- GTA: Montpelier is looking less and less likely
- Hint Hint!
- The First Annual Nintendo DS Awards
- Sex, Lies and Video Games
- VG Ombudsman Trademarks Non-story
- Rob Fahey vs. Microsft
- The Driv3r D3bacl3
- Difficult Questions About "Difficult Questions About Videogames"
- When the Latest News Isn't
- Whose Press Release is it, Anyway?
Monday, December 27, 2004
Happy New Year -- No New Ombudsman
In an effort to catch up on my freelancing, game playing, and a decently major feature I'm planning for the Ombudsman, I'm taking this post-Christmas, pre-New-Year's week off from posting here. Can't go that long without the Big O? Catch up on some of my favorite posts from the year:
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
Call of Duty Makes "Cover" of EGM
You may remember a few posts back when I said that the back cover of a game magazine was the most valuable real estate that a game publisher could buy. Turns out I was wrong.
Check out the below image of the EGM cover that was just delivered to my door today (click this and any other image here for a larger version).
On first glance, it seems like most any other EGM cover. There's the big, distinctive EGM logo right there, after all. There's a little less text than usual, and only one game featured, but it could still pass for a cover. It's only after a few seconds of examination that the Activision logo and the "advertisement" label at the top show this "cover" is not the real cover at all.
Open up to the first "page" and find the following spread:
This is at least obviously an advertisement, but we've now seen three pages of ads before even getting to the real cover of the magazine. The final flip:
Another ad page, and there's the real cover. You can tell because it uses the same logo that was just on top of an advertisement a few pages back, only now there's actual editorial text promoting a postmortem feature on four of the biggest games of the season (none of which is Call of Duty, incidentally).
Video game magazines are of course about making money, and making money in the mag business is all about selling ads. There's nothing inherently wrong with selling as much as space as you can wherever you can sell it. When you place an ad in front of the cover, though, with your own logo pasted across the top, you can make that ad seem like more than it is.
When a reader looks at the cover of a magazine, they expect to see the most important games or features of that issue, as decided by the editorial team. Placing an ad where this editorial content usually appears is a bit of a bait-and-switch, even with the "advertisement" label at the top of the page. Most, if not all, readers will quickly figure out the true nature of the spread, but probably not before initially processing the entire page as a true cover image. The reader has to erase this impression before getting to the real cover, but by this point the magazine name and the game name have been indelibly linked.
This link is probably a good thing for Activision and probably not a good thing for EGM. First off, the prominent placement of the EGM logo on the ad could be seen by some readers as a de facto endorsement of the game. True, it's labeled as an advertisement, but other advertisements don't get a large "Electronic Gaming Monthly" label at the top. What makes Call of Duty different? Maybe the guys at EGM just like it more. After all, their magazine's name is right there on the ad, in big type.
Some readers may go even farther, making the jump to assuming an illicit relationship between the magazine and the ad buyer. A quid pro quo theory might easily spring to the reader's mind -- you buy a cover ad from us, and we'll give you prominent placement and a good review score (Call of Duty appears on the front page of the issue's review section and got an average score of 8.0). Even though the charge of preferential treatment likely has no basis, such an impression on the reader can be hard to erase.
I have yet to see this issue on the newsstand, but the ad appearing on that version of the cover would present another level of deception to the casual passerby, who might not be able to process the image as an ad. Again, such a misconception can only be good for Activision and bad for the magazine -- I'd wager people are much more likely to pick up a magazine with a cover advertising "top secrets" to four hot games than a generic Call of Duty image.
In my view, the placement of the EGM logo on top of a cover-covering ad is, at the very least, a misleading practice that presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you insist on putting an ad over your carefully crafted cover, make sure it's labeled clearly and make sure you keep your logo out of the mix.
As a postscript, the back cover of this issue of EGM features an ad for the Ford Mustang -- one of the few non-game ads I've recently seen anywhere in a game magazine. Did Call of Duty get bumped to the front seat by Ford?
Check out the below image of the EGM cover that was just delivered to my door today (click this and any other image here for a larger version).
On first glance, it seems like most any other EGM cover. There's the big, distinctive EGM logo right there, after all. There's a little less text than usual, and only one game featured, but it could still pass for a cover. It's only after a few seconds of examination that the Activision logo and the "advertisement" label at the top show this "cover" is not the real cover at all.
Open up to the first "page" and find the following spread:
This is at least obviously an advertisement, but we've now seen three pages of ads before even getting to the real cover of the magazine. The final flip:
Another ad page, and there's the real cover. You can tell because it uses the same logo that was just on top of an advertisement a few pages back, only now there's actual editorial text promoting a postmortem feature on four of the biggest games of the season (none of which is Call of Duty, incidentally).
Video game magazines are of course about making money, and making money in the mag business is all about selling ads. There's nothing inherently wrong with selling as much as space as you can wherever you can sell it. When you place an ad in front of the cover, though, with your own logo pasted across the top, you can make that ad seem like more than it is.
When a reader looks at the cover of a magazine, they expect to see the most important games or features of that issue, as decided by the editorial team. Placing an ad where this editorial content usually appears is a bit of a bait-and-switch, even with the "advertisement" label at the top of the page. Most, if not all, readers will quickly figure out the true nature of the spread, but probably not before initially processing the entire page as a true cover image. The reader has to erase this impression before getting to the real cover, but by this point the magazine name and the game name have been indelibly linked.
This link is probably a good thing for Activision and probably not a good thing for EGM. First off, the prominent placement of the EGM logo on the ad could be seen by some readers as a de facto endorsement of the game. True, it's labeled as an advertisement, but other advertisements don't get a large "Electronic Gaming Monthly" label at the top. What makes Call of Duty different? Maybe the guys at EGM just like it more. After all, their magazine's name is right there on the ad, in big type.
Some readers may go even farther, making the jump to assuming an illicit relationship between the magazine and the ad buyer. A quid pro quo theory might easily spring to the reader's mind -- you buy a cover ad from us, and we'll give you prominent placement and a good review score (Call of Duty appears on the front page of the issue's review section and got an average score of 8.0). Even though the charge of preferential treatment likely has no basis, such an impression on the reader can be hard to erase.
I have yet to see this issue on the newsstand, but the ad appearing on that version of the cover would present another level of deception to the casual passerby, who might not be able to process the image as an ad. Again, such a misconception can only be good for Activision and bad for the magazine -- I'd wager people are much more likely to pick up a magazine with a cover advertising "top secrets" to four hot games than a generic Call of Duty image.
In my view, the placement of the EGM logo on top of a cover-covering ad is, at the very least, a misleading practice that presents the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you insist on putting an ad over your carefully crafted cover, make sure it's labeled clearly and make sure you keep your logo out of the mix.
As a postscript, the back cover of this issue of EGM features an ad for the Ford Mustang -- one of the few non-game ads I've recently seen anywhere in a game magazine. Did Call of Duty get bumped to the front seat by Ford?
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
Grumpy Gamer on the Great Myth
For a few years now, source after source has claimed that the video game industry is "bigger than Hollywood," or, more specifically, "delivering more revenue than movies at the box office" Now comes a new San Francisco Chronicle article which casually claims the game industry "generates more revenue than Hollywood" as an accepted fact during an analysis of this year's blockbuster games.
But just because a lot of people say something doesn't necessarily make it true. And just because video game software and hardware sales are larger than movie box office receipts doesn't mean the comparison of the two industries is a fair one.
Yes, if you want to be very specific, you can say that U.S. video game and hardware sales (approx. $10 billion annually) are outpacing U.S. movie box office sales (approx. $9 billion, annually). But extrapolating from this statistic that the game industry is bigger than Hollywood in any significant sense is ludicrous.
The Grumpy Gamer gives a good argument for why in a recent article which breaks down the numbers in a way that should give diehard game advocates pause. Besides the obvious overlooked statistic of VHS and DVD sales and rentals, Grumpy Gamer compares budgets ("A big budget game cost from $15M to $20M to make, double that for marketing. A big budget movie cost $80M to $100M."), audience sizes ("I would also venture that everyone in the U.S. watches movies, either in the theater or on DVD or HBO. Can the same be said for games?") and this year's top grossers ("Shrek 2 -- $438,478,000" vs. "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas -- $170,000,000) in both industries to show how ridiculous the comparison is.
Some of his arguments are a little soft, but there are enough hard numbers and quantitative arguments here to cow any lazy writer who tries to put an exclamation point on his big game industry article by saying that it's "bigger than Hollywood." Bottom line: be careful when making sweeping statements based on faulty statistics.
But just because a lot of people say something doesn't necessarily make it true. And just because video game software and hardware sales are larger than movie box office receipts doesn't mean the comparison of the two industries is a fair one.
Yes, if you want to be very specific, you can say that U.S. video game and hardware sales (approx. $10 billion annually) are outpacing U.S. movie box office sales (approx. $9 billion, annually). But extrapolating from this statistic that the game industry is bigger than Hollywood in any significant sense is ludicrous.
The Grumpy Gamer gives a good argument for why in a recent article which breaks down the numbers in a way that should give diehard game advocates pause. Besides the obvious overlooked statistic of VHS and DVD sales and rentals, Grumpy Gamer compares budgets ("A big budget game cost from $15M to $20M to make, double that for marketing. A big budget movie cost $80M to $100M."), audience sizes ("I would also venture that everyone in the U.S. watches movies, either in the theater or on DVD or HBO. Can the same be said for games?") and this year's top grossers ("Shrek 2 -- $438,478,000" vs. "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas -- $170,000,000) in both industries to show how ridiculous the comparison is.
Some of his arguments are a little soft, but there are enough hard numbers and quantitative arguments here to cow any lazy writer who tries to put an exclamation point on his big game industry article by saying that it's "bigger than Hollywood." Bottom line: be careful when making sweeping statements based on faulty statistics.
Monday, December 20, 2004
If It Bleeds -- or Has to Do With Bleeding in Games -- It Leads
Blogger's Note: This piece was all but ready to go up on Thursday, before a busted 'net connection and weekend plans pushed it back a bit. It's not quite as timely now, but I hope you'll still enjoy it. Also, let me know what you think of the new style I'm trying in this piece.
Gamers eager to lessen the attention on the games industy's practice of selling violent content to children received a jarring one-two punch of media coverage last Thursday with a New York Times piece on the ineffective nature of game ratings and the breaking news of a proposed Illinois ban of violent game sales to minors.
First, the New York Times piece, which is very effective in showing how ratings aren't. Unlike many other articles on this problem, though, it doesn't start by placing blame on game makers or retailers, but by addressing parental responsibility.
"To some extent, the problem lies with the fact that few parents sit and play video games with their children. 'Parents do see the movies and they do watch television,' said David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, a nonprofit research and educational organization in Minneapolis. 'But for the most part, they don't play video games.'
That doesn't mean the Times article leaves the industry blameless. Much of the article is an informative back-and-forth on the two sides of the issue.
The content descriptors are often so brief as to be cryptic. A word like "lyrics," for example, does not convey much helpful information. Nor does the descriptor "language."
...
[The ESRB's] Ms. Vance disagreed. "We strive to hit the right balance between being succinct and descriptive," she said. "Consumers don't want to be overwhelmed with too much information."
The article includes some evidence of lax consumer information efforts at retail in the Palo Alto area, and there's an implication (perhaps unfair, for sure unsubstantiated in the article) that the problem is similar elsewhere in the country.
"At the Best Buy store where Ms. Pearson was shopping, the rating on the front of a number of games was covered by the price sticker. At another Best Buy in the Bay Area, in East Palo Alto, a display that explained the ratings was removed to make way for holiday merchandise, an employee said."
The funniest part of the article, though, has to be the following exchange about the rating and content descriptors on NBA Ballers:
"The game is rated E, with no content descriptors, yet Mr. Haninger said it shows young women in provocative clothing, as well as Shaquille O'Neal with an unlit cigar in his hand. The game allows players to dribble a ball off another character's face.
"Ms. Vance ... said her group stood behind its rating of NBA Ballers. 'The fact that a character may be holding a cigar, cigarette or pipe as a prop does not warrant on its own a more restrictive rating,' she said. 'Particularly if it is not lit.'"
Unlit cigars and face-dribbling are gray areas now?
In making his case for a ban of violent video game sales for minors in Illinois, governor Rod Blagojevich was quite direct in citing the same ineffective rating system featured in the Times:
"Unlike the motion picture industry, the video game industry has not developed an effective self-regulation system that keeps adult material out of the hands of minors. [emphasis added]"
In fact, the governor's press release on the issue, may be the most concise and informative argument for the anti-violence side of the issue that I've recently seen. Beyond the sound bites quoted in major media outlets, the governor's release includes a treasure-trove of information bolstering the state's case.
A 2001 study from Iowa State University found that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviors. A 2001 Stanford University study found that when the amount of time third and fourth graders spent watching television and playing video games is reduced to less than seven hours a week, their verbal aggression decreased by 50 percent and physical aggression decreased by 40 percent. Another study, completed in 2003 by four experts, including Douglas Gentile from the National Institute on Media and the Family, concluded that adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers more frequently, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school.
The Chicago Tribune takes the most interesting angle of any mainstream media outlet I saw, countering the ineffective ratings argument with an ineffective potential ban argument:
"Even if Illinois makes it a crime to sell graphic video games to minors, 16-year-old Rick Baki doesn't plan to stop playing favorites like the much-maligned 'Grand Theft Auto' series.
"Baki says he could always get an older sibling or, with some pleading, his mom to buy the games, which put players in the mind of a carjacker on a violent crime spree. If that didn't work, he'd find similar games online.
'I think it's stupid to prohibit them," Baki said as he left Whitney Young High School in Chicago on Thursday. "Who's Governor Rod to say I can't buy the games I want to?'"
The major wire services, including AP, Reuters and UPI, all picked up on the story, which means a whole ton of mainstream outlets picked up the story too without having to lift a finger. The AP and Reuters cover all the bases in their standard, nondescript way. UPI weighs in with a laughably short breaking-news-style piece that barely addresses one side of the issue, but does include a great description of Grand Theft Auto.
"Blagojevich singled out the popular 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' video game that encourages players to avenge the murder of the hero's mother and boost standing in his gang by gunning down cops, breaking into houses, stealing cars at gunpoint and having sex with prostitutes."
True, that.
The UPI article was also one of the few to note the influence of the recent JFK: Reloaded simulation on the proposed ban, despite the fact that the reasoning appeared in the governor's press release.
But, motivation initially came from the controversial British video game, "JFK Reloaded," which lets players take on the role of presidential assassin.
"I was outraged," Blagojevich said.
