Each of the missions allow players to tackle them in there own chosen way, there is no scripted pre determined route or at least for the vast majority of them, there is however and quite naturally a more scripted yet not entirely set in stone route when missions require Tanner to chase or apprehend specific foes.
-From MS XBox World's review of Driv3r
This is your friendly neighborhood Video Game Ombudsman reminding you to use periods where appropriate.
Expect something more substantial from me on this whole alleged Driv3r review buying mess shortly. In the meantime, here's some recommended reading on the subject.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Monday, June 28, 2004
Rob Fahey Vs. Microsoft
In a story published June 21, Rob Fahey at GamesIndustry.biz cited "sources close to Microsoft's senior Xbox executives" as saying the company's next system would not be backwards compatible. The story got picked up by a number of sites around the 'net.
Breaking from tradition, the usually quiet-on-rumors Microsoft responded to the story, blasting the report as irresponsible speculation.
I conducted an e-mail interview with Mr. Fahey to find out more about how the story was reported and to gauge his thoughts on the controversy surrounding it.
Video Game Ombudsman: So, first off, who's your source?
Rob Fahey: Nice try! Seriously, I'd love to be able to reveal who my sources on this were - it would end the discussion about it straight away, frankly. However, I have made a promise to a source and I obviously cannot go back on that - even if that anonymity is causing me a headache right now.
VGO: OK, OK, you can't blame me for trying. But how did you get in contact with this "extremely senior member?" When did you talk to him? What exactly did he say (if you can reveal that)?
RF: Actually, he got in contact with us directly and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about Microsoft's general plans for Xbox 2. One of the things which emerged from that discussion was the whole attitude to backward compatibility within Microsoft, which while it wasn't surprising, exactly, was certainly worth following up. I confirmed the
story past a number of developers who are in the loop on Microsoft Xenon development plans for confirmation, so while we certainly one primary source, the story has been corroborated past several different people.
VGO: Do you feel that video game journalism is too dependent on "official announcements?" Where should insider journalism (such as your story) fit into the mix?
RF: There's a fine balance to be struck; obviously reporting official announcements is important, and it's vital that journalists be able to take those official statements and put them into a proper context for their readers. However, it's also very important that publications do proper "insider" journalism - the games media equivalent of traditional "on the beat" stories, I guess - or they risk becoming nothing more than mouthpieces for the big companies in the industry.
The one thing that we need to be very careful about is ensuring that insider journalism - like speculative reporting or opinion-based commentary - is clearly delineated from reporting on official announcements. That isn't to say that insider reports are necessarily less reliable than official statements; just that the reader should be clear on which is which, so that they can draw their own conclusions.
VGO: What sort of ground rules do you use when a conflict arises between what inside sources are saying and the official company line?
RF: This happens less often than you might think, actually. In general, you don't get a company saying one thing, and an insider there telling you the opposite; what's much more likely is that you'll get a company making no statement, and an insider source giving you information that the company won't comment on. That's what has happened here; in these circumstances, our basic rules are to run the story past as many people who might be able to confirm it as possible, and then go to press with an article which reflects the degree of confirmation we've been able to garner for it.
Obviously that isn't a very strict rule, and a lot depends on how reliable and senior the original source for the story was.
VGO: Did you worry about breaking a story like this without confirmation from another source or without official comment from Microsoft? Why or why not?
RF: I would not have run this story without checking it past other sources first. However, their confirmation wasn't important - what was important was the direct information from our senior source about Microsoft's thinking on backward compatibility and its importance, not the simple technical confirmation from developers.
As for an official comment from Microsoft - I actually have a macro in Word for "Microsoft does not comment on rumours and speculation." (I'm not kidding!) That's their standard response, and I have never seen them deviate from it to actually furnish useful information about a story such as this, so we chose to run without their comment.
VGO: Microsoft usually gives a quiet "no comment" to stories like these, but yours got a quick, vociferous response. Why do you think this is? Do you think the lack of a direct denial of your story is significant?
RF: I think it's very significant. As far as I can gather, Microsoft are annoyed because a lot of information about Xbox 2 is leaking, and they see us as one of the publications responsible for finding and publicising those leaks. Which is probably a fair assessment.
As for the name-calling... Well, a journalist a lot older and wiser than I am once told me that if you don't have someone refusing to take your calls, trying to sue you or just calling you names in public, you aren't doing your job right. I'll take Microsoft's attack on my credibility as being a compliment, then!
