Last to Blame

Surfacing

2010-04-03T03:35:00.000-07:00

Man, am I tired. I've running ragged trying to adapt to living in Hong Kong, and I can tell you that it isn't easy. The pace to this city is frenetic, and it's hard to sit still even when you are dead tired; there's a hum to this city that buzzed incessantly. It drives people here such that they work until they drop, and then pick themselves up in the morning and do it all over again.

I've moved to a new place here, and you can check it all out over at juksingdou.wordpress.com. I must warn you: besides being all in Cantonese, it's all in badly worded Cantonese. It hurts even my own eyes to read, and I can't read Cantonese for the love of grace and glory.

It must make sense, somewhere and somehow. I hope the answers come sooner than at the end, when all the questions come true and the answers are answered. Anyways, I hope sometime to contribute something to this blog, but I am very busy studying. The difference will remain, however: lasttoblame will be for critical thought and juksingdou will be for personal development and reflection. And never the two shall meet.

竹升到來了！

2010-03-23T09:02:00.000-07:00

I must recommend this "blog" thing to all of you - it's great. It's difficult to describe in words the gratification one receives from the massive rush of endorphins seeing your own words in print on the internet. To take a weak jab at it, writing a blog is like being able to swathe and chisel through a massive bank of fluffy, white clouds on a bright, lazy day to write your own name just next to face of God in the sky above for everyone on Earth to read. And then, turn all the clouds to cocaine and snort it, using a Texas tornado as rolled up dollar bill (or, a twisty straw on the Mainland). It's that good.

Besides the inflated sense of ego, increased libido and energy, formication, paranoia as well as being caught in that syndrome where everything seems to be a good idea, maintaining a blog is a fantastic way to distract yourself from all the important things you have to do. This is the modern world, and there are rules. Besides letting your boss in on what your true daily work output is, once you become productive and accomplish something you'll have to fake doing stuff for the rest of the day. And, faking is hard to do with 5 minutes left until the whistle blows (say it with me: that's what she said).

I started this blog one year ago today, and to this point have made over forty posts; not bad considering I had it open for less than a month until I got shut down for the rest of the year. That's why I proud to announce I'm starting another blog.

http://juksingdou.wordpress.com/

Because now if I have nothing to say on one blog, I can always criticize the other one. Because now I can say,"Don't worry, my other one is a Porsche." Because using two blogs as two reflections of me, I can use them to help shave the back of my head. Because I heard having two blogs helps when the front of your pants fits too snugly. Because even if I'm lonely, I don't want my blogs to have to go through the same thing. Because even if I'm disarmed of my main blog, I'll have a back-up blog hidden in my boot for safety. Because with two strong blogs I can hug you better.

It is my new Cantonese blog. But better than the fact that it is new, or that it's in another language, is this: I don't speak Cantonese (well). Well, let's take the sino-ceros by the horn:

大家好！我希望你哋會鍾意我嘅新博客！雖然我嘅廣東話咪咁好，但係我想把呢個博客當做好機會幫我學粵語。

我諗吓每次寫啲文章可能會寫得好簡單嘅。其實，我係自學（口架），從來冇有真真上學讀書；細路仔嗰時學個幾年，但係冇學得好。

我希望大家會試吓，讀一讀，享受我寫啲字。當然，如果有問題，意見，或者糾正請大家通知我一聲！

Yes, it's Cantonese and not Standard Chinese, so 大陆人不会读的懂; too bad! Also, if you are reading this and all that pops up is a bunch of squares or other unintelligible symbols, then get hip quick and install a traditional Chinese font. Traditional is old school and old school = old skool which means ye aulde schoole of coolness, so get it and get hip and come see me on my new blog.

And full disclosure: if you like my writing but don't want the abstract thinking, wit, sarcasm and tirades against mediocrity but instead a more sedate me relating personal experiences and not opinions, this is for you (mom).

Frank Sinatra and Sid Vicious have one song in common

2010-03-21T23:42:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow, besides being a Tuesday and not having to bear the burden of being the Godawful first day of the week but neither can boast to be the middle of the week - a signifier that even if you haven't done anything your being alive has brought you closer to having a day off, is a special day. It will be the one year anniversary of the day I started this blog.

Now, I won't cry - not because my tear ducts were destroyed during my tour of 'Nam, but because when I do my body shakes in uncontrollable dry heaves and makes typing/blogging/complaining impossible, even though I shed no tears but still make a sad clown face but without the round nose and ominous overtones. And honking, too.

But, as I restart this blog after months of neglect after having to abandon it due to censorship controls, I'm really quite happy to know I'm continuing something I enjoyed back then, and still do now. It may prove to be irrelevant in a fast-food society with an appropriate concentration as well, but it's important to me.

Even though I may be wrong, and worse - not funny - it's great to have an outlet again. I can't say what I write is funny; sometimes I myself don't find it funny. I'm trying to make arguments and points that people just aren't interested in even if I had my requisite team of lawyers and experts behind me.

My blog has never been about yakking about my life, or promoting myself, or seeking the cause of celebrity. It can probably be said you can read my blog and have no idea who I am or what my favorite color is (blue). So why do it for the wrong reasons?

I'd argue it's reason enough to take a stand and try to make sense in a world and is constantly trying to make sense for you. I often dream up the most ridiculous arguments, and then try to prove them - even if I don't believe them - as an exercise in articulation.

The reason why is that as individuals that's basically all we have: our opinions and our beliefs. If we don't articulate them first these most personal defining characteristics are up for grabs by active forces who need your dollar, your vote, your attention, your love.

I've said this before: that money in your pocket isn't yours. It's spent already, as is your paycheck you haven't received yet. Your loyalty to brands and your idolization of material items deemed to be valuable make you working for them, not yourself. Your vote isn't yours if you vote for the status quo because you scared of the things that haven't happened rather than making the right choice for the right reasons; you're just voting that way along with the other electoral cattle because change is terrible and constant.

Is your love your own love? Or do we after a while heal over the wound where we've let in our significant other to the most vulnerable part of us? Does "love" before a custom thereafter, a series of compromises and fully delineated lines drawn across the battlefield, as it is since real love - like first love, true love - is a passion that burns and torments and can do nothing but hurt?

Okay, so I'm a cynic; but that's my point - I know I a cynic because I've articulated it myself. However, it is in articulating my doubts, my criticisms, my complaints that I've become hopeful in scanning into the future, my future, the unknown.

For me, it's okay to say "I don't know". I don't know a great many things, but it's not okay to say "I don't know because I won't think about it".

Maybe it's the artist in me who is trying to withstand the constant pressure to abide by outside influences. Maybe I'm just stubborn in thinking my personal untraveled difficult road is the only road for me. But as my life is my own, no one else will live it for me, so too are my responsibilities, my regrets, my dreams, my failures, and my beliefs and opinions.

I don't believe this is at all being arrogant to think we absolutely need to express ourselves; in fact, I think it's a humble stance to stand up to speak for yourself and shoulder the possibility of being wrong.

With that, I'd like to signal a slight objective shift for lasttoblame: from now on I'm going to include other topics besides video games. For one, I'd like to test how wrong I can be about everything else, but more to the point I've moved to Hong Kong and don't have a game system, TV, or a house to plug them into. Any new game non-reviews will be far off, though I've played so many (old)games to this point I will have lots to write about.

And so, a year older to add to my credibility, I happy to say I still haven't grown up. See you in the later posts.

Men are from Mars, Women are From Venus; As a Result Gigantic Intergalactic Bugs Invade Earth

2010-03-21T06:38:00.000-07:00

How Earth Defense Force 2017 Is Better Than Chocolate, Roses, and Chocolate Roses Laced With Cocaine, and Cocaine

It’s very difficult to love someone; in fact, loving someone is probably the hardest thing someone can do besides make art. Well, that is great art and not government-funded attempts to reconnect with your dad using coprophilia, even though the non-government-funded stuff does pretty well on its own without funding (..or so I have read).

We have to make decisions every day and if it doesn’t involve flipping a coin or entrails being outside where they shouldn’t be, that involves thinking. Now, we’re modern people; we don’t want to have to think more than our own fair share. So why would anyone want to influence their own sound and logical way of thinking by having it twisted and maligned by someone you’ve let into the most vulnerable part of yourself?

It’s great to be loved. It’s hard work to love someone. It’s so hard to do the right thing and suppress your pride and make sacrifices for the better of your relationship. It’s so hard to see things from someone else’s perspective when your emotions take control. It’s so hard not to take things personally from the one person who can break you because you love them.

Why do we love? Why go through all the trouble? Why can’t people just have sex? Bird and bees do it, and we even tell our kids about the results. Why must we have relationships?

The next time you are at a dinner party and it is attended by all married couples and you are single and thirty, then you know just how fictional Bridget Jones feels. What those people are doing is peer pressure: they aren’t urging you to get married because it’s so great – they are harassing you to get married so that you too meld with their collective unhappiness and bear the load by being a guilty participant. There’s a big difference between your single self and these people wedded in blissful union: while your conscience may or may not have an issue with lying, these married folk always have to be careful with what they say because their wedded partner has a stake in the presentation both of them present.

While you take the subway home, they take a trip that starts in a car that doesn’t stop at the driveway, the front door, or bed or the next twenty years or forty years. This is a trip that is built on dreams, guided by hope, and seemingly powered by nagging.

Love doesn’t have to be so difficult, however. Shared interests and beliefs is a mutual haven for reconciliation and inter-relational growth. Furthermore, shared experiences can be a common touchstone for both parties. For example, a great experience to share with your partner is shooting at a horde of gigantic bugs using over-sized dangerous weapons that exact massive collateral damage to the very city you are trying to protect.

Forget black lingerie and light S+M; Earth Defense Force 2017 is that marital aid you’ve looking for all your life.

Earth Defense Force 2017 will make your marriage all the more better, save you still do certain things like have sex once you turn off the TV. This is very important. Don’t say “I’m tired,” or “I rather keep playing and not have sex with you,” or “Again? Didn’t I have sex with you yesterday?” Earth Defense Force 2017 will make your marriage better, but it is you that will make your wife happy. It is but just a marital aide; it doesn’t remember anniversaries, take out the trash or cuddle.

That this game is a great game is besides the fact. Yes, it’s a great game. It is the best embodiment of arcade action, clear subtext and ridiculous suspension of disbelief that a video game has ever been graced with. Even the flaws of this game don’t detract from the experience but instead heighten it. Bad clipping and terrible game physics only remind you how much fun you are having playing it; in fact, these shortcomings only heighten the cheesy presentation and emphasize how you, the player, interact with this game by blowing everything up. Real. Good. That and it is well designed and balanced for replay; changing difficulty levels means shifting strategies that worked for easy levels but not for harder ones.

Don’t tell the wife that because that’s not important. No, what’s important is that you can do all this – together.

Earth Defence Force 2017 has a dual player mode besides the single player, and since this was back in the early days of the Xbox 360 it wasn’t criticized how it didn’t offer online play (in which everyone has to pay for their own copy of the game and game publishers smoke another cigar). Instead, the only option for two players was to sit side by side and watch a split screen down the middle. And because your buddies only have restricted access to your house, you should enlist the one constant available soldier; that, of course, is your "til death do us apart" contractual other half.

What starts out as an awkward silence while watching the load screen becomes a fantastic shared experience of game action glory. What could be listless spectacle becomes a reveling in victory due to the arcade demands of “satisfaction delivered only by success” as well as the downplay of the visual presentation; since we’re not distracted by the graphics we can fully absorb the gameplay and all the fun it provides. Now the two of you are "til frag do us apart until the next game".

It’s arcade action; it’s a language everyone speaks. It’s simple, it’s raw, it’s instantaneous with its challenge and reward system. You suck, you die, and you have fun while you master the skills necessary to beat the game. There’s no levers to pull nor doors to open and no subterranean secret military bass to storm/lost ancient city to explore/sewers with rats to level up with/nuclear power plant about to blow up. This isn’t rocket science, but instead deploys the science of rockets in a much more practical manner. This is just one step above Ms. Pac-Man, sure, but is also three unnecessary steps away from having to talk, I mean REALLY talk about your relationship and where you want it to go and what you expect out of it and let you explore the feelings that you have naturally repressed away since the very last time you had this talk in order to avoid having it yet again.

Earth Defense Force 2017 further delineates the role of husband and wife by letting a man do what he would do in reality: protect his loved one from the awful menace of insidious insects. While there are no jars to open in this game nor lost car keys to find, husbands can help strengthen their relationships with their wives by stepping metaphorically on bugs with rocket launchers.

The thematic strength of Earth Defense Force 2017 is that it takes an irrational fear and turns it rational and logical: of course you must kill these invading aliens, they deserve to die just like the bugs you find in your house – it’s you or them. They take the ordinary and then add the impossible – that spiders can jump, or that normal household insects can shoot goo – and then by enlarging it a thousand times over your darkest fears have spawned rational incentive to want to play this game: that is, because you’re obligated to roll up the newspaper of truth to swat at the legions of evil (because entrapping them in the upside-down disposable plastic cup of mercy with a jack of spades card of mutual existence to serve as the floor of their temporary jail doesn’t cut it).

This effectively cuts out the ominous overtones of “Starship Troopers” and the fascist leanings of doing something which is right for your self but not for others. While Verhoeven’s film was a great satire on the action film and Nazi propaganda, Earth Defense Force 2017 is basically you coming home at night and flicking on the light, over and over again but with suspension of disbelief and without having to flush away your war trophies.

So then allow me to regale you with the tale of my perfect date with the girl-fy and how we eschewed candlelight and roses to beat the last level “Starship” on Inferno level: (to have been read by a young Barry White in his prime in a lone mimosa grove, disused but not forgotten, at sunset whilst butterflies dance, the scent of mangoes linger and the laughter of children can be barely heard in the distance, evoking a strong reminiscence familiar only in the sleep of dreams) (and barring that I will take Keith David, a convertible, and a bottle of Jack Daniels)

I, equipped with dual Lysander Z sniper rifles, and she, with a similar Lysander Z and the mightiest FORK missile launcher available to one so innocent and pure, namely the X20, set out together on our date to see where fate and our love would take us. As she relayed her concerns to me her fears that I wasn’t serious in my love to her, we were beset on all sides by gigantic UFO’s dropping Walking Arms protected by Fliers. “I will explain everything, just trust me and give me time!” I shouted. “But first let’s split up, if just to complete different objectives and to be reunited in joyous rapture at a later time,” I said quickly to avoid long good-byes.