Elsewhere in the mediascape, the L.A. Times story somehow meanders into a comparison between video game and movie industries, even mentioning gaming's newest atrocious awards show.
The industry even has its own awards show. Held in Santa Monica on Tuesday, the second annual Video Game Awards showered kudos on "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." The title, the latest in a controversial series set amid a background of crime, won game of the year and best male performer for actor Samuel L. Jackson, who did the voice-over for one of its characters.
NPR's piece is interesting if only to hear the voices of Governor Blagojevich and some concerned parents, instead of just reading them in our minds-ear.
Specialist coverage is typified by this GameSpot piece which leads off a recap of the same facts in every other article with some snarky analysis.
It's as if the Governor of Illinois never heard of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
It seems clear to me that he hass heard of it, and he's not impressed.
All in all the coverage of the proposal was appropriate and give nthe correct context. The story will likely go quiet now until the next bit of progress on the ban -- a vote before the legislature, perhaps. So those wanting to keep the spotlight off video game often-violent nature can rest easy again... for the time being.
Gamers eager to lessen the attention on the games industy's practice of selling violent content to children received a jarring one-two punch of media coverage last Thursday with a New York Times piece on the ineffective nature of game ratings and the breaking news of a proposed Illinois ban of violent game sales to minors.
First, the New York Times piece, which is very effective in showing how ratings aren't. Unlike many other articles on this problem, though, it doesn't start by placing blame on game makers or retailers, but by addressing parental responsibility.
"To some extent, the problem lies with the fact that few parents sit and play video games with their children. 'Parents do see the movies and they do watch television,' said David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media and the Family, a nonprofit research and educational organization in Minneapolis. 'But for the most part, they don't play video games.'
That doesn't mean the Times article leaves the industry blameless. Much of the article is an informative back-and-forth on the two sides of the issue.
The content descriptors are often so brief as to be cryptic. A word like "lyrics," for example, does not convey much helpful information. Nor does the descriptor "language."
...
[The ESRB's] Ms. Vance disagreed. "We strive to hit the right balance between being succinct and descriptive," she said. "Consumers don't want to be overwhelmed with too much information."
The article includes some evidence of lax consumer information efforts at retail in the Palo Alto area, and there's an implication (perhaps unfair, for sure unsubstantiated in the article) that the problem is similar elsewhere in the country.
"At the Best Buy store where Ms. Pearson was shopping, the rating on the front of a number of games was covered by the price sticker. At another Best Buy in the Bay Area, in East Palo Alto, a display that explained the ratings was removed to make way for holiday merchandise, an employee said."
The funniest part of the article, though, has to be the following exchange about the rating and content descriptors on NBA Ballers:
"The game is rated E, with no content descriptors, yet Mr. Haninger said it shows young women in provocative clothing, as well as Shaquille O'Neal with an unlit cigar in his hand. The game allows players to dribble a ball off another character's face.
"Ms. Vance ... said her group stood behind its rating of NBA Ballers. 'The fact that a character may be holding a cigar, cigarette or pipe as a prop does not warrant on its own a more restrictive rating,' she said. 'Particularly if it is not lit.'"
Unlit cigars and face-dribbling are gray areas now?
In making his case for a ban of violent video game sales for minors in Illinois, governor Rod Blagojevich was quite direct in citing the same ineffective rating system featured in the Times:
"Unlike the motion picture industry, the video game industry has not developed an effective self-regulation system that keeps adult material out of the hands of minors. [emphasis added]"
In fact, the governor's press release on the issue, may be the most concise and informative argument for the anti-violence side of the issue that I've recently seen. Beyond the sound bites quoted in major media outlets, the governor's release includes a treasure-trove of information bolstering the state's case.
A 2001 study from Iowa State University found that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, feelings and behaviors. A 2001 Stanford University study found that when the amount of time third and fourth graders spent watching television and playing video games is reduced to less than seven hours a week, their verbal aggression decreased by 50 percent and physical aggression decreased by 40 percent. Another study, completed in 2003 by four experts, including Douglas Gentile from the National Institute on Media and the Family, concluded that adolescents who expose themselves to greater amounts of video game violence were more hostile, reported getting into arguments with teachers more frequently, were more likely to be involved in physical fights, and performed more poorly in school.
The Chicago Tribune takes the most interesting angle of any mainstream media outlet I saw, countering the ineffective ratings argument with an ineffective potential ban argument:
"Even if Illinois makes it a crime to sell graphic video games to minors, 16-year-old Rick Baki doesn't plan to stop playing favorites like the much-maligned 'Grand Theft Auto' series.
"Baki says he could always get an older sibling or, with some pleading, his mom to buy the games, which put players in the mind of a carjacker on a violent crime spree. If that didn't work, he'd find similar games online.
'I think it's stupid to prohibit them," Baki said as he left Whitney Young High School in Chicago on Thursday. "Who's Governor Rod to say I can't buy the games I want to?'"
The major wire services, including AP, Reuters and UPI, all picked up on the story, which means a whole ton of mainstream outlets picked up the story too without having to lift a finger. The AP and Reuters cover all the bases in their standard, nondescript way. UPI weighs in with a laughably short breaking-news-style piece that barely addresses one side of the issue, but does include a great description of Grand Theft Auto.
"Blagojevich singled out the popular 'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' video game that encourages players to avenge the murder of the hero's mother and boost standing in his gang by gunning down cops, breaking into houses, stealing cars at gunpoint and having sex with prostitutes."
True, that.
The UPI article was also one of the few to note the influence of the recent JFK: Reloaded simulation on the proposed ban, despite the fact that the reasoning appeared in the governor's press release.
But, motivation initially came from the controversial British video game, "JFK Reloaded," which lets players take on the role of presidential assassin.
"I was outraged," Blagojevich said.
Elsewhere in the mediascape, the L.A. Times story somehow meanders into a comparison between video game and movie industries, even mentioning gaming's newest atrocious awards show.
The industry even has its own awards show. Held in Santa Monica on Tuesday, the second annual Video Game Awards showered kudos on "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." The title, the latest in a controversial series set amid a background of crime, won game of the year and best male performer for actor Samuel L. Jackson, who did the voice-over for one of its characters.
NPR's piece is interesting if only to hear the voices of Governor Blagojevich and some concerned parents, instead of just reading them in our minds-ear.
Specialist coverage is typified by this GameSpot piece which leads off a recap of the same facts in every other article with some snarky analysis.
It's as if the Governor of Illinois never heard of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board.
It seems clear to me that he hass heard of it, and he's not impressed.
All in all the coverage of the proposal was appropriate and give nthe correct context. The story will likely go quiet now until the next bit of progress on the ban -- a vote before the legislature, perhaps. So those wanting to keep the spotlight off video game often-violent nature can rest easy again... for the time being.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
Spike TV Video Game Awards Live-Blogging Adventures
This is the official VGO Spike TV Video Game Awards Live-blogging Post. The way I see it, I'll post my comments and you will read them. A have no idea how often I'll be posting, but if you refresh this page during every commerical break you should be pretty safe. Feel free to go into a refreshing frenzy at other timesto see the latest and greatest additions, too.
Wanna make it interactive? Send me an e-mail or post a comment using the link below, and maybe I'll address your thoughts during the show.
This is my first time doing something like this, so, in the words of Paul McCartney, "let's hope this one turns out pretty good."
8:41 p.m. EST: A pre-show? No way! - Just turned on the TV to get ready and found that there's a pre-show. Dude! How long has this been going? Anyone wanna fill me in on what I missed?
8:46 p.m. EST: Tony Tony Tony - No, Tony, GTA isn't a sports game. A-hyuck! Seriously, though, Tony came off pretty strongly. He seemed a little bewildered at the hostesses enthusiasm though (as was I). Is she going to be this perky all night?
8:49 p.m. EST: More Live-blogging - Dan Dormer and the crew at the Gaming Age Forums are doing their own riffing off the show. And some of them have a Tivo. Lucky bums. I'll be reading them during the lulls. Perhaps you should too.
8:50 p.m. EST: They're "dangerously close" - DANGEROUS!
8:52 p.m. EST: "Playing it for the articles" - This comment obviously about Playboy: The Mansion. Cute.
8:54 p.m. EST: "Is this your first Video Game Awards" - This question means very little now, as you might imagine. It may start to be signifigant in the future, though.
8:55 p.m. EST: Game are bigger than films - So says Tara Reid. That's why films have an awards show on basic cable and video games have a major event on the networks. Oh, wait...
8:57 p.m. EST: Priceless - This exchange summary courtesy of Mr. Dormer over on the GA Forums:
BB: 10 MORE MINUTES! SNOOP IS DOING CRACK!
TR: I GAME! I KNOW SYSTEM NAMES!
BB: WANT TO DO A GAME?
TR: I WAS IN ALONE IN THE DARK!
BB: IF YOU COULD BE IN A VIDEOGAME?
TR: PAC-MAN!
BB: FORMAl, HIP CROWD! WE'RE COOL!
TR: VIDEOGAMES ARE JUST GETTING BIGGER IN QUALITY!
Priceless.
8:58 p.m. EST: Who needs Billy Crystal musical numbers... - ...when you have Snoop Dogg blowing up a digital version of himself?
8:59 p.m. EST: Gratuitous product placement alert #1 - Virgin Mobile Camera Phones. Virgin, whatever you paid, it was too much. Did I miss any before I started watching? Lemme know.
9:02 p.m. EST: Waiting patiently? - I know no one who is patient about the wait for Gran Turismo 4, as Spike claims they are.
9:03 p.m. EST: Tiger and Snoop - Together at last.
9:04 p.m. EST: Ludacris - The closed captioner is having atough time keeping up with some of these lyrics. Now I know how 'Yeek Yeek' is spelled, though.
9:07 p.m. EST: Any 40+-year-olds in the audience - Have probably been totally freaked out by this opening song. But were there any to begin with? Hmmmm.
9:09 p.m. EST: Another rapper? - Did I accidentally tune in to the Hip Hop Music Awards?
9:10 p.m. EST: I think these background dancers... - ... got turned down for West Side Story. Also, there seem to be more bleeped out lyrics in this song than allowable ones.
9:11 p.m. EST: Video games are all about... - Pantomimed beatings. Also, rapper No. 4 and minute No. 11 with no sign of anything vaguely video game related. *sigh*
9:12 p.m. EST: Snoop can fly - Holy god, Snoop can fly!
9:13 p.m. EST: "Spike TV got it right on the money this time" - Funkmaster Flex, in regards to the host Snoop Dogg. I have to say ouch for David Spade. Also: World premieres of two never before seen games? Is this the surprise that makes this show worth watching?
9:16 p.m. EST: "It's the Vector Monkey, it's awesome, isn't it. Makes all those other awards look like junk." - No it doesn't, Victoria's Secret angels. No it doesn't.
9:18 p.m. EST: Where else... - ...can Carmen Elextra and Judi Dench be nominated for the same award? Also: What chance did Judi Dench have of winning? I say -1000 percent.
9:21 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #1 - So far it's already loads better than last year's show, if simply because they haven't given out game of the year yet. Seriously, who gives out game of the year as the first prize? Do you want your viewers to leave. Snoop's banter -- whether with Tiger Woods, the "angels," or "himself" -- is totally corny, but that's par for the awards show course. At least they're trying to keep it slightly respectable this time. The only thing that's totally horrified me is the awards show trophy, and that's an achievement.
9:23 p.m. EST: Hot girls read cheat codes - Zuh? Bubba-zuh-wubbah, huh? Gluh?!
9:24 p.m. EST: Gratuitous Product Placement #2: "Most Adictive Game Fueled by Mountain Dew." I predict I'll be up to at least a dozen by night's end.
9:25 p.m. EST: I just noticed... - ...that none of these game clips use the actual sound from the games. It's not like they have bad soundtracks, either. Come on, let the games breathe a little under the glitz.
9:26 p.m. EST: Gratuitous Product Placement #3 - The PSP. Bobby Crosby has "the only one in America" because "Spike TV has the hook up" but Freddy Adu steals it. Cute, but still gratuitous.
9:28 p.m. EST: On the Halo 2 acceptance - All right nerds, back in your cage! At least they're keeping the speeches short.
9:31 p.m. EST: Fact error #1 - Tony Hawk on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City mentions "the two games that precede it." How about the other two... namely GTA1 and 2. Just because they're not in 3D and not on a current system doesn't mean they don't exist. This industry needs to get in touch with its history by doing more than occasionally mentioning Q-Bert.
9:34 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #2 - We're finally getting to some video game stuff, at least. The acceptance speech for Halo 2 was probably embarrasing to watch for anyone who isn't an amazing-looking celebrity. The PSP bit was well done, but I hope either (a) Sony played a lot of money for the mention of (b) the Nintendo DS gets equal time. My money's on (a).
9:37 p.m. EST: A bit sad... - ...that a great virtual performance like the Godfather clip just shown has to be cribbed directly from the movie. Also sad: the fact that Funkmaster Flex describes the game as "mad crazy" based on a somber movie clip.
9:39 p.m. EST: Gratuitous Product Placement #4 - Pontiac GTO sponsoring the best driving game. The guys accepting the award put a good face on game development, though.
9:43 p.m. EST: Questionable Pronunciations - So far I heard You-BiSoft and Katamari Dama-See. I don't think either is right.
9:44 p.m. EST: Shannon H Asks, "WHEN'S SNOOP & THE DOORS GONNA DO THEIR GIG?" - I answer: "Hopefully during the Grammy's.
9:46 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #3 - Between the music acts and the endless commercials, I'd be surprised if there was 30 minutes of directly game-related material in the two hours of broadcast. Also, nothing against rappers, but it's nice to see some variety in the musical lineup in Sum 41. Gamers have all sorts of musical tastes. Why not bring out some ducks singing the Katamari Damacy theme song next?
9:49 p.m. EST: Danny Masterson was playing video games while his co-stars were dating - Is that supposed to make him some sort of gamer god or something? Also: Pricless line of the moment: "The first person action game guarnatees an ass kicking good time."
9:50 p.m. EST: These bits about the Game of the Year Nominees... - ... Are actually well-produced and respectful. Now if they could only finda fan to say something deeper than "the story is really good" or "the graphics are really good."
9:52 p.m. EST: Green Day's Grammy Nominations Mean Nothing! - This is the award that counts! And.... they have gaming gloves. "Keep giving us a virtual playground to play in." A touch of class.
9:54 p.m. EST: Snoop Dogg's big musical number - Now we know why he took the gig.
9:56 p.m. EST: From the GA Forums - StrikerObi points out: "Way to only fucking mention the publishers. Fucking cocks. VU games deserves no credit for Half-Life 2 and MS deserves no credit for Halo 2." A good point. Where's the credit for the developers?
