- 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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)