintendo has been doing incremental updates to the Wii, and the only thing people were wondering with 3.4 was does it ruin HomeBrew Channel (HBC is a way for people to play user made games, indie titles, and games from other regions, as well as pirated games (though I doubt most people play pirated games on the Wii in the US, Japan, or most PAL countries, though I'm sure there are some.) The channel is not licensed by Nintendo and it is therefore their right to remove it from Wiis with an update, that's a risk people take when they use unlicensed software (I myself have not been able to use my Action Replay since the 3.0 update, I got over it).

As I stated in another article there are some good Wii games on the way, and I will be covering more of those soon, but Nintendo has also announced that this spring they will have an update that will alleviate the issues with the internal storage by way of the SD Card slot, which most likely means the ability to run WiiWare and such off of an SD card, which would be a godsend imho.

My main point here to those people complaining that Nintendo isn't listenting, maybe they are, maybe they just don't feel the need to toot their own horn like other companies until they do something great, not something that was expected.

"I Want to Legitimize My Hobby" or "Are Videogames Art?"

2009-02-25T05:21:00.000-06:00

A long while ago, back in 2005 actually, Roger Ebert was quoted as saying

"[I] consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature...Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control...
I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

I know what you are thinking "You can't be digging stuff up from almost 4 years ago." and I'm not, the debate still continues today.

About 3 years ago author Clive Barker spoke on the issue, siding with the game industry in his response to Ebert. Barker finished working on his first game, Undying [EA/Aspyr], in 2001 and made Jericho [Codemasters] in 2007. Barker's responded to Ebert were posted on GameIndustry.biz. Ebert responded on his own site in a remarkably short sighted way. Even though these two haven't really spoken on the issue for a while now the debate continues amongst gamers, who are also kinda split on the issue.

Mr. Ebert has a very strange view of games: "They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports."

Even though his comments are valid on the surface, they don't really hold up that well under scrutiny. It also appears that Mr. Ebert is a little outdated in his information as he references series that were very old or far on the periphery of gamer consciousness as to not represent the majority of gamers.

I am a huge fan of the Myst games, and I would not label them as art by themselves. when combined with the book series behind the games (which most people never even knew existed), I would classify the franchise as a whole art. Some might argue that this might lead to backing up his argument, that to make games art they have to be coupled with another medium. In instead think this shows how far gaming has come. The medium is finally starting to mature and is nearing being of artistic value, as nobody would call old Atari 2600 games art in almost any sense of the word. The Myst Mr. Ebert talks about is over a decade old, and the last couple iterations of the franchise did bring more of a narrative and universe together for people to experience.

Mr. Ebert's main problem seems to stem from the fact that games are controllable by the viewer and therefore can never be considered great art. They can be artistic, but can never be held up to the same level as a movie or a book. That just seems like closed-mindedness if something can be artistic and yet not be art. Everything is essentially controlled by the viewer in some way. When you watch a movie, when you read a book, or try to discern the meaning of a painting you always change the creators idea, you impart your own experiences, knowledge, and perspective on the piece. The emotions are not always going to be those intended, and the viewer is an active participant in their understanding and enjoyment of the piece.

A videogame is a logical next step in that ideology. A good videogame, with a good story, and a talented development staff can be just as enjoyable, moving, and life changing as a good movie.

One of Mr. Ebert's Top 10 last decade was Princess Mononoke (1999), by famed director/writer Hayao Miyazaki. Miyazaki was also the director/writer behind Spirited Away (2001). Both films are among the highest grossing in Japanese history, with Spirited Away still being the top grossing of all time ($228.6m). I consider Princess Mononoke my favorite film of all time. When I saw it, it felt like a change in my world view. It was an awe-inspiring experience and I can still remember walking out of the theater with a very strange feeling that I had just seen something incredible.

My ideas about movies and animation, about history, culture, and mythologies, they all were changed by that movie. You know what else gives me that feeling? The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker on the Nintendo Gamecube. It was a game that eschewed typical gaming design in favor of telling a story that was dramatic and emotional and completely amazing.