9:57 p.m. EST: If anyone else asks the crowd to scream/make some noise/if they're having a good time... - ... I will scream.
9:58 p.m. EST: Seven Awards in 50 seconds - And that's including the lame intro. and Bloodrayne's 9 second acceptance "speech" for cyber-vixen of the year. Way to stand there, BloodRayne. The categories and winners aren't even vaguely related. And these are major awards, not the largely immaterial technical awards at the Oscars. Oh well, I guess now they can squeeze in another musical number.
10:03 p.m. Kane for blood banks - Actually pretty funny.
10:05 p.m. Clips of Burnout 3 - Actually pretty good, despite the description of the graphics as "slammin'."
10:06 p.m. Celebrity impersonators in game auditions - OK, this is no longer "pretty funny," or even "remotely funny."
10:08 p.m. The crowd likes Sammy L. Jackson - As shown by their cheers. And Sammy likes his game work -- he even wants to do motion capture on the next GTA. On another note, he doesn't seem totally ashamed to be there. He really is a good actor.
10:15 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #X - I lost count back there. This whole thing is starting to make my eyes glaze over. Trying to pick out the bits that are (a) about video games (b) not lame jokes and (c) not also desperately shilling for some non-gaming product, song, movie or celebrity is like finding a needle in a haystack. Those bits have been generally quality when they appear, though. The ratio just needs to get better.
10:17 p.m. EST: Snoop in a lame rap battle with his virtual "self" - The night has reached a new low.
10:19 p.m. EST: Disreagrd my earlier comment about the developers They seem to at least be mentioning them. Also: If Vin Deisel owns a game studio, then gaming must be cool.
10:24 p.m. EST: One for two I was right about Gamespot but wrong about Game Informer. I guess EGM is no longer the behemoth it once was. Also, more awards condensed into quick 10-second clips. Come on, Spike, throw us a bone!
10:27 p.m. EST: Calling it now - Halo 2 is my odds on pick for Game of the Year.
10:28 p.m. EST: It's official Samuel L. Jacksonis cooler than nerdy, sterotyped gamers. Also: Is it kosher to present and win an award at the same show?
10:31 p.m. EST: Madden 2004: Game of the Year. 2005: Sports Game of the Year. Was 2004 a slow year, or was 2005 a slow game? Also: Madden, "we're gonna go and go and go and be better and better every year." Insightful. NOT!
10:32 p.m. EST: How many rappers is too many - Busta Rhymes answers by appearing. Also, another Snoop Dogg song? Even Billy Crystal stopped at one.
10:35 p.m. EST: From the comments - I just realized you guys are leaving comments. Usually they're forwarded to my e-mail but that doesn't seem to be working. Anyway, Wilder says " Fable is best RPG? Fable's not even an RPG! It's a hack & slasher." A good point. What makes a game an "RPG" or a "sports game" for a show like this. Are there any guidelines? Should there be?
10:38 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #Y - Funkmaster Flex just announced two awards and two musical acts coming up. I'm going to be timing to see which take up more time. I'm not betting on the award presentations.
10:39 p.m. EST: A selection of graphics adjectives used on the show - "slammin'," "great," "amazing," "hot visually," "so sick." Did I miss any?
10:41 p.m. EST: DAMNIT HOT GIRLS - STOP READING CHEAT CODES!
10:42 p.m. EST: Snoop Dogg/Game Informer Shirt - I want it! How much! I'll pay any price!
10:44 p.m. EST: "No it's not a porno" - It's this show sinking even lower in self-respect. Also, Malcolm in the Middle asking for a five-way is disturbing.
10:50 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #Z - It's finally winding down. Now it's all over but the Game of the Year award and the Motley Crue Reunion. Just how a video game awards show should end. Except for the Motley Crue part.
10:54 p.m. EST: "Who better to introduce [Game of the Year] ... than Method Man, Red Man, and Ludacris - How about "someone remotely connected to the games industry"?
10:55 p.m. EST: Wrong Again GTA:SA wins the battle of the sequels over Halo 2. Samuel L. Jackson accepts for Rockstar? Did everyone who actually works for Rockstar leave? Were they there to begin with. And now... Motley Crue!
10:58 p.m. EST: What's cooler than Motley Crue? - Motley Crue on a motorcycle. with hot girls spreading their legs. And Snoop Dogg. Duh!
11:28 p.m. EST: Final thought - When I was younger, I distinctly remember watching the Oscars every year with my mother. I waited through the opening music number (which I didn't really understand) suffered through the bad jokes (which I even laughed at a bit) and marveled at the spectacle of an industry congratulating itself for another year of artistic achievement. Tonight, I marveled at a spectacle, but it wasn't of an industry that seemed anywhere near artistic acheivement.
And I know that's not true. This farce of a show isn't the games' fault -- I'm not going to sit here and say a bunch of indie games you've never heard of should have been nominated or something. The nominees and awards themselves are of course open to opinion, but they were handled decently enough for an industry show of this type.
But between the endless musical guests, scantily clad women, name-dropping celebrities (that often had nothing to do with games), and -- as a final insult -- multiple award presentations squeezed into ten-second segments, this show made me long for the splendor and decorum of the Cable Ace Awards.
Still, it was a marked improvement from last year. One could argue it had nowhere to go but up from the "extreme" explosion of epilpsy-inducing extraveagance that caused me to question my place in the industry through song parody. There were signs of life this year: Particularly the thoughtful (if less-than-inspired) comments on what made the game of the year nominees special by actual gamers. I also noticed some (very limited) speech time and acknowledgement given to developers and publishers. These rays of sunshine were enough to give me hope that a similar awards show, in more capable hands, could actually do the medium justice.
If we in the video game community -- the press, the developers, the publishers, and the gamers -- sit idly by and allow this type of show to speak for our industry, then we deserve whatever stereotypical bad-mouthing we get from the mainstream press and society at large.
When I was younger, I remember longing for an awards show that focused on video games with the grandeur and splendor of the Oscars. I'm still longing.
Note on the live-blogging: This was tons of fun and a great way to cover a live, unfolding event, in my opinion. Thanks to everyone who read, e-mailed or commented. Keep you comments an e-mails coming.
Wanna make it interactive? Send me an e-mail or post a comment using the link below, and maybe I'll address your thoughts during the show.
This is my first time doing something like this, so, in the words of Paul McCartney, "let's hope this one turns out pretty good."
8:41 p.m. EST: A pre-show? No way! - Just turned on the TV to get ready and found that there's a pre-show. Dude! How long has this been going? Anyone wanna fill me in on what I missed?
8:46 p.m. EST: Tony Tony Tony - No, Tony, GTA isn't a sports game. A-hyuck! Seriously, though, Tony came off pretty strongly. He seemed a little bewildered at the hostesses enthusiasm though (as was I). Is she going to be this perky all night?
8:49 p.m. EST: More Live-blogging - Dan Dormer and the crew at the Gaming Age Forums are doing their own riffing off the show. And some of them have a Tivo. Lucky bums. I'll be reading them during the lulls. Perhaps you should too.
8:50 p.m. EST: They're "dangerously close" - DANGEROUS!
8:52 p.m. EST: "Playing it for the articles" - This comment obviously about Playboy: The Mansion. Cute.
8:54 p.m. EST: "Is this your first Video Game Awards" - This question means very little now, as you might imagine. It may start to be signifigant in the future, though.
8:55 p.m. EST: Game are bigger than films - So says Tara Reid. That's why films have an awards show on basic cable and video games have a major event on the networks. Oh, wait...
8:57 p.m. EST: Priceless - This exchange summary courtesy of Mr. Dormer over on the GA Forums:
BB: 10 MORE MINUTES! SNOOP IS DOING CRACK!
TR: I GAME! I KNOW SYSTEM NAMES!
BB: WANT TO DO A GAME?
TR: I WAS IN ALONE IN THE DARK!
BB: IF YOU COULD BE IN A VIDEOGAME?
TR: PAC-MAN!
BB: FORMAl, HIP CROWD! WE'RE COOL!
TR: VIDEOGAMES ARE JUST GETTING BIGGER IN QUALITY!
Priceless.
8:58 p.m. EST: Who needs Billy Crystal musical numbers... - ...when you have Snoop Dogg blowing up a digital version of himself?
8:59 p.m. EST: Gratuitous product placement alert #1 - Virgin Mobile Camera Phones. Virgin, whatever you paid, it was too much. Did I miss any before I started watching? Lemme know.
9:02 p.m. EST: Waiting patiently? - I know no one who is patient about the wait for Gran Turismo 4, as Spike claims they are.
9:03 p.m. EST: Tiger and Snoop - Together at last.
9:04 p.m. EST: Ludacris - The closed captioner is having atough time keeping up with some of these lyrics. Now I know how 'Yeek Yeek' is spelled, though.
9:07 p.m. EST: Any 40+-year-olds in the audience - Have probably been totally freaked out by this opening song. But were there any to begin with? Hmmmm.
9:09 p.m. EST: Another rapper? - Did I accidentally tune in to the Hip Hop Music Awards?
9:10 p.m. EST: I think these background dancers... - ... got turned down for West Side Story. Also, there seem to be more bleeped out lyrics in this song than allowable ones.
9:11 p.m. EST: Video games are all about... - Pantomimed beatings. Also, rapper No. 4 and minute No. 11 with no sign of anything vaguely video game related. *sigh*
9:12 p.m. EST: Snoop can fly - Holy god, Snoop can fly!
9:13 p.m. EST: "Spike TV got it right on the money this time" - Funkmaster Flex, in regards to the host Snoop Dogg. I have to say ouch for David Spade. Also: World premieres of two never before seen games? Is this the surprise that makes this show worth watching?
9:16 p.m. EST: "It's the Vector Monkey, it's awesome, isn't it. Makes all those other awards look like junk." - No it doesn't, Victoria's Secret angels. No it doesn't.
9:18 p.m. EST: Where else... - ...can Carmen Elextra and Judi Dench be nominated for the same award? Also: What chance did Judi Dench have of winning? I say -1000 percent.
9:21 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #1 - So far it's already loads better than last year's show, if simply because they haven't given out game of the year yet. Seriously, who gives out game of the year as the first prize? Do you want your viewers to leave. Snoop's banter -- whether with Tiger Woods, the "angels," or "himself" -- is totally corny, but that's par for the awards show course. At least they're trying to keep it slightly respectable this time. The only thing that's totally horrified me is the awards show trophy, and that's an achievement.
9:23 p.m. EST: Hot girls read cheat codes - Zuh? Bubba-zuh-wubbah, huh? Gluh?!
9:24 p.m. EST: Gratuitous Product Placement #2: "Most Adictive Game Fueled by Mountain Dew." I predict I'll be up to at least a dozen by night's end.
9:25 p.m. EST: I just noticed... - ...that none of these game clips use the actual sound from the games. It's not like they have bad soundtracks, either. Come on, let the games breathe a little under the glitz.
9:26 p.m. EST: Gratuitous Product Placement #3 - The PSP. Bobby Crosby has "the only one in America" because "Spike TV has the hook up" but Freddy Adu steals it. Cute, but still gratuitous.
9:28 p.m. EST: On the Halo 2 acceptance - All right nerds, back in your cage! At least they're keeping the speeches short.
9:31 p.m. EST: Fact error #1 - Tony Hawk on Grand Theft Auto: Vice City mentions "the two games that precede it." How about the other two... namely GTA1 and 2. Just because they're not in 3D and not on a current system doesn't mean they don't exist. This industry needs to get in touch with its history by doing more than occasionally mentioning Q-Bert.
9:34 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #2 - We're finally getting to some video game stuff, at least. The acceptance speech for Halo 2 was probably embarrasing to watch for anyone who isn't an amazing-looking celebrity. The PSP bit was well done, but I hope either (a) Sony played a lot of money for the mention of (b) the Nintendo DS gets equal time. My money's on (a).
9:37 p.m. EST: A bit sad... - ...that a great virtual performance like the Godfather clip just shown has to be cribbed directly from the movie. Also sad: the fact that Funkmaster Flex describes the game as "mad crazy" based on a somber movie clip.
9:39 p.m. EST: Gratuitous Product Placement #4 - Pontiac GTO sponsoring the best driving game. The guys accepting the award put a good face on game development, though.
9:43 p.m. EST: Questionable Pronunciations - So far I heard You-BiSoft and Katamari Dama-See. I don't think either is right.
9:44 p.m. EST: Shannon H Asks, "WHEN'S SNOOP & THE DOORS GONNA DO THEIR GIG?" - I answer: "Hopefully during the Grammy's.
9:46 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #3 - Between the music acts and the endless commercials, I'd be surprised if there was 30 minutes of directly game-related material in the two hours of broadcast. Also, nothing against rappers, but it's nice to see some variety in the musical lineup in Sum 41. Gamers have all sorts of musical tastes. Why not bring out some ducks singing the Katamari Damacy theme song next?
9:49 p.m. EST: Danny Masterson was playing video games while his co-stars were dating - Is that supposed to make him some sort of gamer god or something? Also: Pricless line of the moment: "The first person action game guarnatees an ass kicking good time."
9:50 p.m. EST: These bits about the Game of the Year Nominees... - ... Are actually well-produced and respectful. Now if they could only finda fan to say something deeper than "the story is really good" or "the graphics are really good."
9:52 p.m. EST: Green Day's Grammy Nominations Mean Nothing! - This is the award that counts! And.... they have gaming gloves. "Keep giving us a virtual playground to play in." A touch of class.
9:54 p.m. EST: Snoop Dogg's big musical number - Now we know why he took the gig.
9:56 p.m. EST: From the GA Forums - StrikerObi points out: "Way to only fucking mention the publishers. Fucking cocks. VU games deserves no credit for Half-Life 2 and MS deserves no credit for Halo 2." A good point. Where's the credit for the developers?
9:57 p.m. EST: If anyone else asks the crowd to scream/make some noise/if they're having a good time... - ... I will scream.
9:58 p.m. EST: Seven Awards in 50 seconds - And that's including the lame intro. and Bloodrayne's 9 second acceptance "speech" for cyber-vixen of the year. Way to stand there, BloodRayne. The categories and winners aren't even vaguely related. And these are major awards, not the largely immaterial technical awards at the Oscars. Oh well, I guess now they can squeeze in another musical number.
10:03 p.m. Kane for blood banks - Actually pretty funny.
10:05 p.m. Clips of Burnout 3 - Actually pretty good, despite the description of the graphics as "slammin'."
10:06 p.m. Celebrity impersonators in game auditions - OK, this is no longer "pretty funny," or even "remotely funny."