Wordlessly she nodded and unleashed volley after volley of automatically homing surface-to-air missiles. “Come back, I miss you already,” she cried. Using both Lysander Z’s I increased my rifle shooting time capacity and took down the UFO’s first and then the fliers thereafter, and looking back, grinned. However, in her I absence I felt a crushing lonely that only firing guns side by side could absolve. I had traveled a long way to destroy every Walking Arm, a far ways off from the original spot where we once held hands. However, my longing was drowned out by the massive gun being unsheathed from under the mother ship.

I cried, “Look, a massive gun threatening all humanity and obstructing our love for one another!” I steeled my resolve. “We must destroy it… to save Earth and allow our relationship to progress to the next level!”. With explicit instructions I humbly requested my beloved to retreat to the furthest corner of the map whilst unloading upon the massive gun and using the FORK missile launcher to take out the air support. “But don’t destroy until after I’ve killed every Walking Arm and returned to your side,” I pleaded. Then like the voice of a cherub I heard a light breeze whisper to me, “Then I will wait forever to the end of time, and longer if necessary.” Oh, rapture! Oh, delight! Our love is a tightly executed military operation!

After headshotting the final Walking Arm, as I sprinted across the barren urban landscape seeking the warm harbor of my beloved’s embrace as well as shooting the final sniper bullet into the massive cannon. A shot, a kiss, a bang and a crash… in time the sound of enemy forces abided and a chill spread through the pervading quiet.

With just me and her and the massive mothership above us, she confided, “You know, I never thought you were the committed type,” to which I answered, “I am as committed to loving you every moment the best I can as I am committed to making every explosion the biggest I can,” and then turned away, shocked at my own candor. She stepped up and took my hand in hers from behind and said, “I know. Every time a building gets knocked down there’s a little more room in my heart.”

Her confession was punctuated by a metallic clang seeking attention that only a loaded weapon can command. Our reprieve interrupted, we looked up and far in the distance, yet looming larger than life, the mother ship had transformed into its last and most formidable shape. Sprouting tremendous under-hanging arms from which a dizzying array of laser fire erupted, the mother ship hung in the sky, obtuse to us young, idealistic dreamers. Dozens of Fliers buzzed in the sky, underscoring the tension that awaited us.

She drew a breath and burst out, “Let this be it, our celebration of love through fire!” And so we did: two lovers, standing two abreast but enjoined in our hearts, discharging weapons in a frenzy, enthralled in each other but confronting the enemy, gritting our teeth but laughing through the joy.

Reckless. Driven. Exhilarated by amorous bliss, through the blizzard of chaos and in the eye of the storm I might have imagined through the corner of my eye a glint in hers that one only sees in diamonds and madmen. I say “might have imagined” because though I was so busy and distracted by this boss of all bosses in a show to end all shows, a spectacle of grandeur that dwarfs all that come before it and after, I know that glint doesn’t belong anywhere else; so even staring straight onto this most shuddering, humbling, awesome opposing force in my mind’s eye I can still see it, and there this eye winks back at me.

Wielding both Lysander Z’s I abandoned all modesty in ravishing my savagery upon each gun-arm as it revolved into range, as I did in training the untamed dogs of my white-hot rage onto the vulnerable pink exhaust port every time it exposed itself to view. My love used the FORK – X20 to unbridle her fury upon the Fliers, aggravating us with their distractions, and could only sporadically join in directing her primal passion during lulls in-between waves of Fliers.

Alas, it was not to be, my love and I and the victory of humankind. Grievous injuries I suffered, terrible unhealable mortal wounds, and with my hit points dropped to zero, I would soon succumb to the sweet darkness. Having fallen and between short breaths, I could only offer encouragement against the inscrutable deed still left before her to complete. “Go on…” I called feebly, “don’t stop, baby…” Only then did my beloved turn to me and became aware my defeated state. “No, I can’t,” she said, shocked, “I don’t want to finish this without you…” Her will broken, she ceased firing, her gun slackened at her side as the winds of war blew indifferently, first as a stiff gale that diminished to a numbed wind that listlessly dragged it feet along the ground.

However, somehow through the howl of death that same breeze which carried the same cherub as before graced me to send my whisper to my love. By no short definition, it was a miracle. “But you must – you have to kill the mother ship… to save all humankind… for us.” Her unwavering look led me to continue. “Do it then, for me.” Summoning all my nerve, I drew my ultimate breath. “Do it… so that … upon completing … the level… I can… get the... Genocide Gun…” And then, after that, the cherubs would have the breezes all to themselves.

Through the roar of weapon discharge and fiery explosion, there was a silence. And this silence was not heard, being silence, but it began in the heart of my beloved, was drawn out by the next breath she took after a single tear finally traversed the length of her face, and it became something that was heard on that battlefield, up on that mother ship in the sky above, and by the very gods beyond and away that both compel and astonish at the very human nature we are burdened with for all our brief lives, all of us who walk under the heavens.

“…….nnnNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo!!!”

The world could not continue as it always did. Slowing to a stuttering stop, time scattered, colors bled into each other and the hiss and boom of anarchy faded away to a muted dull thud where everything became an aching grey that blinded every sensation save that for the bloody taste for dire, dire vengeance.

Wanton. Livid. Intolerable, to the degree of cruelty, if that was permissible. It was a inescapable wrath of seething, biting brutal revenge that washed over all the battlefield to scorch and blacken even the dust to brittle glass.

And then, it was over. It was finally and at last over: the mother ship was defeated, the war is over, the Earth is saved! Bested, the mother ship finally gave up her long hidden secrets: namely, that of an extraordinary trance-inducing gory super-explosion of ocular wonderment. Indeed, the mother ship would blow up, and then blow up some more, and then some again, and then again, and then some more.

Her goal completed, my beloved turned to me and, out of breath, said, “We did it. Both of us. Our love prevailed,” and then lapsed back into quiet satisfaction, just drinking it all in but instead just swimming in the dizzy ocean that is completing Earth Defense Force 2017's “Starship” level on Inferno.

And with finishing the game and winning, the next day the two of us would begin the first day for the rest of our lives.

Played to completion (100%) on Inferno mode on the Xbox 360.
Rated 3 out of three stars.

Avatard

2010-03-15T09:05:00.000-07:00

You’ll have to excuse the lateness. Blogging is the fresh trend for self-important hipsters (I have read), and one of the very best features of blogging is how fast a new blog can be ‘published’ for prospective readers to read, printed fresh off the minting press and hawked by sad-looking newsies with puppy-dog eyes and suspenders hoisted high above their modern day relevancy. Well, today is different; besides the invention of belts, I have recently moved from one place in the world where blogs are not available for public consumption to a place where a politically-sanitized white-wash society has its hippest citizens also be its most vocally oppositional.

So, I’ll start writing this blog again.

After being quiet for so long I have had the need to pipe up about a few things, videogames or otherwise. So we have Avatar.

I had to see it. The choice had already been made for me. It’s like looking at cleavage or a compilation of compound leg fractures, you’re just drawn to it unconditionally. In this case, Avatar is the most pleasing three hours you’ll spend relaxing with other people forgetting what you just saw to make room for the next forgettable spectacle you will see. I promise you, I tried going in without any expectations and so I only got angry when I thought.

But when I think I get into trouble and then I ruin the whole experience, just the way it wasn’t meant to happen. Sorry, Avatards.

Look, tools are great. The wheel is something I use everyday. It helps me get to the store to buy my sliced bread. But Avatar is nothing but an emphasis on those tools such that those tools have become important of themselves rather than what those tools were trying to accomplish in the first place. That means that audiences who have been accustomed to these grand spectacles of flash without substance will lower their expectations so long as there is more amazing spectacle to see.

And that’s what Avatar is: purely an argument for the advancement of technology. I’m just like everybody else: I like my white clothes whiter and my uncanny artificial intelligence uncannier. At the end of Avatar when that spear was sticking out of that guy, I thought, “Good,” something I might not have thought if it wasn’t in 3D. But to bloat this technology up to 3 hours and call it a movie goes beyond a fart in an elevator; frankly, it’s just rude. Avatar should be 20 minutes long and be that awesome little flick you see while waiting for an elevator to take you somewhere high or low or far away. Avatar doesn’t need to have been made into a movie.

I know I should have said this months ago when I was living behind the harmonious veil; saying this now is saying this with the impunity of hindsight. But it isn’t like it’s too late, after all. Even though I saw it over two months ago, Avatar has become newsworthy again after being systematically dismantled by the tender mittens of “The Hurt Locker”. According to experts and the respect for authority that society has banked upon, Avatar’s next biggest competition at the Academy Awards was The Hurt Locker. Yes, for this year’s competition two nominated directors slept with each other (at least). It’s the kind of drama that our mainstream media knows how to hype to sell stories of their own. It’s the “King of the World” versus that director who couldn’t have made a more misogynist flick, “Strange Days” (1995).

I know I’ve been out of the blog game for two-thirds of a year, but man people, what have you been doing since I’ve been away? You have near universally acclaimed Avatar to be a “great” movie. I was fuming and rabid that such a boring movie could be so highly praised; I was a deserted blogger without his squeak toy to placate him. Ah, but now I can finally say: where is your “great” movie now?

The truth is, the Academy Awards have never really been about anything relevant in the past. Far too many truly great movies and movie talent gets passed over and ignored. The usual route is that audiences aren’t ready for the great stuff the first time around. It’s edgy. It’s confrontational and controversial. It smells funny. Instead, this “art” (if you will) can only be appreciated over the passage of time which dulls what was once edgy and poignant to be a safe fuzzy cube with no edges that is safe for the tamest palates and, very importantly, marketable.

Audiences will only recognize real talent when the audience is ready, and not when the talent deserves it. So, what you have is Martin Scorsese being passed over when he makes the best films of his life (Raging Bull, Goodfellas) but then finally gets rewarded for being an old white man when the other older whiter men have since passed on. Scorsese didn’t get awarded for making “The Departed”; no, he finally got rewarded for his life’s work when the Academy was good and ready for him.

[Full disclosure: I have not seen “The Departed”. Honestly, I don’t care to. I saw it the first time around in “Internal Affairs”, one of those “I can’t tell who’s a cop and who’s a crook, everybody is wearing black” HK movies. ]

By painting it this way, I am saying that such an outdated and irrelevant institution as the Academy Awards has served as a wake up call to gather praise to those who deserve it and take attention away from those who don’t. Gee, it doesn’t look so good right now for my argument that Avatar sucks and a naked Golden man who only has a long sword to hide his modesty has finally erected a pointed finger at the Emperor’s new clothes.

But perhaps the Academy Awards have changed, and for the better. In her acceptance speech Mo’Nique stated “I’d like to thank the Academy for finally awarding someone based on performance, and not for politics”. Perhaps at last the ‘old school’ mentality of paying your dues is done away with. But then maybe Mo’Nique won specifically because a black woman hasn’t won for awhile, and won’t win for awhile after that. Shine on you crazy diamond, welcome to the machine.

However, to continue this argument let’s consider this system to be sound. The Academy Awards are a true kitchen tile to test the spaghetti-tenderness of modern films. Jim Cameron would support this statement because he won big last time round. He’d say, “Look at all my awards! I’m a great filmmaker!” At this year’s awards even though he came up short he can still say “Look at all my awards!”

If I had to criticize Cameron for one thing (and it’s not like I have criticized him), it’s the fact that with Avatar he has basically collapsed the main thematic themes he has been working with all his career. By turning Avatar as the polar opposite of Aliens, he has dismantled and reused all the best parts of the latter to make the former less the sum of its parts. I mean, with Aliens Cameron originated the modern female action hero and with Avatar you have shallow portraits of chicks talking tough because they talk with hoarse voices (not that there’s anything wrong with hoarse voices). Dude, you’re ripping yourself off, and also doing it more poorly than other guys who have made their careers ripping you off.

In the end, the Academy Awards are still irrelevant to me. If Avatar did in fact win, and win big, I suppose I’d have to write a different blog. But, it’d be even funnier.

Access Denied

2009-12-27T10:53:00.000-08:00

My word. I start up a nice little blog talking about video games, and diligently post a new entry every day for about a month.. and then you get banned. Well, let's put it this way: in the country where I reside I am not allowed to access this webpage and other ones (I'm told). I'm able to put this up, half a year later, because I'm on vacation and went elsewhere for awhile.

I'd love to post more stuff up. I've played Earth Defense Force 2017 and GTA IV recently, and would love to write some more if just to add more sarcasm to the world, or just to get around this imposing ban that really just gets me down. Don't know if I can do so soon, so I would just like to thank any readers who somehow got blown over to this side of the internet and enjoyed my writing.

Hope to see you soon.

Welcome to the Video Game Review Wizard! (or how to say the same thing as everyone else and say nothing at all) [Good version]

2009-05-14T01:35:00.000-07:00

Video games are a fun experience that proves to be so immersive and moving to some that they are inspired to write about their experience and share it with the world at large. However, at times this task may seem daunting; how can we best describe such a life-changing experience? What words can we use to describe our epiphany and the beautiful, all-knowing face of God?

Here at Last to Blame, we've made a handy multiple choice quiz to help you write your review if words fail you. As a “Review Wizard”, the choices are laid out such that it shouldn’t matter what game you've played and enjoyed as every positive video game review on the internet basically reads the same. So, feel free to choose with reckless abandon!

1. The graphics are…
a) stunning.
b) top notch.
c) breath-taking.
d) state of the art.
e) crisp.
f) sharp.
g) spot on.
h) indescribable.
i) perfect.

2. The game environment…
a) is rich in detail.
b) is immersive and deep.
c) beautifully resembles a living, breathing world.
d) is just like being there in real life.

3. The music …
a) is stirring and moving.
b) is wonderfully composed, and utilizes the orchestra wonderfully.
c) does not detract from the game play.
d) is full of bleeps and bloops

4. The sound effects are…
a) okay. The shotgun gives off a satisfying boom.
b) okay. The snapping of necks gives off a satisfying snap.
c) okay. The collecting of coins gives off a satisfying “bling”.
d) nonexistent in this text-based adventure game.

5. The camera…
a) needs to be babysat.
b) is the right thumb stick.
c) shows a nice perspective of the heroine's buttocks from behind.
d) doesn’t show my feet in this first-person shooter.

6. The story…
a) is moving and emotionally deep and brought me to tears at certain points.
b) has memorable characters that stay with you long after the game is over.
c) is full of plot twists that will keep you guessing until the very end.
d) is a complex tale of love, loss and betrayal that will keep you at the edge of your seat until the final boss confrontation.
e) SPOILER ALERT! A main character who is not the hero dies/a secondary character betrays you/Bruce Willis is a ghost.
f) made me cry and realize that we are all just people who deep down need to be loved.

7. The game play…
a) provides non-stop action.
b) is full of thrill-a-plenty moments.
c) is an orgy of gore and violence.
d) is addictive and fun.
e) is a visceral and immersive experience that makes you believe you are really there.