The Wind Waker did away with a realistic art style (much to the annoyance of graphics whores online who said it looks like a Gameboy Advance game, myself included), but this choice was made for a reason. The game is about a child setting out on a grand adventure, filled with emotional and rich characters, and a vivid and dangerous world. It had it's dry points, and a few problems. For instance the hunt for the triforce is considered to be the worst aspect of the game as it does take some time. Even the best movie though has problems with pacing at some point, whether it be a slow beginning or a few minutes of exposition. The end experience should be what validates something as art. Does the piece as a whole affect you? Does it move you, influence you? Not every movie is art, not every game or book is either, but the best of them all are.

Addendum -- A Hypothetical Example:
A character in a movie is running thru LAX in LA, two big guys pounding after him as he checks his ticket. It's a last minute ticket, he's late for the plane because these guys have been holding him up, chasing him around LA in a car chase as he tried to escape the city. He makes it to the desk and onto the plane right at the last minute. He's safe, and one second later we see him step off the plane in the terminal at JFK in NY.
We've all seen scenes like this in action movies. We've seen them in games too. Does the fact you control where he runs change the scene? Or the tension? What if the player has the choice to fight rather than flee?

A movie is static, you have one experience, you can't ever really watch it the first time again, once it's done it's done. You might watch is dozens more times, but it's not going to be as amazing as that first time. A game though, a well done game, can be played many times and each time can feel like a new experience depending on what the player does, what they discover, maybe something they never even saw before.

The reasons the best games should be considered art with the best movies, books, etc. is because it can change. It's a strength, not a detriment.

"I am Neutral-Evil" or "Playing the Bad Guy"

2009-02-23T04:27:00.003-06:00

NOTE: I apologize for the long time since my last post, I have been struggling with writer's block as of late. It seemed my muse was out of touch and I had to use the few moments it called my brain collect to work on some other more pressing projects. I will be writing more regularly I think. I've also been trying to find things to write about than graphics and videogame fanboys, let me know what you think of today's post.
The DM

The vast majority of games have you playing some hero. You are saving the world, village, country; rescuing your girlfriend, teacher, parents... How many time have you been able to play evil? I'm not talking Mass Effect 'I'm going to be a jerk with a damn bad attitude' evil, I'm talking killing people for fun and profit as the reason you play a game even when there's the option to be good.

Currently I am playing in a DnD campaign when for the first time I am playing a Neutral Evil character. since I feel the alignments in dnD are fairly open to interpretation I am doing that like so: I am neutral and just don't care about circumstances and such when I am involved and occupied... in those scenarios I am generally thinking about what is most beneficial to my characters or those my character has become friends with. But when Manimarco gets bored (note: I do not say when I get bored, my character is not me, he is fictional (take note LARPers and furries)) he tries to liven things up. so far it has not come down to me killing anything yet. Things haven't been that boring yet. I did however practically give alcohol poisoning to a group of dwarves with something that makes Drow Spider Blood look like a 5% Alcohol/Vol. wine cooler. It made for a fun time and people did almost die.

I should mention where I got the name from for my character. A couple years ago I was playing The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion on my PC, and one of the villains in a side quest is a liche named Manimarco. But Oblivion also changed my view of games forever. In that game there is a quest line called The Dark Brotherhood, which is essentially an assassins guild. I enjoyed the prospect and the quests until I happened to see the result of my actions.

I had killed a man, and his servant was left alive (as I was not paid to kill him, just my target). About a month later in real life I happened to visit the town where that nefarious deed took place only to find the servant in the tavern drinking and crying over the person I had killed.

Maybe it was the voice acting or some other factor about the character, but I actually felt remorse for killing a fictional character. I have found that since that point I have not really been able to play evil in any game unless it is by misinformation on my part. Even Manimarco in DnD isn't necessarily evil, just bored.

I know I have DnD players and videogamers reading this, what are your thoughts on playing the evil guy? Do games really show enough of a result from your actions in this respect as well? I realize Call of Duty and such games where you kill hudreds of minions on a mission is one thing, but if you kill someone in particular, a person with a story and a life in the game... there should be a result of the action.