10:08 p.m. The crowd likes Sammy L. Jackson - As shown by their cheers. And Sammy likes his game work -- he even wants to do motion capture on the next GTA. On another note, he doesn't seem totally ashamed to be there. He really is a good actor.
10:15 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #X - I lost count back there. This whole thing is starting to make my eyes glaze over. Trying to pick out the bits that are (a) about video games (b) not lame jokes and (c) not also desperately shilling for some non-gaming product, song, movie or celebrity is like finding a needle in a haystack. Those bits have been generally quality when they appear, though. The ratio just needs to get better.
10:17 p.m. EST: Snoop in a lame rap battle with his virtual "self" - The night has reached a new low.
10:19 p.m. EST: Disreagrd my earlier comment about the developers They seem to at least be mentioning them. Also: If Vin Deisel owns a game studio, then gaming must be cool.
10:24 p.m. EST: One for two I was right about Gamespot but wrong about Game Informer. I guess EGM is no longer the behemoth it once was. Also, more awards condensed into quick 10-second clips. Come on, Spike, throw us a bone!
10:27 p.m. EST: Calling it now - Halo 2 is my odds on pick for Game of the Year.
10:28 p.m. EST: It's official Samuel L. Jacksonis cooler than nerdy, sterotyped gamers. Also: Is it kosher to present and win an award at the same show?
10:31 p.m. EST: Madden 2004: Game of the Year. 2005: Sports Game of the Year. Was 2004 a slow year, or was 2005 a slow game? Also: Madden, "we're gonna go and go and go and be better and better every year." Insightful. NOT!
10:32 p.m. EST: How many rappers is too many - Busta Rhymes answers by appearing. Also, another Snoop Dogg song? Even Billy Crystal stopped at one.
10:35 p.m. EST: From the comments - I just realized you guys are leaving comments. Usually they're forwarded to my e-mail but that doesn't seem to be working. Anyway, Wilder says " Fable is best RPG? Fable's not even an RPG! It's a hack & slasher." A good point. What makes a game an "RPG" or a "sports game" for a show like this. Are there any guidelines? Should there be?
10:38 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #Y - Funkmaster Flex just announced two awards and two musical acts coming up. I'm going to be timing to see which take up more time. I'm not betting on the award presentations.
10:39 p.m. EST: A selection of graphics adjectives used on the show - "slammin'," "great," "amazing," "hot visually," "so sick." Did I miss any?
10:41 p.m. EST: DAMNIT HOT GIRLS - STOP READING CHEAT CODES!
10:42 p.m. EST: Snoop Dogg/Game Informer Shirt - I want it! How much! I'll pay any price!
10:44 p.m. EST: "No it's not a porno" - It's this show sinking even lower in self-respect. Also, Malcolm in the Middle asking for a five-way is disturbing.
10:50 p.m. EST: Commercial Break #Z - It's finally winding down. Now it's all over but the Game of the Year award and the Motley Crue Reunion. Just how a video game awards show should end. Except for the Motley Crue part.
10:54 p.m. EST: "Who better to introduce [Game of the Year] ... than Method Man, Red Man, and Ludacris - How about "someone remotely connected to the games industry"?
10:55 p.m. EST: Wrong Again GTA:SA wins the battle of the sequels over Halo 2. Samuel L. Jackson accepts for Rockstar? Did everyone who actually works for Rockstar leave? Were they there to begin with. And now... Motley Crue!
10:58 p.m. EST: What's cooler than Motley Crue? - Motley Crue on a motorcycle. with hot girls spreading their legs. And Snoop Dogg. Duh!
11:28 p.m. EST: Final thought - When I was younger, I distinctly remember watching the Oscars every year with my mother. I waited through the opening music number (which I didn't really understand) suffered through the bad jokes (which I even laughed at a bit) and marveled at the spectacle of an industry congratulating itself for another year of artistic achievement. Tonight, I marveled at a spectacle, but it wasn't of an industry that seemed anywhere near artistic acheivement.
And I know that's not true. This farce of a show isn't the games' fault -- I'm not going to sit here and say a bunch of indie games you've never heard of should have been nominated or something. The nominees and awards themselves are of course open to opinion, but they were handled decently enough for an industry show of this type.
But between the endless musical guests, scantily clad women, name-dropping celebrities (that often had nothing to do with games), and -- as a final insult -- multiple award presentations squeezed into ten-second segments, this show made me long for the splendor and decorum of the Cable Ace Awards.
Still, it was a marked improvement from last year. One could argue it had nowhere to go but up from the "extreme" explosion of epilpsy-inducing extraveagance that caused me to question my place in the industry through song parody. There were signs of life this year: Particularly the thoughtful (if less-than-inspired) comments on what made the game of the year nominees special by actual gamers. I also noticed some (very limited) speech time and acknowledgement given to developers and publishers. These rays of sunshine were enough to give me hope that a similar awards show, in more capable hands, could actually do the medium justice.
If we in the video game community -- the press, the developers, the publishers, and the gamers -- sit idly by and allow this type of show to speak for our industry, then we deserve whatever stereotypical bad-mouthing we get from the mainstream press and society at large.
When I was younger, I remember longing for an awards show that focused on video games with the grandeur and splendor of the Oscars. I'm still longing.
Note on the live-blogging: This was tons of fun and a great way to cover a live, unfolding event, in my opinion. Thanks to everyone who read, e-mailed or commented. Keep you comments an e-mails coming.
Breaking News: GMR and XBN to Cease Publishing
By way of Kotaku, just got word that Ziff-Davis mags GMR and XBN will cease publication as of the February issue. Some people over at the GMR forums aren't too happy about it, to say the least. I was just starting to get into GMR, having started a subscription in August. A high quality mag, for sure, with good layout and quality reviews. XBN I never really got a chance to read carefully.
Perhaps Ziff Davis thought they were spreading themselves too thin with all the different brands. Regardless, breaking the news right before Christmas is going to make the holiday party a little awkward. Here's hopnig everyone involved lands on their feet.
Perhaps Ziff Davis thought they were spreading themselves too thin with all the different brands. Regardless, breaking the news right before Christmas is going to make the holiday party a little awkward. Here's hopnig everyone involved lands on their feet.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Live For The Games
A Reuters article from today correctly points out an interesting fact -- tomorrow night's Spike TV Video Game Awards will be the first such awards to be broadcast live on TV. Other major entertainment mass media formats (music, movies, TV) have featured live televised awards shows for years, so this can be seen as a big step for the industry. Then again, those awards shows are big-time events on major broadcast networks with the backing of major trade or press organizations and A-list hosts. Tomorrow night's game awards are relegated to the backwater of cable's "the first network for men," with an "advisory board" of random press personalities and PR people as judges and B-list rapper Snoop Dogg as host.
The show will be on a 20-second delay, so don't expect to hear anyone to drop an F-bomb when Katamari Damacy wins an award (I can dream, can't I?) Expect live, blow-by-blow coverage of the show as it happens tomorrow night, right here on this blog, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern (8 central). Better get your "refresh" button warmed up now. Fo' shizzle.
The show will be on a 20-second delay, so don't expect to hear anyone to drop an F-bomb when Katamari Damacy wins an award (I can dream, can't I?) Expect live, blow-by-blow coverage of the show as it happens tomorrow night, right here on this blog, starting at 9 p.m. Eastern (8 central). Better get your "refresh" button warmed up now. Fo' shizzle.
Who's Got Your Back?
Ask a publisher the most desirable place for their game to be placed in a magazine and they'll probably say the front cover. Ask them the most desirable place they can buy placement and they'll likely say the back cover. Who's buying this space and what they're doing with it can tell you a lot about who's trying to peddle influence with both gamers and the game press.
I did an informal survey of 16 recent game magazines I had lying around my apartment and flipped them on their backs. The publication split, which isn't representative of anything but my apartment, was:
For the non-Capcom ads, THQ's all come from GMR (the September, November and January '05 issues). The Jamdat ad in November's EGM -- the only cell phone ad -- breaks a string of Capcom ads in EGM. The other two publishers split the other two magazines, but one data point for each doesn't allow any conlusions to be drawn.
So why is this at all interesting? Well, the large Capcom buys for two largely niche games (Viewtiful Joe 2 and Monster Hunter) across a few magazines and publishers shows a concerted effort to target these games to a large segment of the hardcore gamer demographic. I seem to remember a similarly large buy for the original Viewtiful Joe when it came out, but my old magazines are in storage so I can't confirm at the moment. How effective that first campaign was is debatable, given the game's middling GameCube sales.
THQ's three distinct games in three distinct ads might show a desire to highlight the variety of their line-up, as compared to Capcom's more focused effort (more data points might dispute this though). The non-consecutive nature of the Capcom and THQ buys shows that the back cover space doesn't tend to be a long-term purchase (can anyone involved in magazine ad sales clarify the process?).
To be fair, this is all some top-of-my-head, pretty much uniformed analysis. Consider this a pilot investigation into a potentially interesting subject that just popped into my head a few hours ago. Expect a more concerted look at game mag advertising sometime in the future. What have you noticed about video game advertising patterns, both recently and historically? Hit the comments link below to share.
I did an informal survey of 16 recent game magazines I had lying around my apartment and flipped them on their backs. The publication split, which isn't representative of anything but my apartment, was:
- Game Informer - 5
- GMR - 5
- Electronic Gaming Monthly - 4
- GamePro - 1
- Play - 1
- 1up Holiday Buying Guide - 1
- Capcom - 10
- Viewtiful Joe - 6
- Monster Hunter - 3
- Street Fighter Anniversary Collection
- THQ - 3
- Full Spectrum Warrior
- Punisher
- Dawn of War
- Eidos - Get on Da Mic
- Vivendi Universal - Men of Valor
- Jamdat Mobile - NFL 2005
For the non-Capcom ads, THQ's all come from GMR (the September, November and January '05 issues). The Jamdat ad in November's EGM -- the only cell phone ad -- breaks a string of Capcom ads in EGM. The other two publishers split the other two magazines, but one data point for each doesn't allow any conlusions to be drawn.
So why is this at all interesting? Well, the large Capcom buys for two largely niche games (Viewtiful Joe 2 and Monster Hunter) across a few magazines and publishers shows a concerted effort to target these games to a large segment of the hardcore gamer demographic. I seem to remember a similarly large buy for the original Viewtiful Joe when it came out, but my old magazines are in storage so I can't confirm at the moment. How effective that first campaign was is debatable, given the game's middling GameCube sales.
THQ's three distinct games in three distinct ads might show a desire to highlight the variety of their line-up, as compared to Capcom's more focused effort (more data points might dispute this though). The non-consecutive nature of the Capcom and THQ buys shows that the back cover space doesn't tend to be a long-term purchase (can anyone involved in magazine ad sales clarify the process?).
To be fair, this is all some top-of-my-head, pretty much uniformed analysis. Consider this a pilot investigation into a potentially interesting subject that just popped into my head a few hours ago. Expect a more concerted look at game mag advertising sometime in the future. What have you noticed about video game advertising patterns, both recently and historically? Hit the comments link below to share.
Thursday, December 9, 2004
Swimming Against the Mainstream
Every year around this time, the mainstream media gets in the holiday spirit by doing some features the year's hottest gifts. This year, the collective wisdom is that video games are the gift to beat, which has led to some interesting high-profile pieces in prominent national media outlets. Here's a few I've noticed, and some thoughts on each:
- Last Sunday, The Washington Post featured thoughts on games from a high school English teacher, of all people. The editorial mainly bemoans the quick-action and visceral thrills of video games as addictive distractions from more important matters (particularly his assigned novel, "All the Pretty Horses"). Even though I disagree with most of the editorial's conclusions, I admire the way it at least acknowledges the other side of the issue. The author points out an avid gamer in his class that finished the book a week early and even mentions his own youthful distractions from required reading, two examples that go against his case yet paradoxically make his main argument stronger. Too many editorials about games (especially in the mainstream press) shrilly advocate for one side while completely ignoring any contradictory fact. By at least mentioning and addressing some of the arguments for playing games, this editorial comes off as more thoughtful and well-reasoned.
- The New York Times focused on the retail side of the equation this Sunday in an interview with Jeffrey Griffiths, president and chief executive of Electronics Boutique Holdings. Despite some decent questions, the interview is kind of short (even the "extended" online version only has 10 questions) and Griffiths doesn't have much that revolutionary, or even interesting, to say. Then there's the whopper of a statement at the end of the article that the PSP "will play DVDs," a subtle but important mischaracterization of the system's ability to play movies on proprietary mini-discs. The fact that the president of EB mis-spoke is perhaps forgivable, the fact that The New York Times didn't correct it perhaps less so.
- While a whole lot of outlets tried in vain to pin down the "new" phenomenon of "older gamers" the NBC Nightly News went the other direction altogether and focused on the ever-younger market for specially designed educational games. The piece is clearly aimed at parents and grandparents with little to no knowledge of the current games market -- not that surprising given the demographics of the NBC News audience. Perhaps for that reason, though, the piece takes what I feel is an overly cautious tone in considering that time spent in front of a screen can be anything but harmful to young children. While both sides do get air time, the balance clearly tips towards the "no redeeming value" side of the argument.
- CBS' The Early Show began their piece on holiday games with the shocking revelation that "there are literally hundreds out there and many are not even made for children." Really, Early Show? There are games that are made for adults? Tell us more! The piece features Gamespot's director Ankarino Lara patiently explaining that not all games are rated M and the the Nintendo DS and EyeToy are some of the hot items this season. The online summary goes on to say that games that require movement can be "a saving grace for parents who are sick of kids sitting on a couch all day..." notice how quickly the idea of games for adults flies away after the introduction.
Tuesday, December 7, 2004
Do Bad Games Get Short Reviews?
Ombudsman reader (and general Curmudgeon) Matt Matthews wrote in a while ago to ask about "the relationship between popularity of a game and the number of pages that go into a review." Specifically, Matthews pointed out that GameSpot's review of the ultra-hyped Halo 2 was four pages, while "relatively lesser-known" (but still highly rated) Astro Boy for GBA got a one-page review. "Which factor is more important: popularity or quality?" Matthews wondered.
In GameSpot's case, the answer is supposedly neither. "We intentionally avoid rigidity when it comes to review length, because each case is at least slightly different, "GameSpot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin said in an e-mail. "There's more to say about Halo 2, which features a variety of modes of play, than there is to say about Astro Boy, which is an excellent but simple game. So why should Halo 2 be given short shrift just because it attempts to do more than Astro Boy?"
Kasavin stressed that he has "never once imposed a word count limit or page limit on a GameSpot review," nor tried to stretch out shorter reviews to garner more page views. "Reviewers are simply expected to cover all the major bases, and when it comes to higher-profile games, there tend to be more. We include nothing in any of our reviews that we think is extraneous."
