New blog

If for some odd reason someone out there still subscribes to this blog via RSS, I'd like to let you know I have a new gaming blog up and running. The concept is a little different but much more unique, I think.

The new blog is Word Games.

Going Numb ...

Well, I think I've reached the point where I can't come back to this blog. I'm going to have to put it to rest. I have a lot of writing to do at the day job, and my work load is only increasing with my blog for the paper and with fewer bodies to do more work there.

I started this blog as a kind of practice run, as you might know, and it helped me a lot. I enjoy writing about games, but I just don't have the time nor the motivation to sit down and write thoughtfully about things on a daily or nearly-daily basis. And that's the only way to do this, right? Reposting little news items from 1up or Kotaku was never my intention. Plus, the busy season for the game industry is coming up and trying to keep up with everything just seems pointless. I may post little stuff here and there, but honestly, unless I buy a new console or something and I just HAVE to write about it, I don't see that happening. I just need to cut it loose.

But here's what I do see happening: Sometime down the road I hope to have a more complete blog up and running. A place where I'll write about more general topics that interest me, a place where I can post pictures and video and where my family can keep up with what my wife and I are up to. I have a wide range of interests, and gaming will always be one of them. But I also want to write about music and pop culture as a whole, the news, politics, sports, what I'm reading, good conversations I've had, what I'm thinking. I also want it look slicker and more unique. I'm already sick of this ugly template, which millions of other bloggers have. So that means I need to do some homework on coding and all that good stuff.

When and if that day comes, I'll post a link. In the meantime, happy gaming.

Here we go, yo

Don't say games haven't done anything for culture.

The scenario: A Tribe Called Quest is reuniting for the 2K Sports Bounce Tour this fall, which will promote the basketball game "NBA 2K7." Dan the Automator's remix of Tribe's "Lyrics to Go" — from the group's 1993 album, Midnight Marauders — will be featured on the game's soundtrack. I could care less about the game, but I'd love to see ATCQ live. Check it.

Maybe I'm thinking too hard about this

So I finished New Super Mario Bros. for the DS the other day. It got me to thinking about game design, because this thing is so incredibly retro. In fact, it goes way beyond retro. It's rehash for the most part, even though it IS an entirely new game, built from the ground up. Nintendo is notorious for endlessly rehashing its classics, repackaging and overpricing them. So I guess they figured that they couldn't just re-release another old game, because they've already done it with just about every last one of them -- especially the Super Mario games. So they decide to program a game that takes everything cool about the 8- and 16-bit classics and channel it into a "new" experience.

Sort of. Despite the name, there's really not much new here. In fact, it's kind a step backward when you consider there's no feather/cape for flying, and the ability to become extra small and extra large are just gimicks (especially the large power-up; it's worthless). But it does do a pretty good job of evoking nostalgia, and the programmers pretty much nailed the gameplay that defines action titles in so many ways.

And that's what got me to thinking. If games are "evolving" and getting "better" then why the hell is this such a good game? And make no mistake, it is a good game as far as gameplay goes. But at the same time it kind of feels played out, right from the very first level. The seeming contraditcion is what's pissing me off. NSMB is the highest-scoring game, collectively, on any platform so far this year according to MetaCritic.com. Dan Hsu of EGM gave it a perfect score. So what does that tell you? That the best games were made more than 20 years ago? That the technology and new genres we usually think of as driving the industry forward mean squat? Are gamers of a certain age just nostalgic to a fault? (The 75 NES games sitting my entertainment center might say 'yes.')

Maybe I'm just thinking too hard about all this. After all, music goes in cycles and movies get remade all the time. But this is equivalent to a 20-year-old band coming out with a new album that sounds exactly like its debut, with new lyrics and a hip-hop beat thrown in for the kids. I guess that pleases die-hard fans in a way. But what does the fact that everyone is falling all over NSMB say about game criticism? What does the fact that it's selling so well say about gamers? If I like it so much, what's that say about me?