For instance, in Fallout 3 there is a chance that you can kill person X, who is the father of Person Y. Y is a child. you can talk to Y all you want, even with the dead body of X in the room, and the only thing they will say is "I have learned to take care of myself now that dad is gone." THAT'S IT? A one line thing when you dad lies dead behind you after I just put a bullet thru his brain?

It just doesn't seem like enough, even a timed event, like for the next week in game time the character is distraught, maybe doesn't say anything... but more than that 1 minute after someone dies.

"He Said Wii, LOL" or "A Change Is Needed"

2009-02-06T23:07:00.005-06:00

I love videogames, I have two consoles currently and 3 high end PCs, all for games (PCs for artwork too), and I have experience in game development and design. I am really starting to get annoyed by game developers though and the mentality towards the Wii.

Today I read that Todd Howard from Bethesda said he was "not threatened” by the Wii and that “it’s a toy.” He stated that consumers see the Wii as a “kid’s toy” and that the other high end game consoles are “for evil killfests." Public perception on the high end consoles like 360 and PS3 are goign to follow those lines as the most high profile games on the system are killfests, because developers are still chasing that fabled 18-24 male demographic (which in itself is a faulty plan).

I liked Fallout 3, I though it was a good game with a shit ending. I still play Elder Scrolls IV from Bethesda, I love Mass Effect from BioWar, I am a huge fan of the Call of Duty games from Infinity Ward and Treyarc... but I still think the industry is missing the point.

Many publishers and deveopers are trying to be the best looking game on the block, chasing realism and all that (I've already ranted on that topic I know), so when the Wii was announced to be about twice the power of the Gamecube (falling somewhere between the Xbox and the 360) they wrote it off as a failure. When the Wii-mote was shown people claimed Nintendo was doomed. well that was about 3 years ago now, we all know what happened, some places still have the Wii sold out.

The industry was caught with their pants down. Most publishers had no AAA teams for the Wii, using their lesser known and sometimes not so talented teams to make ports and games for the Wii, usually with disaterous results.

The Wii version was a lazy port, but even as a port it should have looked better than the Gamecube game.

The Wii has become the home of the lowest of the low, with the majority of games getting around 4.0 out of 10 in reviews. The problem is these games sell to people who don't know any better. The average soccer mom doesn't read reviews before buying a game, they don't lurk on forums or go to gamerankings.com. They buy it based on the idea and the cover.

Nintendos little box that could has become a dumping ground of the industry, with such quick cash ins as Chicken Shoot, a game that started life as a free flash game and got an average review score of 26%. Or Crus'n, a franchise with some pedegree as it was a staple for racing fans on the Nintendo 64. Midway lived up to that pedigree by releasing a game with graphics that could almost be mistaken for the N64 games.

Is it sad I prefer the N64 graphics, they look better in some ways!

Recently numerous game developers have closed down or been forced to merge. Free Radical Design was closed and then bought by Crytek (still unconfirmed though). Factor 5 is in a dire situation supposedly. Ensemble Studios was shut down right after Halo Wars was completed. Other companies are cutting people left and right, EA posted record revenues and record losses in 2008. Now, the economy does have something to do with this obviously, but there were problems before everything went belly up. Developers spend million upon millions of dollars on developing a game, and publishers spend millions advertising them. The industry has reached a saturation point and is on the verge of collapse, unless drastic action is taken.

Well, almost the whole industry. Nintendo alone accounted for over 70% of growth in the industry last year... the Wii is still sold out, and people are still buying games. EA recently said they are shifting their focus to Wii, and I applaud them. If more developers took the console seriously (as it should be) we would solve a lot of problems. Companies can still do very pretty and nice looking games on the console.

The problem a lot of them have is the Wii-mote is a hurdle for developers to get over as much as the 16 button 2 joystick controllers are for non-gamers. Well, for developers who want to make more old-school games the Wii supports Gamecube controllers (which Nintendo should put BACK into production), as well as the Classic Controller.

In the end the wii is a double edged sword for developers, it's not the most graphically powerful console, and it is also the best selling. Games that are well done, and well advertised will do well on the system. But they can't expect it to crack the top 10 and make all their sales. The best selling Wii games sell over time, not in a one month time period. Wii Play stays on the Top 5 consistently, Boom Blox from EA sold low every month, but it's consistently sold to the point it has garnered a sequel now.