I think Kasavin's policy is, in general, the right one when it comes to imposing editorial restrictions on review length. Each game is different, and asking different reviews to conform to the same length specifications, especially on a medium with near-unlimited space like the Web, isn't necessary or desirable. A review shouldn't be any longer or shorter than it has to be.
That being said, in my experience, reviews of large, highly-expected games tend to be a lot longer than they have to be. Consider IGN's Halo 2 review, for one ripe example. True, any game that you're calling "the greatest Xbox game of all time" deserves a little extra space, but this monstrosity of a review repeats itself over eight long pages before finally coming the merciful conclusion. The review spends nearly two pages pretty much listing every multi-player mode and option -- information doubtless also found in the game's press release and instruction book -- and about a page finding different ways to say "the graphics are great." Just because there shouldn't be strict editorial control of review length doesn't mean the author shouldn't show some self-restraint.
Some might argue that reviewers are simply giving the audience what they want by giving highly expected games more review space, and it's true that many eager readers want to get as much information as they can about the latest "game of the millenium." This is a valid point, but just because there readers want a lot of information doesn't mean you have to put it all in the review. Separating out the nitty-gritty details and more expansive descriptions into sidebars or separate features can allow devoted followers to get all their information and more casual readers to absorb the basics in a leaner, more straightforward review. For sure this is essentially a stylistic choice, but it's one that I feel most sites err on the wrong side of.
In my book, a short, well-written beats an overly-long, overly-detailed, overly-repetitive review every time. Give me the essence of the experience in as few words as possible and then let me worry about whether or not I want mountains of more detailed information.
In GameSpot's case, the answer is supposedly neither. "We intentionally avoid rigidity when it comes to review length, because each case is at least slightly different, "GameSpot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin said in an e-mail. "There's more to say about Halo 2, which features a variety of modes of play, than there is to say about Astro Boy, which is an excellent but simple game. So why should Halo 2 be given short shrift just because it attempts to do more than Astro Boy?"
Kasavin stressed that he has "never once imposed a word count limit or page limit on a GameSpot review," nor tried to stretch out shorter reviews to garner more page views. "Reviewers are simply expected to cover all the major bases, and when it comes to higher-profile games, there tend to be more. We include nothing in any of our reviews that we think is extraneous."
I think Kasavin's policy is, in general, the right one when it comes to imposing editorial restrictions on review length. Each game is different, and asking different reviews to conform to the same length specifications, especially on a medium with near-unlimited space like the Web, isn't necessary or desirable. A review shouldn't be any longer or shorter than it has to be.
That being said, in my experience, reviews of large, highly-expected games tend to be a lot longer than they have to be. Consider IGN's Halo 2 review, for one ripe example. True, any game that you're calling "the greatest Xbox game of all time" deserves a little extra space, but this monstrosity of a review repeats itself over eight long pages before finally coming the merciful conclusion. The review spends nearly two pages pretty much listing every multi-player mode and option -- information doubtless also found in the game's press release and instruction book -- and about a page finding different ways to say "the graphics are great." Just because there shouldn't be strict editorial control of review length doesn't mean the author shouldn't show some self-restraint.
Some might argue that reviewers are simply giving the audience what they want by giving highly expected games more review space, and it's true that many eager readers want to get as much information as they can about the latest "game of the millenium." This is a valid point, but just because there readers want a lot of information doesn't mean you have to put it all in the review. Separating out the nitty-gritty details and more expansive descriptions into sidebars or separate features can allow devoted followers to get all their information and more casual readers to absorb the basics in a leaner, more straightforward review. For sure this is essentially a stylistic choice, but it's one that I feel most sites err on the wrong side of.
In my book, a short, well-written beats an overly-long, overly-detailed, overly-repetitive review every time. Give me the essence of the experience in as few words as possible and then let me worry about whether or not I want mountains of more detailed information.
For Luigi, Press 2
I have to admit that I've been enjoying Kotaku quite a bit since Brian Crecente (of RedAssedBaboon) took over the regular posting duties. Besides giving ample coverage to stories about gamer culture and business, the site is full of insider nuggets on games jouralism.
Take today's post detailing a message left on Crecente's machine by none other than Mario himself announcing his impending free copy of Mario Party 6. Where else are you going to find this kind of stuff?
As for the phone message itself, it's my strong belief that Mario should never, ever have to say a game will "raisa the roofa." And you have to stand by your beliefs.
Take today's post detailing a message left on Crecente's machine by none other than Mario himself announcing his impending free copy of Mario Party 6. Where else are you going to find this kind of stuff?
As for the phone message itself, it's my strong belief that Mario should never, ever have to say a game will "raisa the roofa." And you have to stand by your beliefs.
Monday, December 6, 2004
WarDevil is in the Details
(Those of you that noticed me re-using the headline from a similar post at my Weblogs Inc. blog can feel free to sue me.)
I half-expect random message board posts to go a little overboard when they talk up a new rumor but, for some reason, I expect a little more out of IGN.This faith seems misplaced based on their recent coverage or the sudden release of a teaser trailer for "WarDevil - Unleash the Beast Within" by previously unknown developer Digi-Guys.
IGN's article starts off with a whopper of a headline: "WarDevil Shows Potential of Xbox 2" Besides the dubious systemhood for the game (see below), such a headline implies the released footage is running on the XBox 2 hardware, even though later in the article it correctly states that "the trailer appears to be CG cut-scenes." Last time I checked, even the original Playstation could play CG cut-scenes without breaking a sweat.
In fact, GamesRadar went as far as to call someone at Digi-Guys (a shocking prospect, I know) who confirmed that the trailer footage actually comes from a concurrent film version of WarDevil and not the planned video game. So it's actually more accurate to describe these impressive videos as showing the "potential" of the computer workstation that produced them, not the hardware that will likely be just be running a video of them.
Even though the game's website doesn't mention a target system, IGN goes on to claim that, "several key pieces of information make [an Xbox 2 release] an almost sure thing." Here are the several key pieces of information they cite (emphasis added):
Anyone who has followed videogames even casually knows that release dates, whether set or, worse yet, rumored, are far from sure things. Even assuming the Digi-Guys are assuming these dates as well, their choice of system could as easily be current-generation as next-generation given that the footage is just a CG cut-scene (In fact, Xbox2News.com points out that WarDevil was originally planned for XBox, and for all we know still could be.)
The article goes on to parrot some ridiculous marketing promises about the game being "beyond the conventions of a normal video game" with "in-game visuals [that] won't differ much [from the cut-scenes]" but by this point a careful reader should have stopped paying attention. The WarDevil trailer is a pretty CGI film of a concept for a game that might potentially come out for some system, maybe in late 2005. The real news here may not be as relevant, but it's a whole lot more accurate.
I half-expect random message board posts to go a little overboard when they talk up a new rumor but, for some reason, I expect a little more out of IGN.This faith seems misplaced based on their recent coverage or the sudden release of a teaser trailer for "WarDevil - Unleash the Beast Within" by previously unknown developer Digi-Guys.
IGN's article starts off with a whopper of a headline: "WarDevil Shows Potential of Xbox 2" Besides the dubious systemhood for the game (see below), such a headline implies the released footage is running on the XBox 2 hardware, even though later in the article it correctly states that "the trailer appears to be CG cut-scenes." Last time I checked, even the original Playstation could play CG cut-scenes without breaking a sweat.
In fact, GamesRadar went as far as to call someone at Digi-Guys (a shocking prospect, I know) who confirmed that the trailer footage actually comes from a concurrent film version of WarDevil and not the planned video game. So it's actually more accurate to describe these impressive videos as showing the "potential" of the computer workstation that produced them, not the hardware that will likely be just be running a video of them.
Even though the game's website doesn't mention a target system, IGN goes on to claim that, "several key pieces of information make [an Xbox 2 release] an almost sure thing." Here are the several key pieces of information they cite (emphasis added):
- "WarDevil is ... set for release in late 2005."
- "Nintendo's Revolution and Sony's PS3 [are] set to ship in 2006."
- XBox 2 has been "long-rumored to release in holiday 2005."
Anyone who has followed videogames even casually knows that release dates, whether set or, worse yet, rumored, are far from sure things. Even assuming the Digi-Guys are assuming these dates as well, their choice of system could as easily be current-generation as next-generation given that the footage is just a CG cut-scene (In fact, Xbox2News.com points out that WarDevil was originally planned for XBox, and for all we know still could be.)
The article goes on to parrot some ridiculous marketing promises about the game being "beyond the conventions of a normal video game" with "in-game visuals [that] won't differ much [from the cut-scenes]" but by this point a careful reader should have stopped paying attention. The WarDevil trailer is a pretty CGI film of a concept for a game that might potentially come out for some system, maybe in late 2005. The real news here may not be as relevant, but it's a whole lot more accurate.
Wednesday, December 1, 2004
Headline of the Moment
"New Nintendo DS game players hot"
-A CNN/Money headline for a Reuters article
I don't know... I've definitely seen some ugly people playing the system.
Seriously, though, who calls a new system a "game player"?
Back to my vacation.
-A CNN/Money headline for a Reuters article
I don't know... I've definitely seen some ugly people playing the system.
Seriously, though, who calls a new system a "game player"?
Back to my vacation.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Post-Thanksgiving Break
The Thanksgiving holiday has rolled right into sickness and some minor computer problems around here, and since I have some work and personal stuff to catch up on anyway, I thought, "why not make it an even two week break." Expect regular Monday through Thursday updates to resume on Dec. 6. Until then, you'll just have to handle the video game critiques yourself (feel free to use the comments thread for this. I promise I'll try to participate).
Monday, November 22, 2004
G4TechTV DS
Did anyone catch the special dual-screen broadcast on G4TechTV yesterday (as described in this press release)? Apparently, the video game/technology network celebrated the launch of the Nintendo DS with 20 hours of programming in a split screen format with a Nintendo DS frame. The press release says that they "partnered with Nintendo" on this, so I can only assume the big N paid big bucks to basically take over the network for a day.
I didn't get a chance to see it (being busy most of the day playing my own DS) but I'd love to hear about it from someone who did. Did it strike you as gimmicky, interesting, distracting, innovative, overly-commercial, overly-biased or all or none of the above? How did it compare to recent G4 promotions like "GTA TV" and "Halo 2 Day"? Drop your comments using the link below.
More Nintendo DS coverage coverage coming in the near future.
I didn't get a chance to see it (being busy most of the day playing my own DS) but I'd love to hear about it from someone who did. Did it strike you as gimmicky, interesting, distracting, innovative, overly-commercial, overly-biased or all or none of the above? How did it compare to recent G4 promotions like "GTA TV" and "Halo 2 Day"? Drop your comments using the link below.
More Nintendo DS coverage coverage coming in the near future.
Well-constructed Sentence of the Moment
"Additionally, Atari offers the previously not for the console released game 'Saboteur'."
-Wolfgang Gruener, in a Tom's Hardware Guide article about a psuedo-re-release of the Atari 7800
-Wolfgang Gruener, in a Tom's Hardware Guide article about a psuedo-re-release of the Atari 7800
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Update: Spike TV Video Games Advisory Board
Readers of my recent post about the Spike TV Video Game Awards may recall my speculation that the show's Adivsory Board was "probably made up of members of the nominated magazines and Web sites, but I'm not sure." (emphasis added) If I had done just a tad bit more research, I'd have found a Nov. 10 press release that indeed reveals members of 1up.com, GameSpy.com, IGN, CNet (GameSpot's parent company) and the Official Xbox Magazine as judges for the shows non-journalism--related categories.
Among these and other myriad media members (including CNN/Money's Chris Morris, who pointed me to the release), you'll also find Spike TV's senior vice president of development and talent (who better to judge video games?) and the head of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (who, as an organization, have their own, slightly more respectable awards to worry about) on the Advisory Board. Interesting, to say the least.
Among these and other myriad media members (including CNN/Money's Chris Morris, who pointed me to the release), you'll also find Spike TV's senior vice president of development and talent (who better to judge video games?) and the head of the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences (who, as an organization, have their own, slightly more respectable awards to worry about) on the Advisory Board. Interesting, to say the least.
Quote of the Moment - PR Edition
"Yo, this is the dopest thing I've seen in my life."
–Donald Faison, commenting on the Nintendo DS, as quoted in a Nintendo press release.
–Donald Faison, commenting on the Nintendo DS, as quoted in a Nintendo press release.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Gaming Mags, Web Sites Get Spiked
Has it really almost been a year since the first Spike TV Video Game Awards inspired me to question the direction of the video game industry through Disney song lyrics?
A quick skim through a recent Spike press release would seem to indicate that it has. Spike has upped the ante in this year's show with a few new categories, including two that particularly piqued my interest: Best Gaming Publication and Best Gaming Web Site.
The release indicates that both categories are "fan favorites," meaning the winner will be chosen by voting through SpikeTV.com and cell phones and not by the "Video Game Awards Advisory Board... of gaming industry experts," that picked the nominees. If I had to guess, I'd say this is because the advisory board is probably made up of members of the nominated magazines and Web sites, but I'm not sure (UPDATE: This has since been confirmed. Read more).
Enough inane chatter. If you're here for some quick and highly opinionated thoughts on the nominees, you're in the right place?
For Best Gaming Magazine
A quick skim through a recent Spike press release would seem to indicate that it has. Spike has upped the ante in this year's show with a few new categories, including two that particularly piqued my interest: Best Gaming Publication and Best Gaming Web Site.
The release indicates that both categories are "fan favorites," meaning the winner will be chosen by voting through SpikeTV.com and cell phones and not by the "Video Game Awards Advisory Board... of gaming industry experts," that picked the nominees. If I had to guess, I'd say this is because the advisory board is probably made up of members of the nominated magazines and Web sites, but I'm not sure (UPDATE: This has since been confirmed. Read more).
Enough inane chatter. If you're here for some quick and highly opinionated thoughts on the nominees, you're in the right place?
For Best Gaming Magazine
- Electronic Gaming Monthly - The elder statesman of the list, I'd say EGM is probably the prohibitive favorite. Even though Game Informer has a larger circulation, I think EGM attracts a more devoted, hardcore gamer following. Interestingly, EGM is the only magazine nominated that isn't directly affiliated with a specific store or console.
- GMR - The new kid on the block, EBGames' magazine has gained a quick following through $5 in-store subscriptions. GMR's nomination among older, more established mags shows the power of game retailers in pushing publications.
- Game Informer - Gamestop's magazine has a lot of subscribers, but many of them probably just signed up for the 10 percent in-store discount (the same goes for smaller GMR). Will the casual masses turn out to vote for GI?