8. The voice acting…
a) is cheesy and annoying. (Japanese releases ie. Namco)
b) has Ron Pearlman/someone who sounds like Ron Pearlman talking in a low, raspy voice.
c) is great for all the characters, except the protagonist, who is silent.
d) is used to demonstrate dialogue between the characters.

9. This game is…
f) the best game evar. (sp., but “evar” encapsulates your feeling better than “ever”)
g) The best game of all time.
h) The best thing next to sex.
i) God.
j) At least worth a rental.

If you get stuck, these are things you can say at any time in any review safely and (almost) never be proven wrong:
a) If you are a fan of the series/genre then this game is for you.
b) This is the latest newest game to be released in the franchise.
c) However, that's my humble opinion/just my own two cents/the way I see it, and you may find things differently.
d) This game can, at the very least, take up 5 minutes of your time.
e) This game has a boring tutorial in the beginning.
f) This game is worse than the movie it is licenced from.
g) (if the game doesn’t have online multiplayer) This game needs online multiplayer.
h) (if the game has online multiplayer) This game is full of douche bags online.
i) The crossbow is the coolest weapon.
j) This game is good, but could use more ninjas/gigantic battling robots/Nazis/gigantic breasts/blood/.
k) At least worth a rental if you're not too busy masturbating.

As this is a positive review score this 10 out of a possible 10, write the words “must buy” at the end and then post it somewhere. You’re done! You’ve managed to say something without actually saying anything at all; welcome to the internet!

COMING SOON: Welcome to the Video Game Review Wizard [Bad Version] in which we become creative and use metaphors involving one’s own testicles! Stay tuned!

Attention: Oprah Winfrey

2009-05-12T22:36:00.000-07:00

I've figured it out. I was washing the dishes and lamenting the toll upon my graceful, supple hands and about to whisper, "Calgon, take me away!" when it hit me. I know the method by which video games can reach international prominence as a respectable art form worthy of unaminous acceptance and intellectual debate.

We need to get on Oprah.

You see, "The Oprah Winfrey Show", as it was once called, is a big deal. A really big deal because Oprah is a big deal; when Oprah nods her head, at least 50 million US women nod their heads as well. Likewise, when Oprah refutes a guest with "Oh, really?" you might as well burn all your business cards - no one will ever hire you again; when Ophrah found out an author had fabricated parts of a non-fiction book, she dragged him on the show and wrung a public apology from him, and his corpse was never seen again.

Maybe I'm exaggerating things here but if Oprah said, "We need to go to the planet Mars - next year," President Obama would make it happen. Why? Because these 50 million US women would tell their husbands, and husbands are people who would rather write their congressman than take out the trash.

Video games have often been in the news, but it has always been sensational, alarmist fear-mongering: video games are corrupting our youth, video games teach people how to shoot guns, or video games are pornography and a mental health addiction. This would be worthy of Maury Povich or the old Ricki Lake ("Which MMO-gamer is my baby's daddy?"), but we need acceptance and praise. We need someone like Oprah to say, "Wow, I had no idea this issue was so deep," and then cradle her head with her arm propped on the couch and listen, and nod, nod, nod.

What video games need it to get on Oprah's Book Club.

This sounds fantastical: Dan Houser isn't going to go on Oprah and talk about Niko Bellic as a complex man who has to face vast, moral issues; neither is Oprah going to summarize with, "Okay: who did say are the boss characters in this version of MegaMan?" However, let's face it: whatever Oprah touches turns to gold. If she likes you or your book, movie or product you can be sure you will be eat fois gras caviar hamburgers before the end of the year.

The inception of video games into the Book Club is important because of what the Book Club means: high art meant to be consumed for intellectual discourse. When a book makes it into the Book Club, not only does it help propel sales but also through Oprah's approval it means that this book is important, it's fascinating, it's art.

Here's how I came around to concocting this scheme: a while ago, my girlfriend recommended me the book "The Time Traveller's Wife", perhaps because the sci-fi element would interest me, or perhaps because she knows this book can affect me as it did her friend Ted, a man - who cried. For whatever reason and not wanting to cry, I didn't read it.

Earlier this year, I heard that this book was going to be released as a Hollywood movie; my immediate thought was panic, as I have resolved ever since "The English Patient" not to let a Hollywood movie come out before I had read the novel (we intellectuals have hubris; we are intellectuals, after all). To immediately spur my need to read this book and have a good cry in the tub surrounded by scented candles, I found out that "The Time Traveller's Wife" was going to be the topic in next month's local Book Club. (I can already see into the future and report that it will be disasterous, but I'll tell you how it goes after it happens)

So, I'm reading furiously with all the intensity that befits me, a hardcore gamer-cum-literature enthusiast, when I flip to the back of the book (it's a kind of "time travel") when I find to my bemusement that there is a section of questions written out for book club discussion. I tell you, I "lol-ed" at that; you mean to tell me that people are reading this book just to have the satisfaction of attending book clubs? What hypocrites!

Honestly, I can't think of another book that comes pre-packaged with questions so that a gathering of would-be book intelligensi wouldn't have nothing to talk about and just blink at each other. Are we so passive a critical audience that we wouldn't know what to talk about? What about a literary round-table of "Wasn't it cool when...?"

So far, the book is pretty cool, but I can tell the emo-gasm is going to come down hard like the Hammer of Dawn; by putting the chronology of the story through the perspective of Clare growing up, we can see this is a mediation into the importance of the present, and about a Buddhist-type concept of having to undergo the same trials again and again until you get it right, like the cycle of life and transcending reincarnation and achieving nirvana. But don't worry about me: I have a box of tissues ready.

To take us to the present, I was washing the dishes and lamenting my hands when BOOM! It hit me. Oprah. Give us your seal of approval and get video games out of the endless cycle of toys-made-for-children as well as video-gamers-who-behave-like-children. Also, make it the "Video Game Book Club"; we need a literary reference or else everyone will mistake it for a online fragfest rather than the jostling of intellectual ideas that it needs to be.

So, in the effort to kick-start video game book clubs across the world, I have compiled a list of questions to help get you started.

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas
* How does CIA spook Mike Torino factor into Carl Johnson's life as a father figure? How does the placation of "Don't worry, you'll be back in no time for a blowjob and a baloney sandwich," affect CJ when coming from such a figure? How literal/metaphorical is this statement?

Half-Life/Half-Life 2
* How does Gordon Freeman's role as a silent protagonist affect his status as "the everyday" man, a person the average video gamer can relate with? Conversely, how does it belie his status as a scientist and otherwise brilliant man who can only now express himself of thought and feeling with a crowbar?

Space Invaders
* Space Invaders is a classic arcade game that has defined every video game ever made: a game where endless waves of cloned enemies are dispatched with again and again, all by exhibiting an awareness or artificial intelligence that doesn't befit their dangerousness. Discuss.

Final Fantasy and every JRPG ever made as well as the Metal Gear Solid series
* The plot and story are so convoluted with twists, surprises, betrayals and shocks because a sense of overwhelming and perplexity makes it easier to see something we don't completely understand with an air of awe and respect. Discuss.

Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty and other online muliplayer shooters:
* Does fragging your same-sex friend and then celebrating your victory by tea-bagging your crotch in their vanquished faces denote a socially acceptable way to express my homosexual tendancies in an otherwise homophobic world? Is tea-bagging a safe practice that won't set off one's "gay pull-cord" and enact full-on flaming homosexuality?

That's enough for now. But you, Oprah: have your people call my people and they'll do lunch together. We need to talk.

Commentary: Rapelay and the Globalization of Self-Righteousness

2009-05-12T00:14:00.000-07:00

I was watching satellite TV last night, and it was eye opening since I hadn't watched Western TV for a long time. After such a long absence, it was like watching TV for the first time; my eyes were rubbed raw by the Western bias of mainstream television. It hurt, it stunned me.

After watching a bit of CNN and noticing after ten minutes that cable news was still in the same format of spinning the same stories again and again so that in one hour you learn nothing you couldn't have learned in five minutes, I switched to the Discovery channel. Immediately I saw an advertisement for an upcoming show, "Profiling a Serial Murderer" and I blurted out loud: "This channel should be called 'Discover Fear' channel," and I was shocked by my observation.

The Discovery channel, CNN and every other mainstream media all want you to watch and follow their own channels, and they will attract you and interest you with fear. To accentuate my point, another upcoming show on the Discovery channel is "World's Greatest Disasters"; this show and the serial killer one are inherently watchable because people want to know what to be scared of.

That's how "Rapelay" (2006), a Japanese eroge game made by Illusion Software, has come into global prominence recently - for being something new to be fearful of. Nevermind the fact that this game was made three years ago and by Japanese law is not legally for sale internationally; this game has made the rounds lately on media outlets around the world alarming people to this new insidious threat that they now must be vigilant against.

Rapelay is pornography of the lewdest and most perverse kind; that it be pornography in the medium of video games is most alarming to those with the stereotype that video games are still just for children, despite being an bigger industry than movies and having a main demographic of adults over 30. Nonetheless, Rapelay is immoral and deplorable: it is a video game that tells the story of a man's domination and cruelty over a family of women whom he rapes repeatedly into submission.

As depraved as Rapelay is, it still is in essence what all pornography is: a fantasy. Charges that Rapelay acts as a "rape-simulator" are about as groundless as charges that a Grand Theft Auto game acts as a "crime simulator", teaching children with parents that allow them to play such a game how to carjack a car or beat up hookers. If video games teach the respective in-game skills to the people that play them, then the world would be full of children trained to be special ops commandos with formidable hand to hand combat skills and proficient in small and large arms weaponry as well as being able to pilot jet planes and space craft.

Rapelay is a game, and as such with a push of a button or move of the mouse can enable you to experience things that you would not normally be able to do, just like a Grand Theft Auto game or any other game. In fact, this is the main selling point of video games to many that play them; never would we get to throw the winning pass in a Superbowl game, save the universe or time travel to the distant future. Rapelay follows this very same concept, only that it allows players to victimize virtual people by raping them rather than the more acceptable behavior of fragging your friend with a head shot in Call of Duty 4 and celebrating with a teabagging.

Rapelay is a deplorable and depraved game; any defense of the game in terms of free speech, artistic expression and the pursuit of fantasy has to accept this fact. Rapelay is misogynistic and especially cruel; to enjoy this game is to actively delight in the suffering of others. To like Rapelay is also liking to be sadistic and vicious.

However, to the contrary of what the western media would have you believe and fear that which you do not know, Rapelay is not your concern. Instead, the western media shouldn't impose our western values upon other cultures; in this case, its upon Japanese eroge culture (or hentai or whatever you call it).

To western culture and sensibilities, Rapelay is reprehensible and morally wrong. To the typical Japanese person, it likely is as well; its not unreasonable to think that the average Japanese person is morally sound and wouldn't condone a video game that celebrates rape culture. However, there is a difference here: Japanese people live in Japan. Other people don't - they live somewhere else, obviously. Therefore, while as citizens of the world we should be knowledgeable and aware of other cultures, we shouldn't we so quick to pass judgement on these cultures by using values of our own respective cultures.

It's so easy to ostracize other cultures, and in this case the culture of Japan. It's well publicized in the West the nonsensical excess and absurdity of Japanese culture: women's panties sold in vending machines, schoolgirl fetishes, tentacle porn - these and more cultural oddities have Westerners laughing with ridicule at such foolishness, saying with scorn "only in Japan".

While globalization of the world in the internet age has made the world a smaller place, it has made the world a less tolerable one. When peering in on an outside culture and judging it to be improper, we "think locally, act globally" and improperly impose our values on another culture. While we may rightly see Rapelay as misogynist and celebrate violence against women, we shouldn't condemn it as a blight upon Japanese culture and involve ourselves in what is the domestic issue of another country.

Consider this: the act of female genital mutilation is a horrific act of brutality wherein the gentailia of a young girl is removed. Not at all analogous to male circumcision, female genital mutilation is a oppressive act that subjugates women and denies them their sexuality. The world community has gotten involved in stopping female genital mutilation through the UN, who among other practices and measures have declared February 6 "Internation Day Against Female Genital Mutilation".

The point here is that it is through the activitism of members of the cultures that practice this horrible act that have influenced change, and in fact should remain the spear-headers on these issues. While the world should aid when help is asked for, this remains an issue that has to change from within the culture that affect it.

I remember watching on the news a conference in which a beautiful model revealed that she is a victim of female genital mutilation; it was her hope in telling her sad story that she could shine a light upon this issue and hopefully impact change. This is the same type of action required of Rapelay if there is any action to be done: it needs to be started internally, and spearheaded by these same people. In the current case of Rapelay in the news, this is not at all the case. Instead, we have the western media shining a spotlight into someone else's backyard to promote unnecessary fear mongering.

That said, the real issue of Rapelay in the news being sold over Amazon.com is that parents still can't police their own children and control what games they play; instead, these same people look to the help of the government and others to help raise their children. The issue of Rapelay for the west should instead be, "how to keep adult and otherwise harmful materials out of the reach of minors"; with all the copies sold on Amazon being illegal and not sanctioned by the Japanese government, the country of Japan is doing their part. We should respect another culture to take care of its own domestic problems, rather than impose our judgement and will over that which we consider improper.

Rapelay is filth. Rapelay is degenerate pornography. Rapelay is also none of the west's problem. If the west finds this unsuitable, then it should be noted that many of the inherent freedoms and liberties that the west enjoys are seen with reprehension and disgust by some cultures. Some cultures find the liberalization of women in opinion and sexual expression and independence to be completely unacceptable. Similarily, they may find the acceptance of homosexuals and lesbians to be an abomination, just as they do the availibility of pornography, illegal drugs and casual sex. To some, the west is morally decadent and needs to be cleaned up.

Let's consider democracy. A country like the United States considers democracy a central tenet to life - in fact, New Hampshire licence plates all read "Live Free or Die". Americans, to put it mildly, love democracy. The United States, to put it mildly again, have started wars and invaded countries with the "proliferation of democracy" as a main reason.

To that, US citizens look upon other countries and their citizens with pity if they are not democratic; for instance, Cuba. However, if democracy is going to come to Cuba, it should be of mitigating internal factors and not something akin to a forced military incursion; this is because no matter what you think, what matters to other people is what they want. It sounds simple, and so it should be similarly simple to follow except that the peoples of the world do share something in common: we all have a ego-centric world view - we all think we are all right.

It's worth noting that license plate doesn't read "Live Free or Kill Them"; while this seems to be the case for Iraq, I don't see this being true anytime with a war between Cuba and the US.