Here is what developers need to do:
-for CASUAL games-
a) do something other than cram 20 random minigames on the disc to cash in, there are hundreds of these games already.
b) make it something playable in short bursts and/or long bursts, make it addictive and fun.
c) above all else make it good artistically (not necessarily graphically, low poly doesn't mean ugly) and control wise

-for CORE games-
a) ADVERTISE!
b) try to take advantage of the system's strengths and learn your weaknesses (ie. the gamecube and wii do not use normal shaders, they use a proprietary technology called TEV (TExture enViroment))
c) dont' be afraid to require GCN controllers, most CORE gamers have them
d) don't go for the realism and graphics of the 360 and Ps3, you won't get them and the game will look worse for it.

Hopefully this industry is starting to change, I don't want it to crash again and kill off all the companies just because they are too stubborn to change their ways as the market does.

"I Dream In Color" or "I am Sick of Realism Screwing Up My Games"

2009-02-05T23:20:00.000-06:00

"What role does realism play in videogames I ask myself. Is this image more interesting? Sometimes.. however, what if a "detailed" hand with 5 fingers is catching a bottle but the fingers pass right through it? Is this still realistic? Rather than to show each meticulous and tiny detail of a finger, it is more important to make the end action look more credible by working on the movement and functionality of the arms and the hand in relation to the object."
~Shigeru Miyamoto, Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development

This is a rant, just typing without thinking
Chasing reality is unavoidable for game developers, being the most realistic and on the bleeding edge of technology gets you a lot of clout. There a constant battle amongst middleware developers to see who can push the most polygons and most realistic lighting, who can best replicate what we see out our windows. Despite all these bells and whistles and new graphical techniques, realism is something that cannot be achieved now or the future. Until displays are fully 3d and graphics capabilities can render every hair and pore on a human head there is no way. Even then, the sheer cost of such a development will be so enormous as to make it not worth while.

Every generation you will see developers or gamers touting a game as being most realistic, and often times that is the games only saving grace, with few exceptions. Virtual Realism fades, it is a novelty that wears thin far too quickly. This does not mean it's a bad game underneath, but more often than not it is a passable or decent game with so much emphasis put on the graphical technology the rest of the game suffers.

The other problem is we all know what reality looks like, we know a human face looks like, we know how sun illuminates skin, and how the eyes move and look, but that is near impossible to replicate in a game. As a result the game might look good, but it isn't going to look real, and the further behind the bleeding edge the game becomes, the older it gets, the less it will look great and might end up looking absolutely horrible.

One of the realistic games a couple generations ago was Goldeneye 007 on the N64, and yet I doubt anyone would say it looks good today, it just plays well for it's time. Super Mario 64 on the other hand is still bearable to look at, you can play it and not be annoyed at the graphics. It is not realistic and therefore ages much better.

Call of Duty some years later also tried to achieve realism, as did Metal Sear Solid 2 and yet something like Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker or Timesplitters 2 ages much better and still can look good today.

Jump forward to today and other realistic games like Fallout 3 have come out trying to achieve realism. Fallout 3 has many problems, the most apparent being people don't move correctly. The faces have emotion, but their body usually don't match up (especially in dialogue when someone is screaming but their body is posed devoid of emotion). Not chasing realism and such detail might have given a little more time to fix other issues with the game.

Fallout 3 has a glaringly horrible ending that leaves you feeling cheated, even if the rest of the game was great. You just feel like the story was just getting started when you got to the end, pacing is a major problem here. If they went with an art style other than realistic we might have had an actually fleshed out storyline, rather than having to pay money for expansion packs to tell said story. I know, that's a bit of a leap, but you have to wonder how many games will benefit from realistic graphics when compared to a game that is enjoyable for years visually and gameplay wise.

If it was reality, I would be able to go over that pile of rubble rather than have it be the edge of the level (no levels in reality). If it was reality, I'd be allowed to make radically different changes to the game world with my actions. If it was reality I wouldn't be tied to your linear story.