- Official PlayStation Magazine - The third Ziff Davis nominee shows how far the publishers influence extends in the video game publishing world. The demo discs are good, but the balanced PlayStation coverage (especially for an "official" magazine) is even better.
- Official Xbox Magazine - The underdog of the list. The limited base of support for Xbox hurts its chances, but Xbox owners do tend to be very devoted. The only nominee from Future Publishing, a sign of how far the once-proud publisher of Next Generation and Game Players has fallen.
- 1up.com - The Ziff Davis megasite has become an ad-soaked, community-centered behemoth since its recent redesign. Interactive content could lead to strong reader loyalty and a lot of votes.
- Gamespot.com - My odds-on favorite to win, ZDNet's site has been a draw for hardcore and casual gamers alike since back when it was videogames.com. Plus I write for them now, so my cadre of followers will vote in droves.
- Gamespy.com - It took me quite a while to figure out that GameSpy was more than an online game-matching service and actually a decent gaming information web site. Increased focus on consoles in recent months gives them broader appeal.
- IGN.com - The fact that IGN gets top billing in the IGN/Gamespy mega-conglomerate should tell you something about its size. Quantity doesn't equal quality, though, and IGN's quality hasn't been very high for a while now.
- ShackNews.com - The dark horse candidate, this PC-centric site is big among the hardcore computer gamers, but I don't think it's in the same league as the other nominees in terms of popularity.
- Does anyone else find it at least unsettling that the most prominent televised video game awards show is on "The first network for men"? Are categories like "Cyber Vixen of the Year" a symptom or a cause of gaming's male-centered demographic?
- Spike's press release named "Mario Golf: Toadstool Tour" as a nominee for Best Handheld, but the real name is "Mario Golf: Advance Tour." Toadstool Tour is the GameCube version. IGN and GameSpot were among the many who didn't notice the error when copying the press release verbatim. (to be fair, I wouldn't have noticed either if not for the eagle eye of Gaming Target's John Scalzo).
- Go Katamari Damacy!
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Money, Mouth, Meet in Same Place
Sorry for missing yesterday's scheduled update. I was in be much earlier than usual with a headache that wouldn't quit. Feel free to consider this my early Thanksgiving break. Of course, I'll also be taking Thanksgiving Day off. *cough*
Anyway, it wouldn't be very fair of me to criticize the video game journalism of others without allowing others ample opportunity to criticize my attempts at the same. With that in mind, feel free to read my official debut as a GameSpot freelancer and comment on it as you see fit. Be as brutal as you like, I don't care.
No really, I don't at all care what you think.
That's why I'm asking for your comments, of course.
*cough*
Anyway, it wouldn't be very fair of me to criticize the video game journalism of others without allowing others ample opportunity to criticize my attempts at the same. With that in mind, feel free to read my official debut as a GameSpot freelancer and comment on it as you see fit. Be as brutal as you like, I don't care.
No really, I don't at all care what you think.
That's why I'm asking for your comments, of course.
*cough*
Friday, November 12, 2004
Headline of the Moment
'Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' is violent, exhilarating game
Imagine the same style of headline applied to film:
'The Godfather' is violent, exhilarating movie
or music:
Eminem's latest is violent, exhilarating
or theater:
Local troupe puts on violent, exhilarating performance of 'Romeo and Juliet'
Imagine the same style of headline applied to film:
'The Godfather' is violent, exhilarating movie
or music:
Eminem's latest is violent, exhilarating
or theater:
Local troupe puts on violent, exhilarating performance of 'Romeo and Juliet'
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Give 'em a story
There were quite a few interesting side-stories branching off from this Tuesday's release of Halo 2. By interesting, I do not mean the countless predictable (but necessary) stories of long lines and record-breaking first day sales. I do mean:
Halo 2 Strategy Guide Breaks Random House Records
Quick Summary: The guide sold more in one day than Bill Clinton's biography -- 270,000 copies in one day. An initial print run of 1.1 million will likely sell out quickly as well.
This one was particularly interesting to me, as it has implications for a long-neglected area of video game journalism. Game guides have evolved from their simple roots to include interviews, retrospectives, and the kind of minutiae that is the essence of thorough journalism. Hopefully these huge sales will lead to increased attention and talent to the game guide subsector.
Halo 2 -- Liberal Propaganda?
Quick Summary: Right-wing rag The Free Republic takes an out-of-context quote to its liberal-consipracy extreme.
Thanks to Chris Remo and the crew at Idle Thumbs for alerting me to this one and pointing out the essential flaw -- the original interview in Entertainment Weekly completely changed the meaning of a quote from Halo writer Joe Staten by leaving out the last four words. If my "negative" "review" of Halo 2 wasn't enough caution against out-of-context quotes, this ought to be. Then again, anyone expecting thorough and experienced game analysis out of The Free Republic isn't thinking straight anyway.
The best part is the comments that are so ludicrous they're often almost self-mocking: "If your kid is going to a Halo 2 release party tonight at midnight, be aware that your kid is going to a left-wing political rally..."
The New Video Frontier
Quick Summary: PRI's Marketplace uses the Halo 2 release as a jumping off point to look at the positive effects of games on business sense
Author Mitchell Wade takes the controversial position that video games have made a whole generation of players less risk-averse and more willing to accept failure. Who knew? With San Andreas sending the anti-violence crusaders into overdrve in recent weeks, it's nice to see a major outlet covering the other side. Best part: The host somewhat incredulously accepting the demonstrable fact that gamers aren't giving up games as they pass into their 30s.
IGN vs. Bungie
Quick Summary: The IGN team gives a detailed account of their thrashing at the hands of the Bungie team in multiplayer Halo 2.
Humorous color piece or conflict of interest? You decide.
Actually, I decide first -- it's just a fun piece. Fraternizing with your sources can be all right if it serves some journalistic purpose. Here, offering some unique hands-on impressions of the multiplayer game is purpose enough. It would have been nice if they had taken some of their time with the developers to get more insight into level or gameplay design, but I digress.
Halo 2 Strategy Guide Breaks Random House Records
Quick Summary: The guide sold more in one day than Bill Clinton's biography -- 270,000 copies in one day. An initial print run of 1.1 million will likely sell out quickly as well.
This one was particularly interesting to me, as it has implications for a long-neglected area of video game journalism. Game guides have evolved from their simple roots to include interviews, retrospectives, and the kind of minutiae that is the essence of thorough journalism. Hopefully these huge sales will lead to increased attention and talent to the game guide subsector.
Halo 2 -- Liberal Propaganda?
Quick Summary: Right-wing rag The Free Republic takes an out-of-context quote to its liberal-consipracy extreme.
Thanks to Chris Remo and the crew at Idle Thumbs for alerting me to this one and pointing out the essential flaw -- the original interview in Entertainment Weekly completely changed the meaning of a quote from Halo writer Joe Staten by leaving out the last four words. If my "negative" "review" of Halo 2 wasn't enough caution against out-of-context quotes, this ought to be. Then again, anyone expecting thorough and experienced game analysis out of The Free Republic isn't thinking straight anyway.
The best part is the comments that are so ludicrous they're often almost self-mocking: "If your kid is going to a Halo 2 release party tonight at midnight, be aware that your kid is going to a left-wing political rally..."
The New Video Frontier
Quick Summary: PRI's Marketplace uses the Halo 2 release as a jumping off point to look at the positive effects of games on business sense
Author Mitchell Wade takes the controversial position that video games have made a whole generation of players less risk-averse and more willing to accept failure. Who knew? With San Andreas sending the anti-violence crusaders into overdrve in recent weeks, it's nice to see a major outlet covering the other side. Best part: The host somewhat incredulously accepting the demonstrable fact that gamers aren't giving up games as they pass into their 30s.
IGN vs. Bungie
Quick Summary: The IGN team gives a detailed account of their thrashing at the hands of the Bungie team in multiplayer Halo 2.
Humorous color piece or conflict of interest? You decide.
Actually, I decide first -- it's just a fun piece. Fraternizing with your sources can be all right if it serves some journalistic purpose. Here, offering some unique hands-on impressions of the multiplayer game is purpose enough. It would have been nice if they had taken some of their time with the developers to get more insight into level or gameplay design, but I digress.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Giving the Prefix "Meta" A Whole New Meaning
Welcome to all the new visitors joining us from the pleasant shores of Slashdot Games, Joystiq, Kotaku, Waxy and the rest of the blogosphere. If the visitor numbers are any indication (more visits today than in the past two-and-a-half months) then people get a bit interested when you put "negative" and "Halo 2" in the same headline.
Anyway, while yesterday was all about using the words of others to nitpick a game, today is all about nitpicking the words others used to praise a game. What follows is my short opinions of a few Halo 2 reviews from some of the biggest video game sites on the Internet, based on totally subjective criteria described below. These meta-reviews come from the perspective of someone with some experience reviewing games but no experience playing the game in question.
To potential detractors who say reviewing reviews is a waste of time, I will take your review of my review-reviews under due consideration.
A brief description of my rating categories (a work in progress):
Leading off: A good review grips you from the beginning with an interesting angle or an exquisitely written lead. It makes the reader want to keep reading.
Flow: A good review reads easily from beginning to end, and covers all the bases along the way. Jarring or non-existent segues, too much detail and lazy section headers can hurt you here.
Balance: A good review manages to point out the bad parts of the best game and the best parts of an awful game, and pulls both equally from an average game. Balance also means discussing the game in its entirety, not getting hung up on one point (this is also part of flow).
Context: A good review compares a game somehow to its predecessors and contemporaries, although this comparison need not be overt. Working in the context of society at large is an added bonus.
Hype: Is the review a series of carefully considered opinions or marketing catch phrases. Bad reviews can be just as guilty of sounding like hackneyed anti-hype as gushers. Original phrases help here. Use of cliches hurts.
Score matches the text: A pet peeve of mine -- when the score seems artificially high or low compared to the description.
GameSpot
Review by Greg Kasavin
Leading off: The review takes a pretty detailed look at the original Halo and what made it "one of the definitive games in the genre." To someone who never played the first game (we do exist) it's very handy, but to the larger audience of Halo fans there might be a little of a "Well, duh!" factor.
Flow: The four-page review suffers a bit from laundry-list syndrome, where everything about the game is thrown out there in a semi-ordered fashion. Everything is discussed in detail, which is to say nothing stands out against the dull buzz of detail.
Balance: Tough-but-fair criticism of the ending and the length manage to stand out and make an impact even in a sea of praise. Readers of this review will come out with some bad impressions among many good ones.
Context: Based on this review, you might think the Halo series exists in a vacuum. References to the first game abound, but the merest allusion to the outside world is largely absent.
Hype: A matter-of-fact tone supports a review that backs up its praise with plenty of rational reasoning and little exaggeration.
Score matches the text: A 9.4 from Gamespot is almost as good as a 100 percent elsewhere, but the sub-perfect score notes the flaws without diminishing the good parts.
IGN
Review by Douglass C. Perry
Leading off: "There is a new kid in town, and strangely, you've known its name for years." Huh? The comparison to system-sellers past comes off hollow, and the overly-effusive praise comes on a bit thick right from the start.
Flow: Deft readers have to navigate through bulky screenshots and feature links and eight page divisions to get through this massive review. The actual text relies on large headers to divide the sections, but the internal flow of each is passable, if overly long.
Balance: The bad points in this review are so completely covered with "this is just minor nitpicking" style apologies you'd think they're almost sorry to utter anything negative. Let the reader determine what's a nitpick and what's a serious issue.
Context Comparisons to the Alien movies and to games in other genres fit naturally, as do endless comparisons to the first Halo. Readers get a clear sense of where Halo 2 fits in gaming hierarchy -- at the top.
Hype: Any review that manages to use the term "comes up aces" twice in its first three paragraphs fails the hype test. The praise becomes a little more thoughtful towards the middle, but phrases like "Halo 2 plays like a dream," and "It's freakin' awesome," are painful to read.
Score matches the text: It's hard to see this game not getting a perfect score after reading so many superlatives, but a 9.8 leaves some wiggle room for future games to sneak in, I suppose.
1up
Review by Matt Leone
Leading off: A simple list of all the new features grabs the readers attention and almost serves as a decent review in itself.
Flow: The review jumps from point to point in a somewhat rambley fashion, but never seems to lose a general stream-of-consciousness coherence. The length is perfect, giving a strong impression of the game without drowning the reader in details.
Balance: Bad points are mentioned subtly and a little apologetically, but some strong placement in the conclusion make them hard to miss.
Context: Constant references to specific elements from other popular FPS titles give the reader good reference points. Direct comparisons to the games of today and the near future put it at the top of the heap.
Hype: A strong showing for Halo 2 seems almost preordained given the demonstrated love for the original Halo. Still, enough support is given to back up the lofty praise.
Score matches the text: Given the lack of serious criticisms, a one-point drop on a ten-point scale would seem unthinkable. Without any finer demarcations, a 10/10 is really the only option.
Unfortunately that's all I have time for now. Later on I hope to look at some reviews from smaller sources as well. Please leave your own impressions of these or any other reviews using the comments link below.
Anyway, while yesterday was all about using the words of others to nitpick a game, today is all about nitpicking the words others used to praise a game. What follows is my short opinions of a few Halo 2 reviews from some of the biggest video game sites on the Internet, based on totally subjective criteria described below. These meta-reviews come from the perspective of someone with some experience reviewing games but no experience playing the game in question.
To potential detractors who say reviewing reviews is a waste of time, I will take your review of my review-reviews under due consideration.
A brief description of my rating categories (a work in progress):
Leading off: A good review grips you from the beginning with an interesting angle or an exquisitely written lead. It makes the reader want to keep reading.
Flow: A good review reads easily from beginning to end, and covers all the bases along the way. Jarring or non-existent segues, too much detail and lazy section headers can hurt you here.
Balance: A good review manages to point out the bad parts of the best game and the best parts of an awful game, and pulls both equally from an average game. Balance also means discussing the game in its entirety, not getting hung up on one point (this is also part of flow).
Context: A good review compares a game somehow to its predecessors and contemporaries, although this comparison need not be overt. Working in the context of society at large is an added bonus.
Hype: Is the review a series of carefully considered opinions or marketing catch phrases. Bad reviews can be just as guilty of sounding like hackneyed anti-hype as gushers. Original phrases help here. Use of cliches hurts.
Score matches the text: A pet peeve of mine -- when the score seems artificially high or low compared to the description.
GameSpot
Review by Greg Kasavin
Leading off: The review takes a pretty detailed look at the original Halo and what made it "one of the definitive games in the genre." To someone who never played the first game (we do exist) it's very handy, but to the larger audience of Halo fans there might be a little of a "Well, duh!" factor.