Rapelay is morally repugnant decadent pornography made by Japan. So, let Japan deal with it.

Commentary: Duke Nukem Forever and Schadenfreude

2009-05-10T20:00:00.000-07:00

The Rolling Stones are a group of redundant has-beens that have been smart enough to capitalize on the cultural black hole left in the hearts of middle-aged Westerners with a surplus of cash and a forfeit of happiness. By managing to stay in the public eye for so long as well as not being dead, the Rolling Stones have secured their place as the cultural icons for a demographic that keeps itself young by having plastic surgery and extra-marital affairs as well as buying thousand-dollar Rolling Stones paraphernalia like Rolling Stones leather jackets at live concerts with aid of the many ATMs specially trucked in for that purpose.

However, the Rolling Stones weren't always the status quo - in fact, they became today's status quo by being yesterday's rebellious youthful voice of dissent. The risque lyrics of "Let's Spend the Night Together" were asked to be changed to "Let's Spend Some Time Together" on the Ed Sullivan Show (and not complied with). The early marketing of the band as unkempt, wayward rogues in response to the clean cut image of the Beatles proved to be true as the Rolling Stones garnered an infamous reputation for heavy recreational drug use. These guys were rock and roll: they lived fast and hard and antagonized the status quo with songs about three chords and the truth.

And rock the establishment they did. On 1968's "Beggar's Banquet" album, the Rolling Stones suggested in the song "Sympathy for the Devil": "Who killed the Kennedys? ..after all, it was you and me." "Me" suggesting the devil incarnate, and "you" as in everybody. Not five years after the shocking assassination of President John F. Kennedy that arguably had a greater impact upon citizens of the US than the event of 9/11 as well as the very same year of the assassination of Presidential Democratic candidate Robert F. Kennedy did this song come out. Once again, this song claimed that everybody was complicit in their deaths; even though you did not pull the trigger, you sanctioned such a horrible deed by being the person you are.

Beggar's Banquet would become a platinum selling album and become part of the Rolling Stones' iconic discography. But how would they get away with criticizing everyone and casting blame on a public who would just as soon feign indifference and ignorance to such accusations?

Because it's true. We are all to blame. This observation of the human condition would be often quoted everywhere in this cult classic Stones song; listeners love this song for this line - they identify with it. We can see this same human condition in the latest video game sensationalist news: Who killed Duke Nukem Forever? ..it was you and me.

3D Realms announced on May 6th of this year that they were shutting down and closing down the company. 3D Realms is best known for the development of "Duke Nukem Forever" and the plethora of delays incurred during this developmentto make it a video game industry joke, called derisively as "Duke Nukem Taking Forever" or "DNF - Did Not Finish". Announced on April 28, 1997, Duke Nukem Forever would be teased for impending release in the near future only to change physic engines and suffer set back and further delays; that this would happen again and again for an amazing twelve years would put Duke Nukem Forever on vaporware award lists at the end of years for web magazines like Wired, be retired from consideration by being placed in a "Vaporware Hall of Fame", and then make it back onto the active list by teasing an impending release.

This happened again and again; twelve years is a long time, especially in the fast paced and ever changing world of technology. Gamers couldn't believe the exorbitant length of time required to finish this game. Delays of video games mean only one thing to expectant gamers: if I have to wait for it, then the wait better be worth it. It's strange that this need of gamers to have and play the newest and most advanced games doesn't comply with the patience logically required to wait for such games, but then video gamers are a victim and beneficiary to that monster they alone feed and nurture: hype.

Game makers and developers often circulate news and previews of their games to institute a basis for interest for their product; that said, some game developers are guilty of manufacturing hype of sky high proportions that they can't possibly live up to. Ads for "Daikatana" (2000) infamously state, "John Romero's About to Make You His Bitch." as well as the tagline, "Suck it Down." Peter Molyneux famously touted astounding features of "Fable" to an eager public only to later publicly apologize for promoting things that never made it to the finished product. "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" (1982) was not able to sell much of its purported five to six million games despite its licencing to the biggest movie of that year, and urban legend states that many of the unsold games were buried in a New Mexico landfill.

All three of these examples are cases where the game developer or company overreaches its publicity and attention-grabbing, only to suffer a public shaming due to their own hubris. As common people, we all enjoy the sight of the arrogent and conceited receiving the retribution that is deserving of them. It seems that those with pride "live by the sword, and die by the sword", and as such it is fitting that they fall so hard because they built themselves up so high.

However, this type of hype isn't the case for 3D Realms and Duke Nukem Forever. Instead of making any brash proclamations (and actually had a blanket statement of "When it's done, it's done,") 3D Realms sinned grievously in the public eye by teasing the public with an announcement or a preview, and then retracting this "prize" from gamers by issuing yet another delay. In the case of Duke Nukem Forever, this back and forth teasing of the public lasted for twelve years. Twelve long years; that's more than the time it took from Barack Obama's first election as an Illinois senator to his inauguration as President of the USA.

The excessive amount of waiting for this game created hype of massive proportions. As gamers react with emotional vindication to games they feel have had unwarranted waiting periods or unneccessary hype, the backlash against Duke Nukem Forever would be massive. As it turns out with the folding of 3D Realms, it is likely that none of us will ever actually get to play Duke Nukem Forever unless publisher Take Two can wrestle away the source code and give it to another developer who can finally finish this game. That means that all this waiting, all of this expectation and hype has been for nothing.

The jokes at the expense of Duke Nukem Forever can be best seen at duke.a-13.net/, where the entire chronology of the Duke Nukem Forever development saga is further illustrated by a list of things that happened during the time it took to develop Duke Nukem Forever in the twelve years from April 28, 1997 and May 6, 2009. That this list is entirely too long is completely the point: in the most obvious geek behavior allowed to nerds everywhere with an internet connection, Wikipedia was scoured to the dregs to provide a pedantic yet humorous list that really just says one thing: you took too damn long, 3D Realms.

However, as we peer between the lines of this geek outpouring of love of facts and data, we see that there is a definite underlying emotion here: schadenfreude. Defined by little Lisa Simpson as "German for 'shameful joy'", schadenfreude is basically feeling happy at other people's misfortune. Gamers have it in spades for 3D Realms for taking such a long time with Duke Nukem Forever.

But why do we feel such schadenfreude for? The real ramifications of this is that people are losing their jobs - we should feel good over that?

3D Realms took a monumental amount of time to develop Duke Nukem Forever, and obviously spent a whole lot of money that will never be recouped if this game is never finished and sold. This is not your money nor do you have any stake in this, save emotionally, and therein lies the problem of video gamers and trying to cater to these people.

3D Realms, you deserve to fail miserably in the opinion of video gamers because they have invested in your game already - in hope. From playing previous versions of Duke Nukem, gamers had a pre-visualized idea of the joy and fulfilment that a new Duke Nukem game will bring them and were banking on you to rekindle these fabulous memories of kickassery and cool. You tortured gamers with your unexpectant and unreasonable delays - and gamers wanted revenge.

This is the culture and world view of video gamers: one of a double-edge sword of hype that is created by gamers to artificially increase the emotional investment at stake with these games. That video games often provide an immersive, emotional experience that gamers want to replicate over and over again sets the stage for the way gamers await new, promising experiences.

The schadenfreude of the failure of Duke Nukem Forever is indicative of the detachment from responsibility video gamers feel about the culture they take part in. While many gamers complain over and over again about issues big and small, like the retail value of downloadable content or the lack of integrity to mainstream video game journalism, it isn't very often that such an apathetic crowd who is content to remain languid and indifferent would do something to affect change.

The culture of video games is one of consumption, not creativity. We don't want to make video games, we only want to play them. However, we don't want to hear about how hard it is to make a game but rather we will complain about every tiny detail if it doesn't measure up to the miraculous first-time playthrough of "The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time" (1998). We want every new game to be better than the last, and we want this game to give us joy, happiness, and fulfilment.

It's no wonder in this kind of social climate that Duke Nukem Forever failed; we all wanted it to fail. While there are many reasons for a company to close in the current depression (ie. "economic downturn/crisis/euphenism"), there was never any hope for this game to succeed in light of the massive hype built up before it.

Who killed Duke Nukem Forever? After all, it was you and me.

Analysis: State of Emergency and Amorality

2009-05-10T00:12:00.000-07:00

White cowboy hats versus black cowboy hats; white Kung fu gis versus black kung fu gis; white knight armor versus black knight armor - it's every traditional story you've ever read or seen that details the struggle of good over evil. And because these are traditional stories, the hero in white always wins in the end over the villian in black. This is because the term "traditional" could be exchanged with the term "moral" without any negative repercussions - a traditional story is a moral story where good always prevails in the end.

However, that's traditional storytelling. Nowadays in the current social climate of cynicism and aspirational apathy, traditional storytelling with a moral bent isn't welcomed by a public that doesn't relate to princesses trapped in castles or saving the world from utter annihilation of the world. Instead we eagerly follow stories that celebrate the life and accomplishments of criminals and sociopaths.

This is an anti-hero: a hero of a story that doesn't embody the usually qualities and trait we associate with a hero. The origins of the anti-hero go back far in literature, seen in Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus" and Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and "Othello". Still, it's significant to note that a character like Bob Kane's Batman is more regarded by our contemporary society as a hero than as an anti-hero; whereas back during the first years of his inception Batman paled in comparison to his contempories by being obsessive, dark and gritty, these days an audience won't accept a hero aligned with traditional heroic qualities: unselfishness, transparency, infallible integrity, and the adherence to definite moral boundaries.

However, the more savvy and aware we are to a world that exists without moral boundaries, the more we require our heroes to follow suit. That's why the anti-heroes that exist nowadays are each a mere breath away from being villians themselves. These are characters that are immoral: they perform actions and duties they know are wrong, but do them nonetheless to suit their personal needs and goals. In video games we have protagonists like Kratos in "God of War" (2005) who gladly sacrifices an innocent soldier to appease the angry gods and overcome an impassible obstruction; we also have the protagonists of the "Grand Theft Auto" games who each start out as a lowly thug who work their way up the criminal hierarchy by committing crimes and misdemeanours; furthermore we have "Conan" (2009) who pillages villages and loots treasure who goes on a murderous quest to satiate his own greed and lust rather than any ideal of goodness and morality.

This continuing trend has devalued our heroes into anti-heroes and our anti-heroes into nothing more than villians who perform good deeds. From the embedding of this literary trend, there isn't much room for the tragic hero, a hero with a major flaw, since audience want gritty, realistic heroes of dubious integrity to replicate the same ambiguousness in real life.

Indeed, this sliding trend as seen in video games has our anti-heroes performing immoral behavior. However, this isn't the end as there is still yet another "bottom" to exploit: that of amoral behavior.

Amorality is neither moral or immoral behavior; rather, it the absence of either. Amoral behavior recognizes neither good nor evil; an example of this is the amoral behavior of a child who can't yet differentiate between right or wrong, as does someone who is legally insane.

The legitimate advancement of amorality has been debated by philosophers ever since Socrates. Machiavelli's "The Prince" advocated the rule of force over the rule of law, and eschewed ethics and morality to maintaining the ruling status quo. The Marquis de Sade advocated amoralist egoism and posited that virtues leads to failure, whereas vices lead to success. Nietzsche railed against the "master-slave morality" in which religions like Christianity hypocritically preach love and forgiveness yet at the same time condemn unbelievers of said religion, and urged a re-examination of all morals.

I suppose the opinion of whether or not amorality is positive among philosophers is like asking two economists whether or not the economy is doing well or not. However, video games are breaking new literary ground by offering amoral video games.

That's right: there are amoral video games. They don't know the difference between right and wrong. There is no good, and no evil. You could even argue that they've been around for awhile: "Pac-Man" (1980) has a hero and and nemeses for the hero, but in the absence of a story its unclear who is good and who is evil (unless its argued Pac-Man is good because you are good).

Similarly, "Berzerk" (1980) had you facing off screen after screen of killer robots and the indestructable arch-nemesis, Evil Otto. However, besides the name nothing indicates the morality of either side; even though like Pac-Man it is commonly inferred that your character is good, the robots say "Stop the intruder!" meaning that you have trespassed upon their area and are only defending themselves. The aggressive, homocidal behavior of the robots can be attributed to their need to revenge their fallen comrades. In Berzerk, it's a clear case of both sides trying to defend themselves - which means the fault will fall to the transgressor: you.

However, these two examples are early arcade games that offered lots of fun and game play but little in terms of exposition; in fact, these games lack the platform from which to make any real judgement to its state of morality. Modern games have either been moral, or moral stories featuring an anti-hero or immoral like "Manhunt" (2004) or "Postal" (1997). That's where "State of Emergency" (2002) by VIS Entertainment and published by Take-Two comes in and fills the void.

State of Emergency is a third person beat' em up action game that has a new venue for a playfield: a riot. The story has the player taking part in an armed uprising against the "Corporation", fighting security guards, police, a riot team, the army and even sympathetic vigilantes as you complete objectives and try to obtain a high score.

State of Emergency suffered a backlash from video gamers who bought into the hype that this was another Grand Theft Auto game, considering that Rockstar, the maker of both games, had released "Grand Theft Auto III" a year previous. Gamers complained they couldn't aim weapons, carjack cars and that the levels were too small. However, that's the point: State of Emergency is a fast-paced action game, and not the open world sandbox game of GTA III. You couldn't aim weapons because that took too long, and the levels were small to accomodate the fast action and the numerous objectives that needed to be completed in short time. Unfortunately, State of Emergency never got the proper accolades it should have for being what it is: a fun, old-school game.

Being a Rockstar game, everyone could be reassured that there would be a level of controversy that has permeated every Rockstar game (except "Rockstar Presents Table Tennis" (2006)). Other Rockstar games were notable for its use of violence, sex, drugs and foul language, but State of Emergency was controversial for depicting a riot as being a fun environment to play in, having you kill both people of authority as well as innocents running around and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

State of Emergency allowed you to do many immoral activities; this isn't a video game you should recommend at your next PTA meeting, nor at your local law enforcement charity bingo fundraiser. Shooting cops and blowing up blameless bystanders sounds pretty immoral and evil until you see this game for what it is: largely amoral.

The "Corporation" and all of its agents are portrayed as corrupt and evil, whereas the rebellious insurrgents are depicted as good freedom fighters. It's true that the game rewards you in points, time and health bonuses when you kill a law enforcement agent with a weapon or your bare hands - a statement when compared to reality would conform to an "immoral" standard. However, this game features the same kind of oppressiveness shown by a totalitarian empire as does "Star Wars" (1977), admittedly, a children's movie. State of Emergency does differ in tone by featuring violent gore and blood that isn't suitable for children, but does feature just as Star Wars the same shallow depiction of evil that requires stopping.