There is nothing wrong with good graphics, but a good art style can go a lot further and age much better than realism. It's weird, but realism is as much a cliche as bald space marines and gansters now. As for my first suggested title for this post "I Dream In Color" this is a shot to game developers and artists who feel that reality is drab and comes in 3 colors, brown, grey, and blue, all desaturated to some degree.

I am frankly sick that all the top selling games involve bald space marines, gangsters, zombies, and anything that doesn't involve guns, sports, or cars is too kiddy to be taken seriously. It seems strange but core gamers need to grow up to enjoy all games, and it just isn't happening enough.

Hopefully with this economic downturn developers will stop spending million upon millions on chasing realism and making gritty crime and war dramas and focus on making something fun to play. That is what gaming was about right? After all, if I wanted reality, I would be outside.

And so ends my rant, I feel better.

'The Skies of Final Fantasy' or 'SEGA needs to make a new Skies of Arcadia'

2009-01-28T04:15:00.002-06:00

My first JapaneseRPG (JRPG) ever was Skies of Arcadia: Legends on Gamecube, a technically unimpressive port of a Dreamcast game by Overworks, a team at SEGA. The game was, by all accounts, very cliche. However the feeling of exploration and the epic ship battles combined with a very charming and colorful world have given the game a cult following, your author included.

Japanese trailer for Skies of Arcadia: Legends... makes me want to play it again

A long time ago my friends and I sat down to attempt to play Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles on the Gamecube. The game was highly anticipated when first announced, this was Squaresoft breaking away from Sony and coming back to Nintendo. Some were dissuaded when the game was revealed to be an Action RPG very unlike Final Fantasy. It was a great experience but in the end was a short lived experience as the game was very shallow in terms of real storyline and was more of a party game in the end than an RPG. The game sold well, but let many people down and we never expected to see another one, or at least one worth owning.

[note: many people also had a huge problem with the game requiring GameBoy Advances for multiplayer as it made it much harder to find people to play with]

Eventually Square|Enix (Squaresoft merged with Enix in 2003 right before the launch of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles) announced a new one coming for the coming Nintendo Wii, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers (yes it has TWO subtitles). You can see the trailer below.

This video was a big hit, the world which was so shallow in the previous incarnation appeared much more fleshed out and the graphics were much better than most people were used to on the Wii (more on that some other time). It also struck a chord with many of the skies of Arcadia fans because it seems to have a bit of a Skies feel to it.

Today I just saw a brand new trailer that was released in Japan for this game as seen below.

The second half is the best and first half seems like a mish/mash of gameplay snippets badly spliced and set to bad music (imho). It still looks like a good game honestly, but it doesn't have that feel that I expected. It has made the wait for SEGA to announce a sequel to Skies all the more painful. What's worse it that Skies 2 was being worked on at one point, but SEGA pulled the plug in one of their stupid corporate shuffles. Since then SEGA has begun to redeem themselves by getting some good looking and very promising projects going (save for the Sonic The Hedgehog series, more on that another time as well) such as The Conduit and Madworld for Wii.

Sadly Skies of Arcadia never did well on the Dreamcast (a system that sold less than 5 million units) or the Gamecube (a system that was not for RPG gamers). Combined with the fact that SEGAs marketers really didn't do the best job marketing the game, choosing to focus on the character ranking system (a very minor throwaway bit imho) rather than the ship battles and characters, arguably Skies best aspects.

However, The Wii, a system that is possibly the fastest selling home console ever combined with the fact that Japanese RPGs are picking up on the system. Marvelous is bringing Arc Rise Fantasia to the Wii as Square|Enix brings FFCC: Echoes of Time [a DS/Wii crossplatform title], and FFCC: The Crystal Bearers to the system, and they are just the beginning for Square|Enix as Dragon Quest X is also coming to the Wii (Dragon Quest is much much bigger than Final Fantasy in Japan by a very large margin, and is gaining steam in North america since the release of Dragon Quest VII on the Playstation.)

So come on SEGA, bring Skies back from the dead, give it a new coat of paint (NOT REALISTIC!) and give us what we all want (it should be noted that practically yearly since the Gamecube release until it's death earlier this month Electronic Gaming Monthly had a rumor of Skies 2 being in development for Gamecube, PS2, or Wii, much to the Skies fan community's constant joy and sadness.)