VGO: Are you worried about any potential legal or other retribution from Microsoft for your story?
RF: No. I hope that we can continue to enjoy a good working relationship with Microsoft going forward, and I'd be disappointed if this spat damaged that relationship in the long term. Legally, though, I know exactly where we stand and I'm not aware of any action Microsoft could take over our reporting.
VGO: What is it like to report on a story where your story is the story? Do you think you were able to remian impartial?
RF: We certainly tried very hard to do so. However, it's something I'd rather not have to do very often. I think it's a failing for a publication when they stop reporting the news, and become part of the news, and it's a situation I'd like to avoid wherever possible.
VGO: Final question -- If you had to give a percentage figure for how sure you were of XBox 2's lack of backward compatibility, where would you put it?
RF: I am 100% certain that right now, the plans for the Xbox 2 don't include backward compatibility.
I'm also 99% sure that the console won't have this feature when it launches, because I'm aware of the technical and legal difficulties surrounding its implementation, and because I know that Microsoft doesn't think it's important. Like we said in our response to their statement last week - we absolutely stand by the story. The 1% doubt about their eventual plans comes from the simple fact that they're a company that is very quick to react, and if a lot of consumer opinion now suggests that backward compatibility IS important, they may well reconsider. That's a very remote outside chance, however; and as I said, I'm 100% sure that their CURRENT plans don't include the feature. I'm only a reporter, not a prophet :)
Breaking from tradition, the usually quiet-on-rumors Microsoft responded to the story, blasting the report as irresponsible speculation.
I conducted an e-mail interview with Mr. Fahey to find out more about how the story was reported and to gauge his thoughts on the controversy surrounding it.
Video Game Ombudsman: So, first off, who's your source?
Rob Fahey: Nice try! Seriously, I'd love to be able to reveal who my sources on this were - it would end the discussion about it straight away, frankly. However, I have made a promise to a source and I obviously cannot go back on that - even if that anonymity is causing me a headache right now.
VGO: OK, OK, you can't blame me for trying. But how did you get in contact with this "extremely senior member?" When did you talk to him? What exactly did he say (if you can reveal that)?
RF: Actually, he got in contact with us directly and we had a fairly lengthy discussion about Microsoft's general plans for Xbox 2. One of the things which emerged from that discussion was the whole attitude to backward compatibility within Microsoft, which while it wasn't surprising, exactly, was certainly worth following up. I confirmed the
story past a number of developers who are in the loop on Microsoft Xenon development plans for confirmation, so while we certainly one primary source, the story has been corroborated past several different people.
VGO: Do you feel that video game journalism is too dependent on "official announcements?" Where should insider journalism (such as your story) fit into the mix?
RF: There's a fine balance to be struck; obviously reporting official announcements is important, and it's vital that journalists be able to take those official statements and put them into a proper context for their readers. However, it's also very important that publications do proper "insider" journalism - the games media equivalent of traditional "on the beat" stories, I guess - or they risk becoming nothing more than mouthpieces for the big companies in the industry.
The one thing that we need to be very careful about is ensuring that insider journalism - like speculative reporting or opinion-based commentary - is clearly delineated from reporting on official announcements. That isn't to say that insider reports are necessarily less reliable than official statements; just that the reader should be clear on which is which, so that they can draw their own conclusions.
VGO: What sort of ground rules do you use when a conflict arises between what inside sources are saying and the official company line?
RF: This happens less often than you might think, actually. In general, you don't get a company saying one thing, and an insider there telling you the opposite; what's much more likely is that you'll get a company making no statement, and an insider source giving you information that the company won't comment on. That's what has happened here; in these circumstances, our basic rules are to run the story past as many people who might be able to confirm it as possible, and then go to press with an article which reflects the degree of confirmation we've been able to garner for it.
Obviously that isn't a very strict rule, and a lot depends on how reliable and senior the original source for the story was.
VGO: Did you worry about breaking a story like this without confirmation from another source or without official comment from Microsoft? Why or why not?
RF: I would not have run this story without checking it past other sources first. However, their confirmation wasn't important - what was important was the direct information from our senior source about Microsoft's thinking on backward compatibility and its importance, not the simple technical confirmation from developers.