Where State of Emergency is most interesting is in its depiction and treatment of innocent bystanders. While your protagonist is depicted as a moral character who is fighting the evil "Corporation", how you deal with these innocents is up to you. In the beginning stages it is easy enough not to target these uninvolved civilians, but in later stages and with more powerful weaponry it becomes harder and harder not to target and kill this collateral damage.

State of Emergency interestly has this amoral approach: only during certain times are you penalized for killing and injuring innocent bystanders; the game will say "Civilian casualties penalized," and take off points for every wayward bullet or RPG. However, at other times there is no penalty; you can fire into a crowd of innocents and enemies and let "God sort them out". In this way, State of Emergency depicts these innocents as a temporary hindrance at times. You're not trying to save them, nor are you trying to hurt them. Instead, they are just a objective at certain times to not harm despite the obvious duress you are under in this game.

However, this is very extreme amorality, right up to the point of immorality. What else would you say about someone who doesn't care if you live or die, but just sees you as "safe to shoot" or "not safe to shoot"? Being amoral to this degree reeks of moral insensitivity and immorality, but is still amorality. This close approximation makes for some confusion between amorality and immorality, but there is a difference, no matter how slight.

Makes for some great philosophizing. Also, makes for some great old-school action.

Rated: two out of 3 stars. Recommended, for the anarchist in you.
Played to completion on the PS2 on both Revolution and Chaos mode. Scored a high score of 2 or 3 million, can't remember, but it's higher than what you can get.

Metaphor: Katamari Damacy and Capitalism and Overconsumption

2009-05-08T22:35:00.000-07:00

When I first watched "Reservoir Dogs" (1992), I thought I had watched the very essence of the coolest god to have ever taken attention of us mere mortals. I was witnessing the truth, and it was cool. It was the coolest. This Quentin Tarantino appeared to be an auteur of the highest class. This revolutionary man with the household name would surely go on to make the best movies the world has ever seen.

Or not. While Reservoir Dogs and "Pulp Fiction" (1994) were fresh, innovative films that were well done and epitomize "cool" for a league of copycats that would follow in their wake, director Tarantino would lazily release a new movie every few years or so for good reason: he's made the best movies in life already, and now lives in the shadow of his achievements. As an artist that mercilessly steals from other sources, it appears Tarantino requires a few years in-between movies to find new sources to undermine to fund his bankrupt creativity.

And the theft is blatant and brazen and even a source of pride to Tarantino, a B-genre director who brings an artistic sensitivity and high production values to his movies. Examples of such theft include: "A Better Tomorrow II" (1987) by Tsui Hark has a scene of its heros walking in profile in slow-motion wearing black suits and ties, similar to the beginning of Reservoir Dogs; also, the three way gun stand off seen in Tarantino's first three crime movies he wrote a script for (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction and True Romance) originate in Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987).

Indeed, it appears this type of referential art work exists only to reference other sources. Like rap and hip-hop music, the idea to to find the best lines or samples from other sources to remake into your own image; thus we have Rick James' "Super Freak" (1981) remade into yet another hit, MC Hammer's "U Can't Touch This" (1990). However, in Tarantino's case this leads to pompous and indulgent film making. Tarantino has a penchant for long, lingering shots happening in real time (eg. Jackie Brown's walk through the mall in the pedantic eponymous 1997 movie) as well as long, drawn out, meandering conversation seemingly full of significance but not having any.

Perhaps the worst crime Tarantino commits regularly in cinema is his regular device to establish dramatic tension by having one character point a gun at another character; in this imbalance of power, we can see both characters operating under duress to try to influence the situation. This is best seen in the opening scene of Pulp Fiction when Samuel L. Jackson's character points a gun at Frank Whalley's character. As a dramatic device it's cheapened when it used again and again with diminishing return.

As cinema, it's exciting to watch. The immersion is deeper for this type of scene since there's so much at stake for the characters. With the imminent threat of death looming, we normal film-goers who haven't had a gun pointed at our heads think to ourselves: is there anything more terrifying? What is more powerful than brute force? Violence is terrible and affecting, and its influence can shape further than upon its victims. Violence can affect people and the way they think, but what about changing entire worlds? Being able to shape entire world views without having to go through the trouble of pointing guns at everyone - now that's power.

The pen is mightier than the sword; it's true, and it isn't negated by the joke "Anyone who ever said violence never solved anything obviously never tried it." In the age of information wars are fought daily for opinion through flame wars on forum boards, snarky blog posts and writing everywhere. This is why metaphor is so important - metaphor is a weapon that can turn the tide of opinion in your favor for victory.

Metaphor is powerful because it can be so subversive and so subtle; by being understated and not focused upon, metaphor can deploy its hidden cargo of meaning to take down established, ingrained ideas and the regular status quo. You see, the status quo is just that: an entrenched, established way of thinking or doing that serves a certain minority an advantage to perpetuate, but isn't challenged by the majority to change even though it may be to the majority's favor to do so.

Metaphor, a device too subtle for most of Tarantino's low-rent movies, is more powerful than any gun. In slyly suggesting a metaphor whose message may or may be accepted by the public and so can surreptiously disseminate through society without obstruction, the status quo of entire empires and armies can be challenged - successfully, all without having to hold a gun.

After World War II, the world order was in flux; after years of violent upheaval, powers would consolidate to have two opposing sides - this would then begin the Cold War pitting east versus west, communism versus capitalism. Effectly ending with the collapse of the former Soviet Union and East Germany, we can safely say that capitalism and a culture of consumption has won out. This is a capitalist world, everything has a buck, and everyone wants to be rich. You can even safely say that capitalism is the status quo, as enough people believe in capitalism that you can't expect a sudden change in the world order anytime, ever.

Not if "Katamari Damacy" (2004) has anything to say about it. Katamari Damacy is by far the most sinister and subversive mainstream video game to clandestinely challenge the status quo. Katamari Damacy uses the power of metaphor to subvert the ideals of captialism, the culture of consumption and even the value of other video games. Katamari Damacy, developed and published by Namco, is a sublime work of persuasion because it masquerades as a video game while sabotaging the mainstream; it is so effective that it's work as a metaphor goes undetected by the many who play it.

Because this is metaphor, being undetected doesn't mean that it is uneffectual. Rather, as a metaphor Katamari Damacy plays to the subconscious and to overall themes; this means that without having to say it plainly and obviously, Katamari Damacy is able to give its players a "feeling" that will linger and may even trigger some follow-up thought and discussion that would expand upon this metaphor.

To explain this metaphor, the entire game play and premise must be explained. In Katamari Damacy, you play as the Prince to the King of All Cosmos, your father, and are sent to Earth in an attempt to recreate all the lost stars of the universe, which disappeared suddenly and unexpectedly one night. A star is made by rolling around a "katamari" which picks us suitably small items and objects; as this occurs on Earth, it is noticeable that each location a game level occurs in is teeming with objects to pick up. In houses, streets and cities we see the product of capitalism and overconsumption: floors and ground littered with junk, stuff we amass for no reasonable purpose but for the purpose of amassing.

In any level there is literally no end to this junk as upon rolling the katamari around and collecting things the katamari grows in size, letting the player reach areas previously unaccessible as well as now being able to pick up things once too big to handle. And you will grow to the size of islands, being able to pick up clouds and oil tankers. The message is clear: Earth is full of stuff of all sizes, and there's too much stuff.

Katamari Damacy takes a left turn from other video games and the approach to inventory. Most adventure and role-playing games have the status quo approach and adopt a philosophy of "more is better", allowing the player to own vast inventories and to enjoy the culture of consumption unavailible to them in real life on real life salaries. Instead, Katamari Damacy presents a situation where you capitalize on the excesses of others. Instead of claiming others peoples treasures as your own, Katamari Damacy has you use the possessions of others to achieve your game goal of making a star.

Katamari Damacy is a fun, addictive game in this aspect, but what hides this metaphor so well is the presentation the game comes in. The graphics are purposely low-tech and outlandishing cartoony, obviously to defeat any suspicion to the games subversive message. Bright and colorful, this game appeals to kids and the kid in all of us by stripping itself of unpretentions - as a game, Katamari Damacy doesn't try to be anything but fun. It doesn't try to impress you with cutting edge visuals as every other game attempts to do. It doesn't try to present a gritty, realistic view of the world in all its problems. Instead, you have brightly colored singing ducks and red dancing pandas - it looks like a world any cynic would be happy to inhabit. In a medium where video games are commonly derided for having poor graphics, Katamari Damacy requires the use of poor, simple graphics to add to its charm and sense of fun.

In fact, if you don't find this game fun you have to pinch yourself to find out if you're breathing or not. The game tells two (!) seemingly unrelated nonsensical stories that are burst of child-like joy; the inanity and lack of ostentation evoke the rapture of Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl. Katamari Damacy has an unthreatening sense of humor that has you accepting this game in no time flat. Adding to this sense of joy is a J-Pop soundtrack full of catchy, fun songs that have you humming along. Everything adds to Katamari Damacy's status as a fun, unthreatening game played by everyone, regardless of demographic or world view.

It also stands to emphasize Katamari Damacy's use of songs. That is: pieces of music with a beginning, middle and end that have a melody. This way, Katamari Damacy differs from most video games as well as most modern music at this point. As if it knew that society suffers from a lack of fun, Katamari Damacy also supplies us with songs with real melody to make up for the lack of melody in our everyday lives.

To underscore the sublime mastery of game and persuasion that is Katamari Damacy, this game is also what the best ideas are: simple. In a revolutionary new use of the Playstation analogue sticks, Katamari Damacy goes the opposite route from its peers and has a control scheme that doesn't use every button on the controller. Furthermore, it has a gameplay concept that can be instantly learned instead of fumbling with controls and manuals. In fact, Katamari Damacy has alot of simularities to "Portal" (2007) by Valve Software, yet another quirky, sleeper hit. Both games are simple concepts that provide a unique fun experience that use humor to hide the game's subtext.

Also worth comparing is that both games are relatively short in order to serve the exposition of the story/subtext. For Katamari Damacy, the dramatic effect to emphasize the consumption metaphor would be lessened with if levels were repeated ad nauseum; while the game has the resources to do so and pad out the experience for whiny fans who demand value/time for their purchase, the developers did not do so, just as the number of colossi ended at sixteen in "Shadows of the Colossus" (2005). For Portal, its status as a puzzle game was subjugated to tell a story about love (please see: Analysis: On "Portal" and Love). We feel they are too short because we want more; however, they are great specifically because they are short. Napolean knew this; and he conquered France and most of Europe and got a chick Josephine, to boot.

While fun on it's own, all these disparate elements combine together to create that feeling every single gamer has been trying to recapture ever since he blew up his first asteroid or jumped his first barrel: joy. Nothing can ever match that sense of wonderment as when we first allowed ourselves to live another life in a fantasy world where we could do and be so much more than what we actually are. This is a similar reason that musicians have for playing music, both professional and amateur: even though we continually grow and learn for the rest of our lives, that very first feeling of discovery is profound.

Katamari Damacy reminds you of your first kiss, the first time you held hands, the first time you actually saw a nipple. It gives you a child’s sense of wonderment that other companies like Disney try to ape; however, when your first responsibility is to your shareholders and the profit they seek, your motives cause your results to be contrived. That's one reason of the universal appeal of Katamari Damacy: the game enables the player this immediate feeling of joy and doesn't let go.

However, the brillance in Katamari Damacy is in combining the fun and joy with the game's metaphor against capitalism and the culture of consumption and have no one notice but leave them nagging, lingering feelings afterwards. For a children's game it's especially sinister and subversive, but then again most children's fiction is similar (eg. "Alice in Wonderland": drugs, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory": class war). It makes for the happiest social commentary you'll play on the Playstation2.

This type of artistic deception is the same reason how people can play the Police's "Every Breath You Take" (1983) for a first dance at a wedding and yet not realize that it is a song about obsession and stalking. Oh, I'll be watching you.

Rated: Three out of 3 stars.
Played to completion on the PS2; had finished with the last level katamari measuring over 900m in diameter.

Analysis: Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard and The Reinstatement of Ironic Diction

2009-05-07T19:03:00.000-07:00

I've always maintained as a life goal to strive for every day: I don't want to be smart, I just don't want to make another bad decision in my life again. You see, it's important to set the bar low enough so your dreams can actually get legs over that thing.

Being smart is bad. I mean, we're always walking around trying to do less in our already busy lives. Why would anyone walk around and try to think more than they have to do so? Are you some kind of smart guy? Do you think you're better than me?

It's clear to us laymen, Joe Sixpack, and Mr Go-home-have-sex-with-wife-and-wake-up-early-to-slave-for-wages - you can be too smart for your own good. Even certain republics of peoples have had revolutions of culture that punished intellectuals for for their nagging intellectualizing and tweed jackets with elbow patches. Indeed, it would be difficult to sip a half-cap chai latte when you're knee deep in a rice field wishing you never cracked open a book. It happened, and it can happen again.

Because I don't want to be accused of moving things too quickly, let's recap because saying the obvious is self-evident; nothing could be more clear. So: smart - okay. Too smart - you're making me look bad, and stop it. That's why someone who is too smart for their own good is called a "smartypants" or "smartass", because your bum should only be a device to sit upon and not make life decisions for you.

Video gamers know this. Video gamers won't stand for some game to demean them and insult their intelligence. Oh no. It's more than evident gamers have thumbs for d-pads and index fingers for mice to express ourselves and reclaim our culture from these Berkeley has-beens. Hands off my video game! Leave my intelligence alone!

Some games try to do something different, and you know what? Someone gets hurt. In fact, someone somewhere has lost an eye in admidst all these games and fun. And that's the case with "Eat Lead: The Return of Matt Hazard" (2009), as developed by Vicious Cycle and published by D3Publisher: this is a game that's too smart for its own good, its so smart it makes us look dumb.

I don't want to look dumb. I'm a video gamer, dammit! This matters to me.

Eat Lead is a self-aware post-modern video game. And because you can never recap enough, another way to say this is that this game knows its a video game. Its protagonist, Matt Hazard, will often break the fourth wall and speak to you , the audience, directly, but knowing full well what he is doing and what you are doing. He is a video game character in a video game; you are some guy, John Q Public, playing a video game with a video game controller in your hand. For instance, if you don't touch the controls for awhile and leave Hazard idle for a minute or so, he say of his own accord, "Great framerate, huh? Of course, I am standing still..."

This video game character is making a joke about the video game that you are playing. A joke. First, we had to dodge the fireballs in the insanely difficult "Ghosts 'N Goblins" (1990); now, this. What's next, is the video game going to shoot fireballs out of a third-party peripheral you have to purchase while having to talk about your mother in the first person about you?