'A differtent breed of video gamer' or 'Give me my split-screen'

2009-01-19T05:20:00.006-06:00

I have been gaming all my life. I have had 13 game consoles (including my 4 handhelds). I have hand built well over a dozen of computers for myself and friends. I have been to gaming conventions and even been in gaming magazines. These days however, I am seeing a disturbing trend in gaming. It's going to be a long read, but I think to understand my argument, you have to take the journey.
If you have gamed from the NES days or before up until now you have played thru numerous renaissances in gaming. Generally gamers that old have played the greatest of the greats. They played Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Metroid, Contra, Kirby's Adventure, great games from the NES. If they were into Sega at the time the Master System delivered classics like the Alex Kid games and OutRun. Both systems supported 2 players and many games allowed players to play at the same time (as with Contra) or taking turns (as with Mario).

Contra back in the day, that code will forever be ingrained in my brain

Since I was born in the early 80s my first system was given to me in 1990, it was a NES and came with Super Mario Bros. 3. eventually I went on to get such classics as Contra and Kirby's Adventure. I can't tell you how many hours my friend Mike and I spent playing contra, and how much we treasured that famous code for 30 lives.

Sonic The Hedgehog 2, the first mascot game I played endlessly (and still do from time to time)

After my NES when I was just a youngster my parents got me a Genesis with Sonic The Hedgehog 2 in 1992. I passed many days with my friend Greg playing Sonic 2. I would do the levels, he would take care of the bosses. We never actually beat the game, but we played thru the first 7 acts over a hundred times at least. We also got exposed to Mortal Kombat for the first time, a game that was probably the first competitive game I had where my friends and I could both play.
1997 eventually came, and that Christmas came the best surprise. I entered a contest at Target for 150 Nintendo Dollars, which was the going price of a Nintendo 64. The box was heavy with entries, but one day I came home from school (8th grade if I recall correctly) and we had a message on the machine from Target proclaiming me the winner in the drawing. I was ecstatic, my parents, not so much. I didn't get a game with the system sadly, but my friends helped me out, getting me Starfox 64 and renting Goldeneye for me. This is where the real story begins.

Starfox 64, the beginning of my life in multiplayer nirvana

     Starfox was the first game I ever had for the N64, the first game I ever played for the 64, and the first 3d game I ever saw. This game was everything to me for a long time, but the thing we shrugged off at first was what became the redeeming feature. Splitscreen Multiplayer.
Now, allow me to explain this if you aren't a videogamer. splitscreen gaming reduces the screen to two, three, or four views. One for each player. The game also uses a lot fewer visual effects to compensate for all the camera angles being used.
     Okay, condescending technically talk done with. To us there was nothing like sitting on the couch and floor, huddled in front of a 20 inch TV with each other. You could laugh, shout, punch, do anything. It was fun, we were all there, hanging out, learning strategies, learning how we each played, analyzing each other. It was amazing fun. Flying around in that game was the best thing ever. That was until Goldeneye 007 on the N64.
     Goldeneye is still considered a breakthrough in gaming, specifically in the First Person Shooter genre. It was the first game to have decent controls, good graphics (for the time), and splitscreen multiplayer with multiple modes. We spent days with this game, racking up kills, playing matches over and over, trying to get that last kill before the other guy. you could share everything with the friends around you, the awesome kills and the crushing defeats. As the N64 grew so did our options for gaming mayhem.
     Mario Kart 64 hit eventually, something that sucked a lot of time from us all, but then came something we didn't expect, a chance for us all to face the computer (Mario Kart 64 has no CPU racers for 3-4 players games)... Perfect Dark.