Loathing coin-ops in Las Vegas

It's been an interesting week for me, gaming-wise. I traded e-mails with Wired and New York Times tech writer Clive Thompson. 1UP news editor Luke Smith made his way to this blog via Technorati and was kind enough to leave a little feedback. I'm on my way to (hopefully) writing a freelance piece for a vintage gaming mag. And I finally scored comment rights at Kotaku, thanks to a generous chap from Helsinki, a message board and fortunate timing. So if you see 'Numb Thumb' in the comment threads there, well, that's me. Hopefully a few people will click through to this blog via Kotaku.

I also went to Vegas over the weekend. I did a some true Vegas gaming and came out ahead. I also dropped by the GameWorks mega-arcade run by Sega on the strip. Though I wasted a good hour and 20 bucks there, I was underwhelmed. We all know arcades are pretty much dead, but the games developers are pumping out just kind of ... suck. Dance Dance Revolution aside, they're all these simulation games with clunky, mechanical interfaces or worthless shooters like House of the Dead 4. The worst part about the sim games -- which have you hang gliding, skateboarding, snowboarding, mountain biking, etc -- are that after a few years of use, the control interfaces get worn out and turn to shit, and you end up wasting your money on a bunk experience.

I had the most fun playing stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom, Raiden, and Asteroids. That's what coin-ops should be: easy to get into, difficult to master, with sweet eye candy for good measure. When the only good new coin-op is Mario Kart GP -- essentially a GameCube title -- that's sad. Oh well; maybe I'm just reshashing the obvious here.

Off-beat gaming stories hit MSM

And not just local outlets, but big, respected, old-media bastions. Here are a pair of Wall Street Journal stories by tech reporter Nick Winger. The first isn't really a game story so much as a tech story that has implications for movies and games. It's about a new process for capturing the nuance of the face and body for digital animation, dreamed up by the guy who invented WebTV and sold it to Microsoft a decade ago, Steve Perlman. Perlman claims the new tech can span the "Uncanny Valley." We'll see, but it seems to have promise. My favorite part is the last graf:

"For the past several years, Mr. Perlman tried a hodgepodge of different methods to digitally capture faces, at one point using ultrasonic sounds to see if that would work (it didn't). He determined he could use phosphorescent makeup with $15 fluorescent light bulbs if he could blast enough electricity at the lights to get them to turn on instantly. He finally succeeded by using an electric starter for a barbecue."

The other is about professional videogame trainers, people who actually get paid to coach others in games. I'll have to admit it doesn't do much to put off the usual stereotypes, though:

"Messrs. Taylor and Estalote convened the class over the Internet within "Halo 2," each of them controlling gun-toting characters in space suits sprinting around a concrete fortress. For the next hour, Mr. Taylor showed his student how to improve his grenade-throwing, melee and strafing skills. "After all the lessons, he'll have insane improvement and he'll be unstoppable," said Mr. Taylor, a high-school dropout wearing baggy jeans, flip-flops and oversize sunglasses."

And there is this little nugget from Newsday, about the soaring popularity of Big Buck Hunter Pro, the shot-gun wielding arcade coin-op where you take down deer in the comfort of your neighborhood bar or Wal-Mart foyer. (Shout out to MoJoe for the link.) Only it's not Wal-Mart going yokels who love the game, it's urban nightlifers who would be lost in the woods without a cell phone. Apparently, it's appealing because it's so far removed from their element. I don't dispute that the game is selling well if the manufacturer says so, but I wonder if the writer isn't drawing the wrong conclusion based on local observation and extrapolation. Don't those games kind of suck anyway? I'll have to play the new version myself sometime to see what's up.

Extinct Entertainment Expo

I feel like I should blog a bit about this whole business of the demise of E3 as we know it, but only to say that I don't really much care. That's because I've never been, and probably never will go, to an E3. If it's getting too costly for publishers to take it on, then why should they bother? High development costs and tight timelines already translate into enough schlock games and missed deadlines anyway. If rushing a build for E3 means game journalists are playing sub-par demos, and giving the rest of us an incomplete or inaccurate impression of the game, then what purpose does that serve? If it's being overun by a bunch of goofy kids wearing "press" hats and precious little deoderant, then what's the point?