We can only handle so much. We are red-blooded salt of the earth normal everyday gamers. We want a game where you have a gun and you shoot things that die or blow up. It should be as easy as falling off a stool and having an orgasm. Instead, Eat Lead goes out of its way, again and again, of making self-referential quips to video games to excessive amounts. Lots of jokes.

So many jokes in fact that they sometimes get lost in the game play of shooting things. However, Eat Lead is less of a game instead of a constant barrage of self-referential jokes. That's right: Eat Lead is a six hour video game version of "Scary Movie 4" that masquerades as a video game. Seeing as it is basically very basic (always recap!), Eat Lead is a comedy experience that uses your shooter skills honed from hours upon hours of homoerotic "Gears of War" (2006) game play to meander casually through Eat Lead.

This isn't a hard game. It isn't challenging. You can get through this game while doing your taxes, changing the baby's diaper or having a quick nap. The game play becomes very stale and repetitive, but the game play of this video game surprisingly doesn't become the focus of the video game, as neither do the graphics nor the outrageous powerfulness of the guns (or lack thereof, in this case). Instead, the easy and trite gameplay is a chore for the gamer to undertake to listen to the valuable quips tossed out by various game characters.

Says the Russian commando: "My [assault rifle] clip is as empty as a capitalists heart". In reference to "Die Hard" (1988), Hazard quips, "Yippee kai-yay, mother- whoops, can't say that," as well as "Come on out, be in a video game, have a few laughs." The "Soak 'Em" commandos armed with water squirt guns says, "Someone get me a refill! I'm as dry as a bone here!" and "Prepare to be liquidated!"

It goes on. Some of these are so self-referntial and post-modern that you'll roll your eyes so far back in head that you'll see your brain thinking about shaking your head in amazement/disgust/something that's not quite humor, but close nonetheless. On the loading screen, when the game usually has helpful hints or information about game play, it instead quips "Tip: a gift of money, usually for services rendered," as well as "With a loading screen this long, the level has got to be good!".

It goes on some more. Playing this game is like a chronicle into the history of video games and the genre of shooter in particular, referencing the 2D enemy sprites of "Wolfenstein 3D" 1992 (the Wafflethin), Halo (Crown of Light and Master Chef), Super Mario Bros and Donkey Kong (Captain Carpenter) and more. Much more. But, as its referential humor, you needed to have been there at the time and have played these many games to get the humor of this game.

Despite the story that has strong allusions to 80's action heroes as well as many video game references, Eat Lead has a particular target for all of its comedy: you, the gamer, Mr Escapist-from-reality-by-saving-princesses-through-headshots. This game makes fun of the person playing it. Eat Lead never lets you forget you are playing a video game. There is no suspension of disbelief whatsoever, and so this game constantly points out the futility of the action you are currently doing: staring at a screen, using a piece of plastic to animate some guy who's a stand-in for you and your hero aspirations. This is especially clear whereupon waiting in an elevator to take you to the next level, Hazard senses your impatience and wisecracks "It's not like you have anything better to do; you're playing a video game, after all."

That hurts. Oh I won't lie. That gets my blood boiling mad, and as the average, quintessential video gamer I won't stand for it. In fact, I am so white-knuckled with irrational fan-boy rage that I'm having trouble typing this right now. As a matter of fact, because my hands are balled up into non-retractable clenched fists of violence, I am typing right now by punching the keyboard like Chris Redfield does at the end of "Resident Evil 5" (2009) with the boulder. I'm average about 30 wpm, all the same.

Other mediums have long endured the po-mo treatment from its creators, and all you have to do is see anything written by Joss Whedon, Neil Gaiman or the Wayan brothers for that matter. "Scream" (1996) was the movie that set po-mo into the mainstream. Since then we've endured "Dawson's Creek", "South Park", "The Simpsons" and "Fight Club".

But me? I'm a gamer. By nature, I want to point a cross hair on a barrel and pull the trigger and witness the best rendering of flame and explosion possible on current game-generation hardware. I want to shoot people and see how rag-doll physics have evolved since the last game. Cutscenes are the reward for slugging it through a long hard level. Story is just a device to let me know who the next boss is at the end of the level.

This game lacks many things, and as a gamer I'm also expressing my need to whine and complain about something that may get addressed in the following sequel, a formula that is not repeated for any other medium or type of entertainment. This game doesn't have enough boobs or explosions. This game doesn't have the gigantic guns as shown on the game cover: a minigun and a huge assault rifle. This game doesn't have any blood. This game doesn't copy Gears of War well enough since I am incapable of judging this game on its own merits and independent of comparison to other games a la "it's like Gears of War meets Scary Movie" type of mis-mash x-meets-y.

Recap? You betcha, drinking buddy/comrade/fellow union member. Eat Lead is the work of bourgeois decadent game designers who think they're better than us, the common video gamer good guy. Eat Lead makes jokes that force us to laugh at ourselves, we the serious video gamer. Because video games are serious. Period. Poker face.

And while in the end, Eat Lead really isn't much of a good game, nor honestly a very funny one, nor even has a story that lives up to its promising premise and voice acting. Where Eat Lead has transgressed is in it brazen effort to do something innovative off the beaten track, something D3Publisher has been guilty with games about survival horror-ambulance driving and attacking an 80-foot tall bikini-clad woman with a tank and helicopter.

See, we the gamer demand a subserviance to the status quo and hereby neccessitate all games in the future copy directly from Gears of War, God of War, and Halo. It's beyond me why every game that is released from now on isn't a sequelized installment of "God of Gears: Halo Edition", which is a 3rd person shooter where you can take cover and shoot at enemies in the 1st person while doing quick-time events and jumping puzzle in the third person and can slaughter minotaurs and medusi to our hearts content.

Video gamers require mediocrity. That's why Eat Lead, a mediocre game that is actually more than a game and is a post-modern parody of video gaming, is not suitable.

To recap, put your favorite non sequitur here.

Rated: Two out of 3 stars. Recommended, if you are one of those smartpants-jerks who can laugh at yourself.

Played to completion at medium difficulty (hardest default difficulty) on the Xbox 360. Took six to eight hours.

Analysis: "Chasing Ghosts" and the Pursuit of Two Rabbits and Capturing None

2009-05-06T23:38:00.000-07:00

I can't believe that teachers are using video games as teaching aids in their lessons; I mean, when I was a kid I would rush home to play video games - I don't want to play video games in school. That's work. Don't ruin my hobby my associating it with something worthwhile.

Still, the examples are out there. The University of Minnesota used the role playing game "Neverwinter Nights" (2003) as a aid to teach interviewing skills to journalism students. Minnesota middle school teacher Brock Dubbels taught a lesson that compared the classical works of Homer to Sega mascot Sonic the Hedgehog. In fact, Constance Steinkuehler, professor of Education Communications and World of Warcraft undead priest, wrote a paper called "Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds" in which she argued video gamers were applying the scientific method by postulating theories on how best to tackle bosses, gathering empirical data by first-hand experimentation and afterwards discussing the results with their lab partners/fellow paladins and clerics. Video games are a hobby that can be exploited for their logic and reasoning skills as well as a aide for teaching.

Back in my day, the Golden Age in which video games was still only considered mental cotton candy that would rot a 2D perspective of your brain, it would never for a moment be considered plausible that we could play video games for learning. We had "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?" (1985) and "Oregon Trail" (1982); but all I learned from those games is that if you never go anywhere you'll never get lost, and that it isn't excessive to shoot cattle for a surplus of 3000 lbs. It prepared us - not well - for a life of staring blankly at video monitors.

Using computers was a way for us to familiarize ourselves with technology and the oncoming age of information. We all kind of knew that, probably because we'd rather play Donkey Kong than kickball. However, what I couldn't believe is that we would watch movies in class. Movies! The teacher would wheel in that giant trolley with the TV on top and the VCR in the middle, and all the students would know that we can slack off for the next hour without penalty. This was for me the equivalent of a teacher bringing in WiiFit to class because it's raining outside and we don't get to use the parachute (maybe I'll explain that later...).

I remember studying in high school the Scottish play by Shakespeare - you know, the one whose name you can't mention anymore, like Sarah Paylin or Leroy Jenkins. I remember thinking that it was crazy since we weren't reading books anymore but instead watching a movie, and as anyone can tell you: watching a movie isn't reading - it's fun.

I don't remember many details of the version we watched, but it was the one where the monologue was a creepy inner dialogue that wasn't actually spoken; instead, the character would putz around as he was thinking, walking from one dim room to the next. The other thing that I remember is that this movie version was much more kick ass than they book. In the movie, after all the lines are spoken and the play is over there is actually still more - the rocking big fight at the end. Mr Vaulting-Ambition is defeated and exposed, but he still has not received his comeuppance. Surrounded by enemy troops and left vulnerably alone, Mr Bad Luck Name challenges any one man to try and defeat him. Being a King, Mr Better Left Unsaid is fiercesome and too terrible for any of the common foot soldiers that surround him.

Of course, as all you Scottish play fans know, MacDuff has a can of whoopass on him and he brought he can opener with him. After studying the play for weeks, it was a real eye-opener to witness a kick-ass kitchen sink blow-out of a fight. And besides being so awesome, it was particularly memorable since the last few shots of the movie was a POV from his decapitated head as the victorious army carried it around mounted on a pike.

Video games may teach something to children; it may even be something worthwhile. However it wasn't a video game that taught me this: "Kings die hard." There are many themes and ideas percolating within the Scottish play, but that was the one thing that I was left with after watching that movie during school.

Kings die hard. That's why it's ironic that this central theme of the "Chasing Ghosts: Beyond the Arcade" (2007) isn't one I had learned from video games and their many bosses at the end of levels, although this theme is emphasized with scorn and yet pathos with all the characters depicted in this documentary by Lincoln Ruchti.

After watching the documentary "The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters" (2007), the similarities between these two movies about competitive classic video gaming don't outweigh the many differences. Chasing Ghosts is more about video games than King of Kong, even showing most of a Pac-Man level using a pattern called "tunnel terror"; however, like King of Kong, Chasing Ghosts is not about video games themselves as much as it is about the people who play them.

Also, worth comparing is the fact that both movies are incredibly manipluative, with Chasing Ghosts being the more obvious of culprits. Chasing Ghosts chronicles the high rise to prominence of arcade video game high score champions of the early 80's as well as the spectular crash of the arcade industry that has left these people seemingly picking up the pieces ever since, some of them still to this day. Chasing Ghosts does a manic switch from emphasizing the skill and importance of these people as well as the fame they endured as "kings" of their domain to outright condescension of these people who are maligned as outcasts and extremists who require video games as an escape from the society to which they can't adapt. It's the old media trick done in a 90 minutes movie: you tear down the very same subjects you yourself built up.

In Chasing Ghosts, this manipluation happens again and again. Director shows some of these people in a terribly poor light, but reporting the sad truth isn't as effective as manipluating these events for maximum effect. Jeanifer, the girlfriend to Leo Daniels who is suggested to be a pimp and been extremely promiscuous, says despondently, "Yeah, he's met alot of people... but that's okay." Mark Robichek is depicted as being afflicted with compulsive-obsessive behavior, and both folds a t-shirt on camera as well as relaxes in a massage chair to "Wild Thing" by Tone Loc to comedic effect. Walter Day's assertation that he will embark on a musical career after retiring from scorekeeping is followed by a pastiche of his songs, which show them to be nonesensical and has him making mistake after mistake. Todd Rodgers is shown to be a shut-in who amasses a overly large collection of spiders who has such a long life story of tragedy and loss it is edited down to a verbal collage for tragicomic effect. We are teased with Robert Mruczek's status as an art collector until we find out he collects pin-up art of women in explicit poses, which alongside
the fact that he still lives with his parents and doesn't have any other interests besides playing video games colors him as being a hopeless loser. Steve Sanders' admission he lied about his Donkey Kong high score is miraculously accompanied by a shot of Sanders asking for forgiveness during a church service. It goes on.

I always go overboard with the examples, but I admit it's fun to be excessive when it proves your point. And anyways, it's the internet.

Chasing Ghosts is much more manipluative than King of Kong, but as I said this is to be expected as documentaries and media in general all have a bias. This isn't the truth, this is somebody's version of the truth. You can't just stick up the truth on the screen; it can't possibly work that way.

So what is the truth of Chasing Ghosts? If you were to infer from the title, the idea is that these are people who are chasing the glory of a by-gone era that won't return, pursuing nothing but the etereal remains of relevance important only to themselves and not the society that they can't fit in with. This could very well be the message, since the film casts such a disparaging light upon them. However, the title Chasing Ghosts can also mean the search for acceptance that was never afforded this culture and its heroes, even though they got a fleeting moment of prestige and fame back when it started. The film has no more tragic hero than Walter Day, who is suggested to have wasted a life babysitting other people's children and had not capitalized on fame like other video game champions.

That's how the film ends, on a sad tragic note with Walter Day mailing his retired referee jersey to the Smithsonian Museum's Video game history department, though no such department exists. A tragic and sad ending that happened after affording laughs at their expense, such as suggesting with a montage of girls from the 80's that aren't flattering to look at that their priviledge of "video game groupies" is a hollow sham, or suggesting the lengths and measures required to be a video game champion isn't worth it to the normal human being: some high scores require 20 to 40 hours to complete or even more, not to mention the social disadvantages to playing video games by yourself constantly.

So at the end of the movie, that's how I feel: manipluated and exploited for my sympathy. Director Ruchti plays both sides of the morality fence to equally exploit his subjects to be both hero and loser at the same time. And that's my issue with this movie: what are you trying to say? Are they kings? Or are they losers? They can't be both, and that's what this movie winds up doing since it maniacally veers to both ends of the spectrum.

This isn't a case of presenting two sides to an issue and letting the audience judge for themselves, something excellent documentaries can do with controversial issues that don't beg for simple explanations. Chasing Ghosts is an exercise in manipluation that foregoes objection, so when the two extemes of comedy and pathos are mined again and again Chasing Ghosts becomes a movie that says everything and nothing at the same time.

That's why King of Kong is a much better movie. It says something. It does play hard and fast with the facts, but it's about something. And being about something, the movie has something to say - something important, and in this case, something affecting and involving. Chasing Ghosts might have you believe its a movie about tragic heros who have fallen on hard times, but on watching the movie you realize that much of the victimizing comes from the machinations of the movie itself.

It's a closed fist; it's a welcoming open palm. And as a zen koan, it's both at the same time attached to somebody who can't make up their mind. As much as I've picked on Billy Mitchell in past writings, classic competitive gaming needs a image like his to transcend all this compulsiveness and loser-ism. And if he's going to do it with long hair, an American tie, and a thumbs up well I guess it better than the rest.