Playing the multiplayer was like playing the single player story with friends

     Perfect Dark on the N64 was what we thought the epitome of gaming. It was a hectic first person shooter just like Goldeneye (wand was in fact done by the same developer and many of the same team) but during this split screen mode we could have CPU controlled players known as bots. the bots could be on our team, be free agents, or fight in a coordinated group. They could have various difficulties (some of which are night impossible), and now the game wasn't us versus each other, it was us or them. Man vs. machine.
     Once again we had to have a strategy, a plan that was constantly changing but always had to work. As each match drew to a close it was either time for a rematch or sodas while we discussed it laughing at the craziness of the game.
That was the epitome of splitscreen gaming for me, nothing could ever some close, until the team that worked on Perfect dark split off from Rare Ltd. to make Timesplitters for the PS2 and Timesplitters 2 and Timesplitters: Future Perfect for the Gamecube.
     Timesplitters brought everything we loved of Goldeneye007 and Perfect Dark and took it to the next level. 64 playable characters, better graphics, more weapons, more bots in a match, more levels, more modes. We sat around the TV again, plotting to show the AI who was boss, and once more we were thrown into battle with celebrations and laughing and more than a fair bit of frustration and challenge.
     Since then things have changed though. Online has become the new thing and splitscreen is dying slowly. these days finding a good spliscreen game is hard. Call of Duty 2, 3, 4, and World at War keep splitscreen alive along with Halo 1, 2, and 3... none of them has bots to play against. In 4 player splitscreen it's you and your friends, nothing else.

The graphics might be amazing, but the multiplayer, while good, is severely lacking. When playing with 3 friends you can have views like this, with nobody around and no action for minutes at a time. That is no fun.

     It's a step back to 1997 and Goldeneye. Timesplitters is dead, Perfect Dark suffered a horrible fate on the Xbox 360, and it seems that people are trying to distance themselves from social gaming. It seems to me that gamers are reverting back to the days when solitary gamers would sit in front of the glow of a TV not dealing with anyone, except now they talk through a headset to a nameless person across the world that they simply know as Gamer128 or some imaginative name like 1337FPSKilla.
     When I bring this up to my friends in the industry I am told that online is the way to be, I should play with my friends there. Splitscreen sucks because you have to look at a small screen. Well, I'm worry that not everyone owns the consoles and games I do, or that we actually like seeing each other and don't mind splitting a 30 inch TV up (you know how much we would have killed for 30 inches back with goldeneye?)
     It is sad that developers are so drawn up in chasing reality and the HD hype that they forgot what made gaming great. The gameplay. The people you game with, and how you game with them, can just as easily make or break a game as much as the GUI, controls, or graphics.
     Developers, if you are going to put splitscreen in, go the extra mile and put in bots as an option (even 4 bots to offset the 4 players would be fine.) If you are going to have maps for online gaming, make them for offline too (this is a major problem for Call of Duty 4 imho), and lastly, stop being afraid of not being super amazingly realistic with your graphics, your graphics can be a little less realistic to accommodate some multiplayer mayhem from one system (who knows, you might actually be visually creative again).

We still play this on LAN against the PC, and once in a while on battle.net when everyone can't make it to one location

For a bit of reference, my friends and I still play against the computer on PCs in Unreal Tournament 99, 2004, as well as Starcraft, Command & Conquer 3, Command & Conquer Red Alert 3, and other games. Usually thru LAN, we'd rather be in the same room than miles and miles away listening to some voice.

I should say that purely online does have it's place, but it should not be the only choice for multiplayer gaming. Sadly that is quickly becoming the case.

2009-01-07T06:56:00.002-06:00

So I have decided to let the world in on my very strange and odd mindscape. Over time I hope to turn this into a collection of interesting, inspirational, or odd things.

I suppose the first thing should be a bit of a explanation on who I am. I'm a 25 year old guy living in the suburbs of Chicago. I work a part time blue collar job tossing stock at a local grocery store, which is far from a glorious profession I admit. I am a fan of table top RPGs, videogames, artwork, sci-fi and fantasy.

A note on Digital Mystic and what it means. Aside from the small pun of DM being used for a blog that will entail RPGs, the name was conjured up late one night.

Realizing my creative talents were waning I decided to interject a fair bit of fantasy into my own life as I worked. Almost as a child does when playing, while crafting a storyline as I wrote and drew on my tablet, I found myself thinking of a fictitious wizard or magician bringing my digital creation to life. While it may sound corny or stupid, it did keep me going long enough to finish my assignment on time and get paid (oh those were the days, getting paid for artwork).

Seeing as how late it is (or early depending on how you look at it) it is probably time for sleep, I promise the next post will be more interesting and not about me so much (cause nobody wants that).