If I were a member of the gaming press right now, I'd be ecstatic. Get all the junk and losers out of there, and show us the goods. Fewer people, better builds, richer information. No disinfectant required. And if there are smaller but more numerous gaming expos held throughout the year around the world, then that's just more stuff for us geeks to pore over during the year.

The only thing I've really found to be cool are the vids from the Big Three press conferences. Perhaps something like that will continue, but with fewer people in the room.

Take Two off the hook?

Take-Two Interactive, parent company of Grand Theft Auto developer Rockstar Games, and the Federal Trade Commission announced today that the FTC has approved a consent order which closes the book on the government's prove into the Hot Coffee scandal. The two-paragraph release, linked here in Gaming Age, doesn't give much context. I'm not familiar with how these things progress and what the next step is, but it seems like a slap on the wrist to me.

From the release:

"All outstanding matters pending before the FTC have been settled and no penalties or fines have been assessed. Among other things, the Consent Order provides that the Company shall not misrepresent a video game's ratings or content descriptors and that the Company shall implement a system to ensure that all game content is reviewed in connection with submissions to ratings authorities."

Hmm. Will this bring about a real change in the way the ESRB reviews games for ratings and how publishers present information to the ESRB reviewers? I hope so. I know this is good news for gamers who think Rockstar and TTI have done nothing wrong but, like Dennis McCauley at GamePolitcs.com, I wish TTI would have at least had to publicly answer some tough questions about how it conducts its business.

Writers wallowing in self reflection

Maybe it's the slow summer release schedule, or maybe it's the heat, or maybe it's just that a bunch of game writers suddenly find themselves getting older and are looking back on their adult lives with pained hindsight (I hate it when I get that way), but there's an awful lot of chatter the Interweb lately about why game journalism, if you can really call it that, sucks.

This is not a new topic. It's almost as played out as the video game violence debate, only this debate takes place within smaller, geekier circles, and among people with common sense. I've written about it in this space a few times in the six short months I've been blogging (if you can call drinking rum-and-cokes while typing at midnight once a week "blogging"). The latest entry comes from Chris Buffa at GameDaily.com. His opinion piece "Why Videogame Journalism Sucks" is a pretty insightful look at the reasons why we can't seem to level up in this game of game writing. Most of the arguments aren't particularly new, but they are to the point, as presented here.

The culprits, according to Buffa: piss-poor writing, complete lack of voice, PR wears the pants, we can't go grow up as a culture, and there are no "star" writers whom readers can identify with and latch onto.

Good points. As far as writing and voice go, that's not something that can be taught. Perhaps I'm being stereotypical, but I can't imagine many game writers are going to bed with a good book or insightful magazine piece. They probably don't have the spare time given how many games they have to play through, especially reviewers. Look, writing is a bitch. I struggle with writing things that people will find interesting, insightful and readable every day at the newspaper. IMO, I fail or fall just short most of the time. The only thing that will improve writing is to read and write, and do so often. And as someone who is usually boxed into tiny pieces of white space real estate, I can say with authority that writing tiny little bits doesn't much improve one's way with the written word. I can't imagine that the pity form of most game mags and news sites aids the growth process much.

(BTW, you must click the link above to read the text of an actual review of Katamari Damacy. It's absolutely horrid. Laughable bad. It's especially funny for me right now because I recently got my copy of KD back from a friend and was trying to explain it to another friend. My quick description: You roll shit up into a ball. Lots of it. Start small, accumulate, get big. Really big.)