Me? I'm ambivalent towards a movie that describes someone who uses an electric turkey carver as "genius", or Jerry Garcia's "Pac-Man Fever" as the "best song ever". However, the movie had me when they were all discussing each others skills as though they are special ops mercs or ninjas belonging to a secret sect. It's as though they should shout aloud their special move when performing it like movie kung-fu practicioners do.

But why blame me for my ambivalence? I just watched ambivalence as though a two-sided coin and Charlie Brown had a love child in international waters. So, I'm still waiting for that great, elusive video game movie. Well, other than King of Kong.

Rated: Two out of 3 stars. 3D renderings of classic 2D games may make it more accessible to non-gamers, but mostly preaches to the choir. Mitchell shown giving the thumbs up again. May have the contrarily desired effect of encouraging the gamer audience to seek a world record high score - maybe.

Attention: Billy Mitchell

2009-05-06T03:06:00.000-07:00

It has reached my attention that, by being a big star who knows it and lets everybody else know it, you either ego-surf alot on the internet or have one of your disciples do it for you. In that case if you, Billy Mitchell Video Game Superstar, happen to stumble upon this page in the backwaters of the internet and grace Last to Blame with your presence, I would love to interview you and publish your answers to let the world know "who is the real Billy Mitchell? And not that phony one in that fictional movie 'The King of Kong', who clearly isn't you, Billy Mitchell Video Game Superstar."

I already have the questions ready. Answer anytime, I update my blog daily.

* I've noticed you are a patriotic American, in which your pride swells deep in your heart, as it does for other Americans who are equally red-blooded. I want to ask: do you wear an American tie so that fellow Americans won't mistake you and your beard and long hair for a foreigner?

* This is a little personal, you don't have to answer, but all us guys want to know: during sex in which you are pleasing your partner immensely with your "Donkey Kong", do you ever fail to reach the "kill screen"? Do euphenisms like "It was a rogue fireball!" and "I require a live crowd to watch me for verification purposes" help?

* Wouldn't you prefer to be the master of a masculine video game like Missle Command as Roy Schildt aka "Mr Awesome" is, rather than be the master of eating and smashing barrels like you are? Hasn't the efforts of Mr Awesome to save digital cities of the future been more relevant than chasing after a chick captured by a gorilla whom you can never actually rescue?

* Shouldn't a celebrity like yourself be allowed to bend the rules so you can legally murder Steve Wiebe without penalty? Other celebrities go scot-free when pulled over for speeding, so can't the authorities help a celebrity like you by ending this rivalry with Wiebe with a knife in the back during a clandestine "head-to-head" match?

* I would never insult you by inferring that you have you have ever cried in your life, being a Video Game Superstar, but can you tell us: Is Steve Wiebe a "girl" for crying? Does crying certify his status as "non-Video Game Superstar"? I mean, why would he cry? It's just a stupid video game almost thirty years into the past that no one cares about.

* Isn't the proper way to resolve this rivalry, once and for all, is to create a new game, say "Donkey Kong 2K9" that updates this retro game to current-generation specifications and features an immersive 3D open world environment? That way, both of you can go online mutliplayer and frag each other with railguns and melee with hammers; then, we can crown the real "King of Kong".

* Can you get Brian Kuh to break into this guy's garage for me? I think he's plotting to get the high score on Donkey Kong as well.

* If you saw a barrel in real life, would you prefer to jump over it or smash it? No one would judge you if you smashed it; it's a barrel - it's practcally begging you to smash it.

* You've likened the controversy around you to the abortion issue. Does that mean that you can describe your supporters as "pro-Billy Mitchell" and your detractors as "pro-get a life"?

* Does you thumb ever get tired? Would you give Steve Wiebe the thumbs up? Or thumbs down? Would your followers kill anyone you gave the "thumbs down" to?

Thank you in advance; the world needs to know, and you need to get the record straight.

* EDIT: I just watched the movie "Chasing Ghosts" and discovered to shock and comedy that Roy Shildt thinks the way I do and considers Missle Command a more masculine game and therefore a more important game than Donkey Kong or Pac-Man. Only I was making a joke. You know, I do feel bad for making fun of the guy with a mullet, but at the same time I'm going to keep this up because I still find this amusing.

Rebuttal: "The King of Kong" and the Loss of Innocence in the Age of Compulsory Media Street Smarts

2009-05-05T23:01:00.000-07:00

I am a cultured man; I like to take part in the finer things in life. I like good books, fine wine, exquisite cuisine and fit clothes that both allow me to express myself and at the same time don't speak for me. I like to do all these things whenever I'm not busy shooting zombies in the head with a shotgun.

That's why last night you would have found me at a jazz bar listening to a Brazillian band from Denmark, Mais Uma, whilst eating a cheese platter made of no less than three cheeses (brie, blue and a interesting orange one) and sipping red wine under the stars on a mild Shanghai night. My girlfriend as my wonderful company, it was a magnificent night of culture and discourse.

That's right. You know that James Bond guy? I live the same life as him.

Of course, he doesn't have a neighbor that starts hammering at 6:45 AM, nor does he likely find the trash of a ripped open envelope with discarded fish parts in it on his window (and I live on the tenth floor - are you suspecting the same neighnors like me?) To compare, James Bond runs around and saves the world - well, at least the world as the Brits no it. Myself, I can't really compare with a guy like that, and let's not forget he's fictional.

All the same, James Bond wouldn't be living it up with such culture and great company while having a serious discussion about video games. That's right: go back to you Pussy Galore, you misogynist.

Joanne and I enjoyed our wine and cheese while debating the integrity of "The King of Kong", the movie I had just analyzed yesterday. We had seen the film the night before (just as I said - I live every day like a king!) and now had gotten a chance to discuss it together.

Joanne had be intrigued by the film, and had searched for further information on the film the next day. On Wikipedia, IMDB and on other sources, she found that certain facts had been omitted or altered to present a narrative and form a particular bias. Several of the key participants in the movie have complained that the movie does not present the actual truth.

Without cutting and pasting from the end-of-all-information-Wikipedia and giving a loose paraphrasing of the key facts, they claim that: Wiebe and Mitchell are on better terms than the movie suggests; that Mitchell had indeed met Wiebe several times and had not snubbed him as suggested by Mitchell continuing to drive past the restaurant that Wiebe was dining in; that they are not rivals since a third party, Tim Sczerby, had beaten Mitchell's 1982 score in 2000; that though Wiebe's taped game of a million-plus was rejected, the high score reverted to one Wiebe had made earlier; and that the million-plus score of Mitchell submitted by tape was actually eventually rescinded.

I know - the glorification of facts (gleaned from Wikipedia, no less) makes for pedantic exposition and wordy writing. People who read for fun and English teachers everywhere won't be pleased. However, since this is an argument, we have to do this right.

Joanne makes a good point: "The King of Kong" is a documentary, but this is a documentary that is anything but objective. Rather, it is a slick piece of filmmaking that tells a good story at the expense of its participants. The bias in the movie goes out of its way to slander Mitchell as a villian, and taints his public image. A documentary deals with real people with lives, and a film like this can go to have dire ramifications for its participants.

As a documentarian filmmaker, Joanne contends, you are dealing with news since you are telling stories about reality; this makes you a journalist. And even though there is no Hippocratic Oath-equivalent for journalists as there is for doctors, there is still expected a high standard for the integrity of truth, both by the profession itself and the public that consumes this news. An infamous instance of professional journalistic perjury is the 1980 news story "Jimmy's World", in which Janet Cooke faked a news story about an eight year-old heroin addict. It is a well-written, if fake, story that would win Cooke a Pulitzer Prize. Even after admitting her guilt and returning the prize, Cooke was vilified for her forgery of the truth and did not work in journalism ever again.

Joanne contends that from watching the movie we are led to form a specific negative opinion of Billy Mitchell. While many of the audience of the film have and will never meet Mitchell, we are given proof of his capacity for evil and therefore think poorly of this man. If a documentary is made about a true event and involves real people, then it is owed to these real people to depict the truth as a whole. Report the facts truthfully, and let the audience judge for themselves. Be a journalist, be objective, and reveal the truth.

Strong argument. Joanne has a point here. Also, I'd like to point out, as she points out, that Mitchell being a douchebag is besides the point. Perhaps he really is; but since many of us won't meet him in real life and get to enjoy a photo op with him, his American tie and his thumb, we shouldn't judge him from a movie. After all, many of us have preconceived ideas and opinions of celebrities (like gaming superstar Mitchell) when we don't even know them. If a movie star leaves his wife for a much younger woman, we are all shocked and dismayed at such callous behavior; but, we don't know the truth. We don't know these people, so it is unfair to judge them.

At this point, I'd like to say that while she emphatically defended her point with passion and raw gusto, at times her points reduced me, a veritable think-tank of video game opinion, to contemplative silence. However, since we were drinking wine and eating cheese under the stars while listening to bossa nova music, I wasn't at a loss at being quiet and thinking while looking cool. You know, I prefer draft beer, but put a glass of wine in my hand and all of a sudden I'm tossing out nonsequiturs and quips like I'm in a throw down with Dorothy Parker. "And then the cat said, 'Me-ower corrupts, and absolute me-ower corrupts absolutely.'

Terrible, I know. Not New Yorker material. I didn't actually come up with anything last night, well, anything useful, but then I was drinking wine.

I'll come back with this: I knew about the discrepancies with the truth when I wrote the analysis. My personal contention is that Mitchell is a douchebag, but that wasn't my argument, and neither do I believe that it is the argument of the movie. As I already wrote, I think the movie is about the fact that in order for Wiebe to become Donkey Kong champion, he has to break the cult of personality of Mitchell and suffer Mitchell scheming and machinations. Wiebe can't just play video games well to win; instead, his worth as a "good" man is tested against the worth of Mitchell, a man who values his fame, is narcissistic and enjoys his capacity to dominant and influence others for his own gain; this makes him a "bad" man.

Mitchell probably isn't a "bad" man in terms of your usual community standards. Its clear that he supports many charities as he does help the culture of competitive classic gaming (he is donating the Donkey Kong game cabinet with which he set his high score in 1982 to the potential Video Game Hall of Fame in Ottumwa, Iowa). An avowed family man, he does not put his family before video games, as Wiebe is unfortunately shown doing in the movie. In fact, Mitchell and his family aren't featured in the movie, leaving Wiebe to be seen as the only stable and normal participant. If he met me, he'd probably give me a thumbs up.

However, just because certain things were fudged in the movie doesn't mean we can't learn certain things. I found it impossible that the documentarians had a camera with Mitchell the exact time Wiebe was at Funspot setting his record. If you pay attention, you'll see that Brian Kuh didn't go off and had a conversation with Mitchell on the phone - it appears that the audio and video aren't in sync. Also, the end where Wiebe breaks the record is only seen by the camera observing the screen, not on Wiebe and his son. The shot of his son hugging his father at the point of vindication is probably taken from another time and in another context. It happened, but it just didn't happen like it did in real life.

The difference? Movie magic.

With editing and the re-arranging of certain events, you can do anything. Mitchell contends that he said hi to Wiebe at the film's climatic moment that purports the first meeting of the two in which Mitchell apparently snubs Wiebe - an insult the whole high school will be buzzing about for weeks until the next snubbing. It's easy enough to edit it where Mitchell's "hello" winds up on the cutting floor next to the "truth".

But you know what, Joanne? It doesn't matter. (And, imagine me waving a glass of wine in my hand as I expound my argument)

See, this is a movie. Even though the audience may learn things from this movie about real people, it's a tight and well-told story from an equally well-made movie. As a work of art, it has an argument - or thesis or main idea what have you. This main theme is sound, even under scrutiny (go on, go back and re-read all my superfluous diction). The liberties make for better storytelling, making things more exciting and dramatic.

It's a documentary, but we shoudn't take a documentary as being a mirror of truth. These are movies made by people who have an opinion, and no matter how objective the person purports to be this bias will still come through. We are all media literate in this age of information where every body wants your vote, your dollar, your faith. Every piece of information has a spin on it depending on where it's from. I'm sure by now that every person knows to distrust what they read on the internet without first discovering the source of the information, even though many people take Wikipedia as fact (citation needed).

In fact, I'm sure you can take the footage shot of "King of Kong", give it to two different directors and come out with two different perspectives. What makes "King of Kong" and this perspective relevant and important is that the filmmaker is trying to say something specific, have a particular argument. And he did it well. Very well.

Let's bring up Michael Moore. This guys makes great movies; the thing though, is that they are his version of the truth. It isn't the actual truth, and I can honestly say that because you have to seek the truth yourself. Moore's mastery is such that he makes an incredible argument that, during watching, simply go along with it. Another documentarian with a humongous bias is Nick Broomfield. While we may all be completely certain that Aileen Wuornos was sent to death legally insane in "Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer", contrary to Florida law, we should remember - we're not medical professionals, but instead led along a well-made argument to believe that which Nick Broomfield believes.

I love the William S. Burroughs quote at the beginning of the movie: "This is a war universe. War all the time. There may be other universes, but ours seems to be based on war and games." It fits this argument, because a war is being constantly waged: the battlefield is your mind, and the two sides are you and everybody else that wants you to believe what they believe.

Seth Gordon, the director, has an opinion, and made a great argument to go along with it. Along the way, there are some artistic licences taken to enhance his argument but we should not expect anything less.

Let's look at two other movies, both fictional. "Fargo" (1996) is a movie that has an opening card that states it is based on a true story; what follows in an incredible story that plays to our notion that yes, these crazy things could have happened and heighten the drama we witness. Well, it wasn't based on a true story at all; of all the arguments to prove this, the end credits state just like any other fictional movie that it "wasn't based on a true story and any resemblance to any person, living or dead, is purely coincidental". This is a great literary device to tell a story well that drive home the film's message that some people should quit while they're ahead(Showalter and Grimsrud), while some people just don't know how to quit (Jerry Lundegaarde).

Let's look at "Saving Private Ryan" (1998). It is stated again and again for emphasis that Speilberg wanted to present the story as faithfully as possible; actors would go and interview war veterans to get their side of the story. Said veterans all stated upon watching the movie that it was indeed very faithful. However, it's a work of fiction, and as such it has a thesis - a main theme or message - and as such a bias. Let's remind ourselves that, though it was based on true accounts, I'm sure, what we're watching didn't actually happen as it did in real life - it's movie magic. Do soldiers look like movie stars? Are all soldiers as idealistic as Tom Hanks' character? Are we aware that we are watching a image projected onto a 1:1.618 white backdrop, manipluated and edited and scored with music, all with the intention of manipluating our thoughts?