Flow: The four-page review suffers a bit from laundry-list syndrome, where everything about the game is thrown out there in a semi-ordered fashion. Everything is discussed in detail, which is to say nothing stands out against the dull buzz of detail.
Balance: Tough-but-fair criticism of the ending and the length manage to stand out and make an impact even in a sea of praise. Readers of this review will come out with some bad impressions among many good ones.
Context: Based on this review, you might think the Halo series exists in a vacuum. References to the first game abound, but the merest allusion to the outside world is largely absent.
Hype: A matter-of-fact tone supports a review that backs up its praise with plenty of rational reasoning and little exaggeration.
Score matches the text: A 9.4 from Gamespot is almost as good as a 100 percent elsewhere, but the sub-perfect score notes the flaws without diminishing the good parts.
IGN
Review by Douglass C. Perry
Leading off: "There is a new kid in town, and strangely, you've known its name for years." Huh? The comparison to system-sellers past comes off hollow, and the overly-effusive praise comes on a bit thick right from the start.
Flow: Deft readers have to navigate through bulky screenshots and feature links and eight page divisions to get through this massive review. The actual text relies on large headers to divide the sections, but the internal flow of each is passable, if overly long.
Balance: The bad points in this review are so completely covered with "this is just minor nitpicking" style apologies you'd think they're almost sorry to utter anything negative. Let the reader determine what's a nitpick and what's a serious issue.
Context Comparisons to the Alien movies and to games in other genres fit naturally, as do endless comparisons to the first Halo. Readers get a clear sense of where Halo 2 fits in gaming hierarchy -- at the top.
Hype: Any review that manages to use the term "comes up aces" twice in its first three paragraphs fails the hype test. The praise becomes a little more thoughtful towards the middle, but phrases like "Halo 2 plays like a dream," and "It's freakin' awesome," are painful to read.
Score matches the text: It's hard to see this game not getting a perfect score after reading so many superlatives, but a 9.8 leaves some wiggle room for future games to sneak in, I suppose.
1up
Review by Matt Leone
Leading off: A simple list of all the new features grabs the readers attention and almost serves as a decent review in itself.
Flow: The review jumps from point to point in a somewhat rambley fashion, but never seems to lose a general stream-of-consciousness coherence. The length is perfect, giving a strong impression of the game without drowning the reader in details.
Balance: Bad points are mentioned subtly and a little apologetically, but some strong placement in the conclusion make them hard to miss.
Context: Constant references to specific elements from other popular FPS titles give the reader good reference points. Direct comparisons to the games of today and the near future put it at the top of the heap.
Hype: A strong showing for Halo 2 seems almost preordained given the demonstrated love for the original Halo. Still, enough support is given to back up the lofty praise.
Score matches the text: Given the lack of serious criticisms, a one-point drop on a ten-point scale would seem unthinkable. Without any finer demarcations, a 10/10 is really the only option.
Unfortunately that's all I have time for now. Later on I hope to look at some reviews from smaller sources as well. Please leave your own impressions of these or any other reviews using the comments link below.
Tuesday, November 9, 2004
Eliminate the Positive (or "The Only Negative Review of Halo 2 You're Ever Likely To Read")
"Halo 2 isn't a perfect game." (9) It "is still a linear series of shootouts," (5) that is "cowboys and Indians from the get-go," (2) and features "annoying graphical hiccups" and "team AI [that] isn't always perfect." (6)
"Some will undoubtedly say that the graphics have come up a bit short." (6) "There are occasionally some graphic hiccups, such as when a far off texture doesn't fill in as you approach it." (1) or when "the ground sometimes has an unrealistic ripple effect and some characters you come across look blurry." (4) One other "noticeable 'problem' is when the graphics mip-map at the beginning of nearly every scene, meaning that you first see a placeholder graphic before the more detailed version pops into place." (2) "Brutes have a very plastic appearance, and one character in particular is sloppily designed." (9)
In addition, "some of the in-engine cutscenes are kind of ugly," and "you'll actually see a little slowdown, pop-in, and LOD issues during cutscenes." (5) In fact, "you'll wonder what's going on in the cutscenes." (7) "It does detract." (8)
Besides the graphics, Halo 2 has "a surprisingly disappointing story." (5) "The first game had a cold sense of mystery and a striking sense of loneliness that shadowed Master Chief wherever he went. This time around... Halo 2 feels a little bit more Hollywood, a little less underdog." (2) "You spent the first game indiscriminately killing these fiends -- yet now you're expected to be sympathetic to them and their hatred for humankind." (5)
"The second half tends to drag on a bit," (3) but "easily the worst part about the story is the way it ends, insofar as it doesn't." (5) "The final battle is neither interesting while you're in the thick of it nor fulfilling once it concludes." (9) "You'll run into this game's cliff-hanger ending like a compact car into a brick wall... There's little satisfaction to be found in the ending here," and "there's a good chance you'll feel emotionally betrayed by the story." (5) "More than a few people will find Bungie's segue to Xbox 2 more than a little irritating." (2)
"I still see a bit of repetitive level design in Halo 2." (7) "Halo 2's campaign... frequently boils down to straight-up run-and-gun corridor crawls, one after another." (5) "Bungie's ship and interior designs are almost as repetitive in both architecture and texturing as before... Given no map, you will find yourself wondering where the hell to go more often than not... More distinct texture work and asymmetrical ornamentation would've helped."(8)
"The AI has a few weaknesses, especially when it's in the driver's seat of a vehicle, where it has trouble steering around obstacles." (5) In addition "many battles turn into strike-and-hide exercises where you take a few shots and then sneak away to let your shield recharge." (6) "It certainly doesn't help that the campaign is "rather short" (5) and that "able-bodied players will probably finish the game on Normal mode in around 15 hours." (2) "I somehow expected it to take much longer." (8)
"There's no... system-link cooperative mode." (3) and "you can't play co-op online." (4) That's right, there's "no co-op play for Xbox Live or through system link." (9) "I'd have loved to see a working online co-op mode." (7) "It would have been great to play co-op online." (8) "My dream of online co-op with the Master Chief has been dashed." (7)
"Halo 2 is not perfect." (4) "You could argue that given all the hype, Halo 2 is disappointingly more of the same." (3) "I can't really say that the engine has been vastly improved for the sequel," (7) "every now and then, the game goes a bit overboard with the technology," (4) "and well, could there have been more maps?" (8) "A surprisingly disappointing story and a fairly short single-player portion are noticeable shortcomings." (5) "After all of the time we spent waiting for this product, the developers owed us something better." (9)
EDITOR'S NOTE: If it's not apparent yet, this "review" is simply an amalgamation of bad points from nine other mass-market reviews of Halo 2. All the words inside quotes were copied directly from the numbered source in parentheses immediately following (links to source material available below.) These quotes were deliberately purged of any positive context or mitigating conditionals through judicious snipping, but it should be made clear that I believe every one of these points was intended as a negative in the original review. I did not just take random words to make it look like the reviewers found flaws that they didn't, but rather I separated out the middling negatives from the overwhelming positives and grouped them into a semi-coherent whole.
Anyone who's still ready to flame me after that should consider that it took the relatively minor nitpicking from nine separate reviews to construct one average-length, overly-repetitive negative review of this game, and the negative review still isn't very convincing. If this doesn't speak to the obvious quality of a game, I don't know what does.
So why do this at all? First, to show that quotes taken out of context can be highly, highly misleading (important to remember the next time you see a quote on the back of a game box). Second, to show that although it might seem like Halo 2 is God's gift to video gaming, it is not perfect. None of the nine reviews I read (some of which were quite lengthy and gave the game their highest score) claimed that it was. Some explicitly said it wasn't. Media frenzies like this tend to encourage hyperbole, so this is my attempt to keep the effusive praise down to a realistic level.
Thus begins what is turning into Halo 2 week at the VGO (what can I say, I was feeling left out). Look for reviews of some Halo 2 reviews tomorrow and an overview of Halo 2 news coverage on Thursday.
Review sources:
(1) http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/halo-2/564301p1.html
(2) http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3136245&did=6
(3) http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=2005815&did=2
(4) http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3136252&did=1
(5) http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/review.html
(6) http://www.g4techtv.com/halo2day/features/50249/Halo_2_Review.html
(7) http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/halo2/review_1.asp
(8) http://xbox.ign.com/articles/557/557509p1.html
(9) http://microsoft.gamerfeed.com/gf/reviews/520/
"Some will undoubtedly say that the graphics have come up a bit short." (6) "There are occasionally some graphic hiccups, such as when a far off texture doesn't fill in as you approach it." (1) or when "the ground sometimes has an unrealistic ripple effect and some characters you come across look blurry." (4) One other "noticeable 'problem' is when the graphics mip-map at the beginning of nearly every scene, meaning that you first see a placeholder graphic before the more detailed version pops into place." (2) "Brutes have a very plastic appearance, and one character in particular is sloppily designed." (9)
In addition, "some of the in-engine cutscenes are kind of ugly," and "you'll actually see a little slowdown, pop-in, and LOD issues during cutscenes." (5) In fact, "you'll wonder what's going on in the cutscenes." (7) "It does detract." (8)
Besides the graphics, Halo 2 has "a surprisingly disappointing story." (5) "The first game had a cold sense of mystery and a striking sense of loneliness that shadowed Master Chief wherever he went. This time around... Halo 2 feels a little bit more Hollywood, a little less underdog." (2) "You spent the first game indiscriminately killing these fiends -- yet now you're expected to be sympathetic to them and their hatred for humankind." (5)
"The second half tends to drag on a bit," (3) but "easily the worst part about the story is the way it ends, insofar as it doesn't." (5) "The final battle is neither interesting while you're in the thick of it nor fulfilling once it concludes." (9) "You'll run into this game's cliff-hanger ending like a compact car into a brick wall... There's little satisfaction to be found in the ending here," and "there's a good chance you'll feel emotionally betrayed by the story." (5) "More than a few people will find Bungie's segue to Xbox 2 more than a little irritating." (2)
"I still see a bit of repetitive level design in Halo 2." (7) "Halo 2's campaign... frequently boils down to straight-up run-and-gun corridor crawls, one after another." (5) "Bungie's ship and interior designs are almost as repetitive in both architecture and texturing as before... Given no map, you will find yourself wondering where the hell to go more often than not... More distinct texture work and asymmetrical ornamentation would've helped."(8)
"The AI has a few weaknesses, especially when it's in the driver's seat of a vehicle, where it has trouble steering around obstacles." (5) In addition "many battles turn into strike-and-hide exercises where you take a few shots and then sneak away to let your shield recharge." (6) "It certainly doesn't help that the campaign is "rather short" (5) and that "able-bodied players will probably finish the game on Normal mode in around 15 hours." (2) "I somehow expected it to take much longer." (8)
"There's no... system-link cooperative mode." (3) and "you can't play co-op online." (4) That's right, there's "no co-op play for Xbox Live or through system link." (9) "I'd have loved to see a working online co-op mode." (7) "It would have been great to play co-op online." (8) "My dream of online co-op with the Master Chief has been dashed." (7)
"Halo 2 is not perfect." (4) "You could argue that given all the hype, Halo 2 is disappointingly more of the same." (3) "I can't really say that the engine has been vastly improved for the sequel," (7) "every now and then, the game goes a bit overboard with the technology," (4) "and well, could there have been more maps?" (8) "A surprisingly disappointing story and a fairly short single-player portion are noticeable shortcomings." (5) "After all of the time we spent waiting for this product, the developers owed us something better." (9)
EDITOR'S NOTE: If it's not apparent yet, this "review" is simply an amalgamation of bad points from nine other mass-market reviews of Halo 2. All the words inside quotes were copied directly from the numbered source in parentheses immediately following (links to source material available below.) These quotes were deliberately purged of any positive context or mitigating conditionals through judicious snipping, but it should be made clear that I believe every one of these points was intended as a negative in the original review. I did not just take random words to make it look like the reviewers found flaws that they didn't, but rather I separated out the middling negatives from the overwhelming positives and grouped them into a semi-coherent whole.
Anyone who's still ready to flame me after that should consider that it took the relatively minor nitpicking from nine separate reviews to construct one average-length, overly-repetitive negative review of this game, and the negative review still isn't very convincing. If this doesn't speak to the obvious quality of a game, I don't know what does.
So why do this at all? First, to show that quotes taken out of context can be highly, highly misleading (important to remember the next time you see a quote on the back of a game box). Second, to show that although it might seem like Halo 2 is God's gift to video gaming, it is not perfect. None of the nine reviews I read (some of which were quite lengthy and gave the game their highest score) claimed that it was. Some explicitly said it wasn't. Media frenzies like this tend to encourage hyperbole, so this is my attempt to keep the effusive praise down to a realistic level.
Thus begins what is turning into Halo 2 week at the VGO (what can I say, I was feeling left out). Look for reviews of some Halo 2 reviews tomorrow and an overview of Halo 2 news coverage on Thursday.
Review sources:
(1) http://xbox.gamespy.com/xbox/halo-2/564301p1.html
(2) http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3136245&did=6
(3) http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=2005815&did=2
(4) http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3136252&did=1
(5) http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/review.html
(6) http://www.g4techtv.com/halo2day/features/50249/Halo_2_Review.html
(7) http://www.ugo.com/channels/games/features/halo2/review_1.asp
(8) http://xbox.ign.com/articles/557/557509p1.html
(9) http://microsoft.gamerfeed.com/gf/reviews/520/
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
Wired Connects the Dots
Kudos to Matthew Stibbe for his recent two-page spread in the latest issue of Wired (12.11) titled "How Pong Invented the Internet." The text is available online, but the real draw is the sprawling web of dozens of games, organizations, people and more that connects concepts as disparate as Zork, Starbucks and the Strategic Defense Initiative through a few color-coded lines.
The graphic is a good example of outside-the-box journalism on its own, but its also a good illustration of how video game journalism can be about more than just games. The business side of games can be tied to monolithic companies like Disney, the cultural side to institutions like the Simthsonian, and the technological side to people like Tim Berners-Lee in just a few steps. Sure, some of the connections are largely tangential (Star Raiders -> Star Trek -> William Shatner -> Priceline.com) but journalists should keep in mind the larger web of relationships when looking for interesting new angles in the video game beat.
The graphic is a good example of outside-the-box journalism on its own, but its also a good illustration of how video game journalism can be about more than just games. The business side of games can be tied to monolithic companies like Disney, the cultural side to institutions like the Simthsonian, and the technological side to people like Tim Berners-Lee in just a few steps. Sure, some of the connections are largely tangential (Star Raiders -> Star Trek -> William Shatner -> Priceline.com) but journalists should keep in mind the larger web of relationships when looking for interesting new angles in the video game beat.