As for voice and "star" writers: I've said it before, give them a platform. At the very least the enthusaist press needs to clear some space for good writers to really write about games and why we play them. But for game journos to really break through they need a better platform than EGM or GI. This week Clive Thompson had a piece on serious games about real-life events for the New York Times. Cool. Keep it coming. Board by board and nail by nail the planks of the proper platforms are being laid. I think it just comes with the members of the gaming generation entering the board rooms and editorial staffs of the the MSM as time goes on. (Thompson also had a great response to Chuck Klosterman's "Lester Bangs" piece for Esquire about game criticism.)

Growing up: I don't how to fix this. Gaming is still largely a guy thing and probably will be for a long time to come. And as long as it guy- and youth-centered, you're going to get adolescent humor. Fart joke humor in game writing is as ubiquitous a crutch as the exploding barrel in game design: it's been a part of the landscape for so long that you almost expect to see it around every corner and with each page turn, waiting to assault your eyeballs with a useless blast of ignorance. My monkey post below notwithstanding (sorry), I wish it would go away. The Escapist is the best at emlininating it. More writers need to follow suit. Personally, I'd jump at a subscription to an ink-and-paper mag on the level of the Escapist or U.K. mag Edge.

The boss battle of this whole thing is the PR situation. Luke Smith of 1UP.com recently blogged about his tug of war with developer Square Enix, and stirred debate. I deal with this in my music writing to an extent, but seeing as I don't talk to many super stars, I don't run into much static. But big-name properties in which publishers have invested millions of dollars are different. I'm not in the gaming press, but judging from what I read the Podcasts I hear, it seems to me that the two problems areas are previews and reviews. Namely, if the writers don't give publishers what they like to see in those areas, they scale back on future availabilty and information. To hear Smith tell it, they don't really care much for the whole "information" thing anyway. Check out Stephen Totilo's piece today for MTV.com about the secretive nature of "Halo 3" development. Of course it's necessary to keep things under wraps, but it's clear to me that guys like Bungie's Frank O'Connor revel in playing the teaser game. I dunno; it just grates when me people get pleasure out of keeping others in the dark...

But don't game writers make far too much of previews anyway? I know the crux of game media is highlighting upcoming games, but why can't they wait until the games are closer to a final build before trumpting them? Why can't the editors help the writers show some semblence of restaint when talking these games up. Just tell us what it is, not why it's the next big thing. The absolute dead-giveaway of bad music writing is saying that a band the next big thing, or some variation of it. Anyone remember the Too Human cover story in EGM a couple of months ago? Within a few weeks, the E3 build of the game proved to be lackluster and the EGMers on the 1UP Podcast were backtracking saying the game wasn't that great. WTF?? Then why was it on the cover of EGfreakingM? Real journalists get taken to task for trumping up stories. If game writing wants to mature it has to think that way -- AND be held accountable by readers. Personally, I'm sick of the hype in game journalism.

As for reviews, let's get rid of the numbers. (!) I know, I know; that means gamers might have to take the time to read reviews and not just look at the score. It's such a crazy -- yet necessary -- idea, but I don't think there's anyone out there with the balls to really try it. No numbers, no stars, no letter grades, no thumbs up or down. Just write what you think. If you're a good writer, the game's strengths and weaknesses will be apparent.

"She's Still Playing! Go! Go! Go!"

If you have enough monkeys and give each a typewriter and enough time, the old theory goes, they'll eventually come up with Shakespeare, if only by chance. At the very least they could probably come up with a Will Ferrell movie. It can't be that freaking hard for God's sake.

But the point is this: the chimp brain, oh so very like our own, may be able to reproduce the work of The Bard, but they will never, ever be as good as you or I at Ms. Pac-Man. So take that you stinking ape. 99 percent genetically alike, huh? Looks like that one percent makes a difference now doesn't it, bitch? Doesn't it!?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

Of course, if I had some high school gym teacher telling me how to play the game over my shoulder, I'd probably screw up, too. Or bite her finger off.

My other question: why is that politicians spend so much time chiding people for liking video games, but when a chimp manages to last two minutes in Ms. Pac-Man it get hugged, slapped and high-fived like it's the greatest thing since hurled turds? Darn scientists and their wacky experiments ... You gotta love YouTube.