As for an official comment from Microsoft - I actually have a macro in Word for "Microsoft does not comment on rumours and speculation." (I'm not kidding!) That's their standard response, and I have never seen them deviate from it to actually furnish useful information about a story such as this, so we chose to run without their comment.
VGO: Microsoft usually gives a quiet "no comment" to stories like these, but yours got a quick, vociferous response. Why do you think this is? Do you think the lack of a direct denial of your story is significant?
RF: I think it's very significant. As far as I can gather, Microsoft are annoyed because a lot of information about Xbox 2 is leaking, and they see us as one of the publications responsible for finding and publicising those leaks. Which is probably a fair assessment.
As for the name-calling... Well, a journalist a lot older and wiser than I am once told me that if you don't have someone refusing to take your calls, trying to sue you or just calling you names in public, you aren't doing your job right. I'll take Microsoft's attack on my credibility as being a compliment, then!
VGO: Are you worried about any potential legal or other retribution from Microsoft for your story?
RF: No. I hope that we can continue to enjoy a good working relationship with Microsoft going forward, and I'd be disappointed if this spat damaged that relationship in the long term. Legally, though, I know exactly where we stand and I'm not aware of any action Microsoft could take over our reporting.
VGO: What is it like to report on a story where your story is the story? Do you think you were able to remian impartial?
RF: We certainly tried very hard to do so. However, it's something I'd rather not have to do very often. I think it's a failing for a publication when they stop reporting the news, and become part of the news, and it's a situation I'd like to avoid wherever possible.
VGO: Final question -- If you had to give a percentage figure for how sure you were of XBox 2's lack of backward compatibility, where would you put it?
RF: I am 100% certain that right now, the plans for the Xbox 2 don't include backward compatibility.
I'm also 99% sure that the console won't have this feature when it launches, because I'm aware of the technical and legal difficulties surrounding its implementation, and because I know that Microsoft doesn't think it's important. Like we said in our response to their statement last week - we absolutely stand by the story. The 1% doubt about their eventual plans comes from the simple fact that they're a company that is very quick to react, and if a lot of consumer opinion now suggests that backward compatibility IS important, they may well reconsider. That's a very remote outside chance, however; and as I said, I'm 100% sure that their CURRENT plans don't include the feature. I'm only a reporter, not a prophet :)
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
The Sincerest form of Flattery
Slashdot Games recently had a story pointing to two sets of reviews for the new Famicom Mini Series 2 that just came out in Japan. Slashdot called the set from 1up "intriguing," and called the set from IGN, "stuttering," probably because the latter features an unintentional repetition of, "We review the latest NES-to-GBA games that hit the scene this May," a ridiculous eight times in a row on the main page.
The stuttering comment may as well have been referring to the extremely similar content of the reviews, though.
Consider, first, that IGN's three reviews, for Mario Bros., Balloon Fight and Clu Clu Land, are all dated June 3. The reviews for these three games on the 1up page are dated June 1 and 2; the rest are dated June 3 and later.
Then consider the following quotes (culled using "..."s to make similarities more apparent):
From 1up's take on Mario Bros.:
"...the Famicom Mini version of Mario Bros.... exists three years into the life span of the Game Boy Advance, a time in which Mario Bros. has been reprised as a free extra in not one but five other GBA titles (specifically, the four Mario Advance games and Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga)."
From IGN's take on Mario Bros.:
"But Nintendo's got serious cajones expecting that Japanese gamers will front the full price for a game it's not only updated and packaged a current total of five times in the Super Mario Advance series as well as in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga"
This one's not so bad... any decent review would probably point to the endless repackaging of Mario Bros. on the GBA. I could even see them potentially using similar language to do it.
But consider as well these introductory paragraphs:
From 1up's take on Balloon Fight:
"Nintendo is a company known for its ability to create stunningly original ideas... Balloon Fight serves as a cheerful reminder that even the Big N hasn't been above the time-honored art of knicking someone else's idea wholesale. In this case, that idea was John Newcomer's arcade classic Joust."
From IGN's take on Balloon Fight:
"Let it be said that Nintendo isn't always the innovative and creative company it's always been viewed as. Case in point: Balloon Fight... In the US, we had already been playing Balloon Fight in the arcades, and on the Atari systems as Joust..."
Some thematic similarities definitely, but nothing that falls definitely outside the realm of coincidence.