Truly Unbiased Reviews
Who better to do a fair, unbiased review of "The X-Play Insider's Guide to Gaming" than the fine people at... X-Play
Money quote: "Take it from us, 'The X-Play Insider’s Guide to Gaming' is an easy book to enjoy and an easy book to recommend. Come on, did you really think anything less? Now, go out and buy it!
Sure, it reads like a tongue-in-cheek press release, but the format is exactly the same as other reviews on the X-Play web site, right down to the 5-star rating. At least local news features about new network shows usually try to dig some news value out of it. This seems kind of gratuitous.
My copy of the book just got delivered today, and skimming through it looks decent. Actually, I just remember that it was shipped to me free of charge from the publisher, so let me ammend that and say that it's the BEST BOOK EVER OMG OMG BUY IT NOW! Expect more detailed gushing in this space soon.
Money quote: "Take it from us, 'The X-Play Insider’s Guide to Gaming' is an easy book to enjoy and an easy book to recommend. Come on, did you really think anything less? Now, go out and buy it!
Sure, it reads like a tongue-in-cheek press release, but the format is exactly the same as other reviews on the X-Play web site, right down to the 5-star rating. At least local news features about new network shows usually try to dig some news value out of it. This seems kind of gratuitous.
My copy of the book just got delivered today, and skimming through it looks decent. Actually, I just remember that it was shipped to me free of charge from the publisher, so let me ammend that and say that it's the BEST BOOK EVER OMG OMG BUY IT NOW! Expect more detailed gushing in this space soon.
Monday, November 1, 2004
The Ombudsman Asks: Who's Reviews Do You Choose
Less explaining, more asking this time around.
The Ombudsman Asks: What do you look for in a game review?
Are you looking for information about games you haven't played or opinions on ones you have? Are you looking for someone to confirm your opinions or challenge them? Do you want technical information, informed opinion, scholarly analysis, cultural reading, or something else entirely? Do you look to one source exclusively or a variety of opinions? Do you like numerical scores, letter grades or no quantitiative measure at all?
I'll be working late helping with election night on Tuesday, so don't expect a post. I expect to be back Wednesday with a post on what is now old news, at least in Internet terms.
The Ombudsman Asks: What do you look for in a game review?
Are you looking for information about games you haven't played or opinions on ones you have? Are you looking for someone to confirm your opinions or challenge them? Do you want technical information, informed opinion, scholarly analysis, cultural reading, or something else entirely? Do you look to one source exclusively or a variety of opinions? Do you like numerical scores, letter grades or no quantitiative measure at all?
I'll be working late helping with election night on Tuesday, so don't expect a post. I expect to be back Wednesday with a post on what is now old news, at least in Internet terms.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Way Back When...
Come with me, if you will, on a trip back in time.
A trip back to the wild and murky days of early- to mid-October, 2004.
A mysterious time when "reports estimate" that the PSP will be between $250 and $300 (or, alternatively, "under $300" or "between 25,000 and 30,000 yen").
A time when, depending on who you ask, either there are "hints of delay," questions of "another delay" or "analysts forsee[ing] delay" of the PSP, possibly to November, 2005 (or, if you asked Sony, no delay).
Seems like ancient history now, doesn't it?
Just because the conventional wisdom was wrong this time doesn't mean that these sources were wrong to report it. But this should serve as a reminder to never simply assume the conventional wisdom as correct without further review.
Kudos, then, to Business Week for challenging the status quo and examining the case for a lower than expected PSP price point days before the announcement (as picked up by TVG, Gaming Horizon, Spong et al).
Kinda makes you wonder how accurate the election's conventional wisdom will be, eh?
A trip back to the wild and murky days of early- to mid-October, 2004.
A mysterious time when "reports estimate" that the PSP will be between $250 and $300 (or, alternatively, "under $300" or "between 25,000 and 30,000 yen").
A time when, depending on who you ask, either there are "hints of delay," questions of "another delay" or "analysts forsee[ing] delay" of the PSP, possibly to November, 2005 (or, if you asked Sony, no delay).
Seems like ancient history now, doesn't it?
Just because the conventional wisdom was wrong this time doesn't mean that these sources were wrong to report it. But this should serve as a reminder to never simply assume the conventional wisdom as correct without further review.
Kudos, then, to Business Week for challenging the status quo and examining the case for a lower than expected PSP price point days before the announcement (as picked up by TVG, Gaming Horizon, Spong et al).
Kinda makes you wonder how accurate the election's conventional wisdom will be, eh?
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Quote of the Moment
"Video games are so mainstream it's beside the point to convince you that they are mainstream."
-Jonathan Simpson-Bint, president of gaming magazine publisher Future Network USA, in yet another article trying to convince people that gaming is mainstream.
-Jonathan Simpson-Bint, president of gaming magazine publisher Future Network USA, in yet another article trying to convince people that gaming is mainstream.
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
San Andreas Shakes Things Up
You've known this day would come for months now. You've been guessing at the name even longer. Pre-release hype has practically assured it will be one of the best selling games of all time. Now, it's finally here. What do you do to cover the release of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas? Well...
- If you're GameSpot, you accompany a standard release story (which describes the game, "for those who have just awakened from a two-year coma") with prominent links to a review, a bunch of movies and screen shots on the top of every page of the site.
- If you're IGN, you cap off weeks of endless features and news tidbits with... a one paragraph news story announcing the release. Oh, and a sizable set of images, movies and a large review on your part, as well.
- If you're CNN/Money, you take a different angle and discuss the surprising effect the release is having on Take-Two's stock. (You may also be surpised that GameSpot posts a similar story four minutes later)
- If you're MTV, you do an interesting experiential piece that captures the breathless anticipation and first sleepless night spent with the game.
- If you're the local TV news you comment on the throngs of people assembled to buy the game and touch on the violence issue.
- If you're Reuters, you also touch on the violence issue while discussing the sales and business impact of the game's release.
- If you're an Xbox-exclusive site, you either ignore it or quickly mention it before returning to breathless Halo 2 anticipation.
- If you're GamesIndustry.biz, you post the press release and leave it at that.
- If you're a site I didn't mention, you probably at least mentioned it.
- If you're just a gamer, you're probably too busy playing the game to read any of this.
Monday, October 25, 2004
The Ombudsman Asks: Your First Time
It's Monday, so it's time once again to turn the spotlight on you as... The Ombudsman Asks:
This week's question: What was the first exposure to video game journalism?
Were you an early adopter of magazines like Replay? Were you one of the many that made Nintendo Power the most popular children's magazine for a time? Did you get a free subscription to Sega Visions for registering your Genesis? Were you attracted to the glossy covers of an early Next Generation and immediately hooked?
Feel free to elaborate on your early game mag experiences. Was your first from the newstand or a subscription? Was it a gift or a personal purchase? What struck you about the magazine? What annoyed you? Do you still have the magazine? If so, does the content hold up after all these years (if you don't, do you think the content would still be fresh)?
I'll get the conversation started: My first video game magazine was a copy of Nintendo Power Volume 7 (July/August 1989, Mega Man II cover). It was a gift from my favorite aunt on a trip to visit assorted relatives in New York. I was all of seven years old at the time. I clearly remember her handing it to me as we walked to the car to leave for home. It was already dark out, so I had to squint to read under the passing highway lights. My gradnma (sitting next to me) said I would damage my eyes. I didn't seem to care.
My favorite part was the Super Mario Bros. 2 tip book, which was a huge help in conquering my favorite game of the time. Unfortunately, it was only part one of the tip book, so it only helped with the first half of the game. I remember liking the Howard & Nester comic too, although I couldn't remember the content until a quick Google search just now.
Before long, I was a loyal subscriber to NP, starting with Volume 19 (Strategy Guide #4: 4-player Extra). I had no four-player games (nor a multitap), so I never even opened it, instead keeping it as a mint-condition monument to my newfound obsession. It's currently sitting in my parents' basement, (till in near-mint condition), along with hundreds of game magazines that have come to my door since (in much worse condition). I won't let my parents throw any of them out.
This week's question: What was the first exposure to video game journalism?
Were you an early adopter of magazines like Replay? Were you one of the many that made Nintendo Power the most popular children's magazine for a time? Did you get a free subscription to Sega Visions for registering your Genesis? Were you attracted to the glossy covers of an early Next Generation and immediately hooked?
Feel free to elaborate on your early game mag experiences. Was your first from the newstand or a subscription? Was it a gift or a personal purchase? What struck you about the magazine? What annoyed you? Do you still have the magazine? If so, does the content hold up after all these years (if you don't, do you think the content would still be fresh)?
I'll get the conversation started: My first video game magazine was a copy of Nintendo Power Volume 7 (July/August 1989, Mega Man II cover). It was a gift from my favorite aunt on a trip to visit assorted relatives in New York. I was all of seven years old at the time. I clearly remember her handing it to me as we walked to the car to leave for home. It was already dark out, so I had to squint to read under the passing highway lights. My gradnma (sitting next to me) said I would damage my eyes. I didn't seem to care.
My favorite part was the Super Mario Bros. 2 tip book, which was a huge help in conquering my favorite game of the time. Unfortunately, it was only part one of the tip book, so it only helped with the first half of the game. I remember liking the Howard & Nester comic too, although I couldn't remember the content until a quick Google search just now.
Before long, I was a loyal subscriber to NP, starting with Volume 19 (Strategy Guide #4: 4-player Extra). I had no four-player games (nor a multitap), so I never even opened it, instead keeping it as a mint-condition monument to my newfound obsession. It's currently sitting in my parents' basement, (till in near-mint condition), along with hundreds of game magazines that have come to my door since (in much worse condition). I won't let my parents throw any of them out.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Edge Gets Edgier?
While scanning the latest press releases on Games Press the other day, I was surprised to see a post announcing a redesign of Edge Magazine (Registration required, and if you don't have one, you should definitely get one. If not, the rest of this post gives a good feel for the contents anyway).
This provides an interesting window for a Yank like me into the machinations of one of Great Britain's most lauded (and sometimes most derided) magazines without paying almost $115 for a subscription. I've never read an issue of Edge, so I can't tell you for sure if its "videogame magazine for grown-ups" branding fits or if it's just a tad full of itself. But I can tell you that this press release makes me believe the former.
The release starts off with some standard boilerplate about how Edge has been "internationally respected" and "award winning" since its launch in 1993. It goes on to mention how Edge is "the only videogame magazine ... that reflects the full scope of gaming's present, past and future," and is uniquely positioned "to address its widening cultural impact." While the first part might be arguable, that second part sounds much more appealing to me than another magazine filled with glowing previews and uninspired reviews.
After a bit about the visual part of the redesign, the release goes on to announce a change in Edge's mission statement, from 'the future of electronic entertainment' to 'videogame culture.' First of all, the fact that the magazine has something as lofty as a mission statement is impressive to an admitted Edge-neophyte like myself. I find it hard to imagine many American magazines declaring such a thing. Secondly, Edge's new statement reflects what they call an aggressive pursuit of "all that is interesting in gaming and imaginatively assessing its wider significance." All I can say is, it's about time.
The release also announces a new 'Time Extend' feature for the magazine, which will "follows significant titles after the pre-release hype and the post-release criticism have died down, examining the influence they had on the people who played them and on the games that followed." Many magazines are already doing something similar with increasingly popular "retro" sections, but the way Edge phrased their description here makes me think this could be a little more relevant.
After mentioning in passing that Edge has included editorials since 1999, the release announces two new writers, one a former Grand Theft Auto designer who will give "an insider's perspective on game development," the other a world traveller who will "investigate online communities and the fascinating culture that has rapidly grown around them." American magazines, which have been much slower to incorporate outside editorials, could take note at the variety of perspectives reflected in just these two names.
The release finishes with a comment from the editor that "Edge readers are knowledgeable, dedicated and highly demanding consumers," something that seems either too ludicrous or too embarrassing for most American magazines to claim.
From my outsider's perspective, I got the impression from this press release that Edge is a magazine that takes videogames very seriously and is dedicated to exploring new ways of exploring all aspects of the world of video games, two things I'm definitely in favor of. Then again, I still haven't read the magazine, and a self-laudatory press release probably isn't the most impartial way to find out about a magazine.
Still, if what they say is accurate, maybe paying $115 for a subscription isn't so ridiculous after all.
This provides an interesting window for a Yank like me into the machinations of one of Great Britain's most lauded (and sometimes most derided) magazines without paying almost $115 for a subscription. I've never read an issue of Edge, so I can't tell you for sure if its "videogame magazine for grown-ups" branding fits or if it's just a tad full of itself. But I can tell you that this press release makes me believe the former.
The release starts off with some standard boilerplate about how Edge has been "internationally respected" and "award winning" since its launch in 1993. It goes on to mention how Edge is "the only videogame magazine ... that reflects the full scope of gaming's present, past and future," and is uniquely positioned "to address its widening cultural impact." While the first part might be arguable, that second part sounds much more appealing to me than another magazine filled with glowing previews and uninspired reviews.
After a bit about the visual part of the redesign, the release goes on to announce a change in Edge's mission statement, from 'the future of electronic entertainment' to 'videogame culture.' First of all, the fact that the magazine has something as lofty as a mission statement is impressive to an admitted Edge-neophyte like myself. I find it hard to imagine many American magazines declaring such a thing. Secondly, Edge's new statement reflects what they call an aggressive pursuit of "all that is interesting in gaming and imaginatively assessing its wider significance." All I can say is, it's about time.
The release also announces a new 'Time Extend' feature for the magazine, which will "follows significant titles after the pre-release hype and the post-release criticism have died down, examining the influence they had on the people who played them and on the games that followed." Many magazines are already doing something similar with increasingly popular "retro" sections, but the way Edge phrased their description here makes me think this could be a little more relevant.
After mentioning in passing that Edge has included editorials since 1999, the release announces two new writers, one a former Grand Theft Auto designer who will give "an insider's perspective on game development," the other a world traveller who will "investigate online communities and the fascinating culture that has rapidly grown around them." American magazines, which have been much slower to incorporate outside editorials, could take note at the variety of perspectives reflected in just these two names.
The release finishes with a comment from the editor that "Edge readers are knowledgeable, dedicated and highly demanding consumers," something that seems either too ludicrous or too embarrassing for most American magazines to claim.
From my outsider's perspective, I got the impression from this press release that Edge is a magazine that takes videogames very seriously and is dedicated to exploring new ways of exploring all aspects of the world of video games, two things I'm definitely in favor of. Then again, I still haven't read the magazine, and a self-laudatory press release probably isn't the most impartial way to find out about a magazine.
Still, if what they say is accurate, maybe paying $115 for a subscription isn't so ridiculous after all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)