But also consider the dueling reviews for Clu Clu Land:
From 1up's take on Clu Clu Land:
"The word "classic" has suffered terrible abuse over the years. For instance, some people refer to any car that's more than 25 years old as "classic." Were it still alive, my very first car (a 1981 Buick Estate Wagon) would be reaching that vaunted age in a couple of years... "Vintage," yes. "Old," definitely. But classic? The mere thought cheats the word of its integrity. So it is with video games..."
From IGN's take on Clu Clu Land:
"That doesn't matter, though, as the game has been relegated to "classic" status simply because it's an "ancient" design, at least in videogame terms...not because it's any good...
Different? Yes. Classic? Debatable."
Now, to me, this seems like a relatively unique angle to take in a review -- namely the differentiation between "old" and "classic" in terms of game design. To have two reviews of the same game use this same idea strikes me as a little odd, if not a little disturbing.
Was there any conscious or unconscious plagiarism of ideas between the 1up and IGN reviews here? It's hard to say. I certainly wouldn't definitively say there was without more evidence. But since the IGN articles are unsigned and I am going to Europe for two weeks, I will leave this one open for now. Please post your thoughts on the matter while I am gone, especially if you are the author of any of these reviews.
Also... remember all that E3 coverage I promised. Yeah, it's still coming, but it's gonna be really late (obviously). So sorry.
The stuttering comment may as well have been referring to the extremely similar content of the reviews, though.
Consider, first, that IGN's three reviews, for Mario Bros., Balloon Fight and Clu Clu Land, are all dated June 3. The reviews for these three games on the 1up page are dated June 1 and 2; the rest are dated June 3 and later.
Then consider the following quotes (culled using "..."s to make similarities more apparent):
From 1up's take on Mario Bros.:
"...the Famicom Mini version of Mario Bros.... exists three years into the life span of the Game Boy Advance, a time in which Mario Bros. has been reprised as a free extra in not one but five other GBA titles (specifically, the four Mario Advance games and Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga)."
From IGN's take on Mario Bros.:
"But Nintendo's got serious cajones expecting that Japanese gamers will front the full price for a game it's not only updated and packaged a current total of five times in the Super Mario Advance series as well as in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga"
This one's not so bad... any decent review would probably point to the endless repackaging of Mario Bros. on the GBA. I could even see them potentially using similar language to do it.
But consider as well these introductory paragraphs:
From 1up's take on Balloon Fight:
"Nintendo is a company known for its ability to create stunningly original ideas... Balloon Fight serves as a cheerful reminder that even the Big N hasn't been above the time-honored art of knicking someone else's idea wholesale. In this case, that idea was John Newcomer's arcade classic Joust."
From IGN's take on Balloon Fight:
"Let it be said that Nintendo isn't always the innovative and creative company it's always been viewed as. Case in point: Balloon Fight... In the US, we had already been playing Balloon Fight in the arcades, and on the Atari systems as Joust..."
Some thematic similarities definitely, but nothing that falls definitely outside the realm of coincidence.
But also consider the dueling reviews for Clu Clu Land:
From 1up's take on Clu Clu Land:
"The word "classic" has suffered terrible abuse over the years. For instance, some people refer to any car that's more than 25 years old as "classic." Were it still alive, my very first car (a 1981 Buick Estate Wagon) would be reaching that vaunted age in a couple of years... "Vintage," yes. "Old," definitely. But classic? The mere thought cheats the word of its integrity. So it is with video games..."
From IGN's take on Clu Clu Land:
"That doesn't matter, though, as the game has been relegated to "classic" status simply because it's an "ancient" design, at least in videogame terms...not because it's any good...
Different? Yes. Classic? Debatable."
Now, to me, this seems like a relatively unique angle to take in a review -- namely the differentiation between "old" and "classic" in terms of game design. To have two reviews of the same game use this same idea strikes me as a little odd, if not a little disturbing.
Was there any conscious or unconscious plagiarism of ideas between the 1up and IGN reviews here? It's hard to say. I certainly wouldn't definitively say there was without more evidence. But since the IGN articles are unsigned and I am going to Europe for two weeks, I will leave this one open for now. Please post your thoughts on the matter while I am gone, especially if you are the author of any of these reviews.
Also... remember all that E3 coverage I promised. Yeah, it's still coming, but it's gonna be really late (obviously). So sorry.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)