I don't want to make war veterans be all sinister and that. Certainly, "Saving Private Ryan" contains the single best affecting act of violence committed to film, that of the German soldier plunging his knife into the Jewish-American soldier's heart OH-SO-SLOWLY. Yup, good film, important message, awesome battle scenes that will have you ducking if you have Dolby 5.1 sound - is that outdated by now?

Joanne, we should expect bias in all forms of media; we should take pains to figure out the meaning and subtexts of things, lest we be confused with tangential information that gets lost in the spin and tide of persuasion. Also, I want to finish the rest of that cheese platter. James Bond would approve.

You Are What You Wear

2009-05-05T22:50:00.000-07:00

In a simultaneous Last to Blame-first of posting color photographs as well as a admission and expression of my geek love of video games, I would like to share with you my new purchase: a Parappa the Rapper t-shirt. If you've always doubted my coolness/ability to geek out, well here's proof - in full color!

This is the t-shirt as worn by its proud owner.

This is the inside lapel.

This is the back, near the neck. I have no idea who these faces are. They're happy and are ready to rap, fer shizzle.

This is a close up of the decal.

Not a big deal, admittedly - unless you're a big video game geek who wants to buy one of these cool bad boys. As reported on Kotaku, the Japanese chain "Uniqlo" is selling a line of t-shirts inspired by many video games, both classic and current. I bought this one here in Shanghai, and even though I've never been blessed with the experience of playing Parappa the Rapper (PS2's cultishly popular and trend-setting rhythm game about a rapping dog, yo) this was by far the coolest t-shirt there.

I don't want a Pac-Man maze on my chest. I believe in subtlety, wherein lies the oft-neglected trait of having taste and being fashionable (I live in Shanghai, if that wasn't already clear). Further rejected t-shirt include a Pac-Man polo-style shirt with the yellow block of cheese about to chomp on the power pellet that is your nipple; also, Bomberman and Dig Dug shirts done up very retro and 8-bit craft glory you've seen in retro video game stitchwork as featured on Etsy.com.

There was a Resident Evil 5 shirt that had a B.S.A.A. crest on it. On the back it had the acronym spelt out, but I didn't think it was stylish enough, though it was definitely nerdy enough. Not seen but I would have gotten: a bad-ass MegaMan shirt with the little blue guy posing with the MegaBuster poised at the ready, and a Street Fighter shirt with "HADOUKEN!" emblazoned across the front, proving your bad-assery to would-be challengers to your masculinity and pride. That's right: I would so fireball you if you messed with me or my girl.

This is the tag that came with the shirt. My camera has awesome clarity; the tag uses the video game graphics of the time so it looks crappy on purpose.

One of the reasons I started Last to Blame was an outlet for the many opinions I have about video games that I drive my girlfriend crazy talking about all the time. Another reason is a foray into the interest I have in getting into video game journalism. However, since I've started this blog I haven't gotten the proper respect other "journalists" have received - namely, swag. Free stuff. Gimmie gimmie.

So, attention all you people with things: send it here, to Last to Blame, and let me analyze it. Don't make me go spend another 99 yuan (around 15 USD) on another shirt.

In the meantime, here are some Parappa the Rapper lyrics to tide you over:

"In the rain or in the snow... got the got the funky flow (repeat)"

Also: "The skunk over here will bring you luck/The pump over here comes with a truck"

Wow. 1996 was so advanced. Those are some dope rhymes. And what are we doing now? Playing on plastic instruments, with plastic instrument superstars going on TV to play a game that is about faking musical performances? At least punk bands play music and sing songs; nowadays kids don't even play music, and songs don't even have any singing in them.

More shirts will be posted as I buy them.

Analysis: "The King of Kong" and the Self-Feeding Monster of Egotism

2009-05-04T18:52:00.000-07:00

"The King of Kong" (2007) is a Seth Gordon documentary about the culture of competitive classic video games. The story revolves around two men, Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell, the rivalry between them and the struggle to be the world record holder of the highest achieved score on Nintendo's arcade video game "Donkey Kong" (1981).

This movie is not about video games. This is not a video game movie. A viewer can watch this movie and walk away never learning how to play Donkey Kong. There are no long, extended scenes of an entire level completed, nor any in-depth tutorials explaining how the controls work nor the proper path through the notorious elevator level.

It's a good thing that this movie is not about video games because then it wouldn't be interesting and as a result no one would watch it. Instead, this is a movie that uses video games as a backdrop to tell an engrossing story that appeals to everyone. "King of Kong" uses video games as a microcosm to relate to people on a deeper level to which everyone can connect. To call "King of Kong" a "video game movie" is like calling Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain" (2005) a "gay cowboy movie". Instead, "Brokeback Mountain" is a story of love and denial; it tells a story of never being able to achieve/obtain that one thing you always needed your entire life - homosexuality and sheep herding were just literal devices for the story to paint upon.

"King of Kong" is a movie that appeals to everyone. It tells an affecting story of two very different individuals that involve us and invokes large themes and issues; in fact, the best way to put it is that the story of "King of Kong" is more interesting than just about any video game; well, at least any of the video games seen or played in the movie.

I'll tell you what it's about, sure, but I won't deny it any longer that I loved this movie especially from my perspective as a hardcore gamer. I found it so funny and so emotionally affecting that I had to get up and walk around the room to shake off the egregious feeling that these people were portraying the story of my life. What made it really scary is how scary everybody appears in this movie. We see scene after scene appears of people emphatically explaining passionate philosophies and historically significant world events; we are then reminded that this zealous intensity concerns video games, and then wonder how a game can transcend its simple roots as a pastime for recreation and enjoyment to mean a clear case of life or death.

The audience listens to their obsession, and we note that some of these people don't blink when they talk. It scares me, so I listen harder. If nothing else, this movie has taught me to blink more and to take breaths inbetween sentences when I'm talking about video games; also, remind me if my mouth is open when I'm paying especially close attention to something/one.

"King of Kong" is a movie about how different people deal with obsession, and the role it plays in their lives. Competitive classic gaming is an illusion of importance, and in the case of Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell this illusion has separate significances to each individual. To us "laymen" of competitive classic gaming the movie offers us a glimpse to witness the cost of what it takes to be "great".

To Steve Wiebe, the film's underdog and hero, achieving the world record high score for Donkey Kong underscores the humility of this soft spoken family man. Portrayed as a wayward talent who possesses skill and ability but has never found a proper outlet in which to channel them, Wiebe is a likable guy and so we sympathize with him since all he wants from being a Donkey Kong champion is recognition as well as a confirmation of his rarely-recognized talents. However, the film shows us his obsession with Donkey Kong imparts a toll on his long-suffering family. Having both he and the Donkey Kong machine banished to the garage (his wife puts up with alot, I agree, but garages are where cars and teenage angst in the form of poor punk bands are parked), we see him neglect his duties as a dutiful father: in his first world record-setting videotape, we hear the anguished cries of his son calling for his dad who is too busy smashing barrels with a hammer with a joystick.

And while his son should learn how to wipe his own bottom, at which we laughed/cried, Wiebe's daughter Jillian has some of the best lines in the movie; when told having a high score in the Guiness World Record book was a big deal, she told her father, "Some people sort of ruin their lives to be in there." If that scathing indictment of her father wasn't enough, she earlier had stated pointedly from a quote on a Billy Mitchell hot sauce bottle: "Work is for people who don't know how to play video games."

It's difficult to watch a man have priorities over his family, but we do see a man dedicated to his dream who doen't do the irresponsible act of putting his dreams on his children's shoulders. Also, in this current social climate of mass mediocrity and focus on celebrity, it can be important for an everyman like Wiebe to be best in the world at one thing. A simple man, a simple plan.

Unfortunately, this plan is not of the hatching of Billy Mitchell, a competitive classic video gaming champion who was on top of the scene back when it wasn't "classic" gaming but state of the art and hip. A known celebrity even amongst competitive classic video gaming champions, Mitchell enjoys fame and has used it as a means to achieve his goals and as a end goal to be the well-known name he is. Holder of the Donkey Kong world record high score since the eighties (there's some other guy but he's not in the movies), Mitchell is shown to be a shadowy Machiavellian character who attempts to thwart the efforts of upstart Wiebe to break his record.

Mitchell is shown accomplishing his nefarious deeds by the power of his cult of personality; Mitchell is a charismatic and egotistical personality who draws others to him to support his own fame and narcissism. The obsession that has made him successful now drives him to scheme against Wiebe using all his influence.

The examples are many: Mitchell prompts Brian Kuh and Perry Rodgers to gain access to Wiebe's garage as "unwelcome guests" to dismantle his machine for photography of his circuit board; Mitchell, being on the board of evalutors, used his vote and influence to use these photographs to discredit Wiebe's home-taped million point score; receiving live updates via telephone during Wiebe's attempt at Funcom to break the record, Mitchell has his "disciple" (quoted from the movie) Brian Kuh attempt to distract and "psyche out" Wiebe, as Kuh is seen anxiously giving nervous interviews that would "jinx" Wiebe, as well as rounding up a crowd to witness the inevitable "kill screen"; scheming to steal Wiebe's thunder by submitting a taped game that reveals a million-plus score; prompting head judge Walter Day to input this score as the new official one, despite Mitchell's own claims that only "live scores matter"; and in the film's climax, Mitchell finally answers Wiebe's request for a head-to-head showdown for a Guiness World Record attempt after repeated snubbings, but arrived at the venue where the competition occured only to snub Wiebe again.

Some people have pointed out that I am long-winded in my writing; in this case, too many examples only justify that assertation. However, it has come to light that many facts are distorted to skew perspectives and give the story a definite bias. That said, the examples listed above appear to be true enough to prove Mitchell's plotting against Wiebe as well as to show the extent of the cult of his personality.

It also stands to note that the one detractor in the movie to Mitchell is the film's craziest - Roy Shildt, aka "Mr Awesome", depicted nude flexing his muscles with a similarily nude woman at his heels, as well as giving a pep talk on picking up woman with references to "gnarly poontang". Shildt is a man obviously jealous of Mitchell, having missed out on the fame Shildt believes he deserves, and is also a man depicted as being a dangerous, excessive personality. However, Shildt is able to surpass the first impression of him as an extremist and take the place as Wiebe's supporter properly since it clear that as Mitchell's "nemesis" (quote from the movie) he is outside his influence unlike every other competitive classic video gamer. While Shildt is armed with a spiteful grudge years in the making, Shildt is shown as a maniac with the deadliest weapon on his side - the truth.

Let's conclude: classic video gaming is very difficult and requires deft skills and steel nerves; all the people who compete in classic video gaming are obsessive personalities who are never seen to have any life outside of competitive gaming, like a family; Mitchell did not want his Donkey Kong score to be broken and schemed against Wiebe; and Mitchell enjoys fame and requires the submission of other personalities to bolster his own. The movie doesn't have to work hard to paint Mitchell in a negative light as he does it so well on his own, as most arrogent pricks like to do on their own accord.

While the movie ends with the claim that Wiebe would break Mitchell's million-plus score on a taped game (a score Mitchell would reclaim soon after) the real ending happens earlier with the acceptance of Wiebe by Walter Day and Twin Galaxies with an apology; this is due to the breaking of the cult of Mitchell's personality amongst the competitive gamer community. The one thing that Wiebe craved - acceptance - comes at the cost of the waning of Mitchell's influence. Day capitulated to logic and manners when accepting Wiebe into the community and acknowledged all the hardship - exacted by Mitchell - Wiebe had to endure to be recognized. Another telling conversation is when Steve Sanders warmly acknowledges Wiebe's skill and importance to classic gaming culture much to the visible displeasure and chagrin of Mitchell, sitting next to Sanders in the interview. This is coming from a man who Mitchell himself described as being "the person he is today because he came under the wrath of Billy Mitchell," meaning Sanders was once deeply ensconced in the Mitchell camp.

It goes on. In the credits, Robert Mruczek is shown to have quit Twin Galaxies as Head Referee after the controversy. Walter Day also seems to have turned over a new leaf and is releasing his first album and writing a new book. It's clear Wiebe's task wasn't just to break a world record for Donkey Kong; no, it had to be much more difficult than that because in order for Wiebe to do so, he had to break down Mitchell's cult of personality and not just change his life, but the lives of everybody involved.

That's why this became the "video game rivalry of the century": because Mitchell could not accept the damage to his established world, and not for any reason from Wiebe except to do the right thing. Instead of gracefully allowing some other guy to take the spotlight away from him, Mitchell is revealled as the insidious megalomaniac who hides behind his celebrity. In this conflict the highest score doesn't ultimately matter because it is Wiebe who wins for having the integrity to follow his dreams and stand up for himself. He isn't a hero for playing a video game well; he's a hero for being a good man in terrible circumstances - the backstabbing, unscrupulous world of competitive classic video gaming.

Quick analogy, as provided by my girlfriend: Wiebe is Mario/Jumpman. Mitchell is Kong. Mitchell's followers are the girder he stands on (which fall in the girder level). The barrels and fireballs are all the nefarious scheming Mitchell plots against Wiebe. The hammer is the truth that will set Wiebe free. And the damsel in distress that will never actually be rescued is the pointless competition of playing video games for a high score.

Dudes: playing video games doesn't win babes anymore. It's not the eighties, and people: chicks know that video games aren't that important. Cool, interesting maybe; but man, don't listen to that Mr. Awesome, whatever you do.

Rated: Three out of 3 stars. Highly recommended, but may influence a negative view of video games.

Analysis: On Overlord and Enabling Bad Behavior

2009-05-03T08:42:00.000-07:00

"It's just a game."

That has to be my single most hated line in video game discussion. It mutes further discussion, it invalidates video games as art and therefore capable and worthy of further discussion, it's a blanket statement that can be made independent of any thought that will turn the tide of most any argument.

Saying "it's just a game" is a cop-out. It means that you aren't thinking about the games you play. Video games aren't necessarily meant to be wide, thought-provoking seminal works of art you wittily try to bring up first at the country club or the next black-tie charity fund raiser; however, some games have you playing for 20, 30, 50, 100 or more hours - what is your brain doing all that time? Just reacting and enjoying the release of endorphins? The medium is the message, and so there's always content within this message.

Video games aren't "just a game" - let's agree, and at the same time let's never use that oft-mentioned phrase again. However, while they are more than a game, video games aren't often simply celebrated as the games they are - a device for entertainment purposes that allows us to experience different views and perspectives we may not normally get to experience. It seems video gamers often gaze far into the future to bring them the happiness and fulfilment the present does not offer them. High profile games like the Halo series and Super Smash Bros: Brawl are heralded by die-hard fans as a near religious transcendent experience. Video gamers commonly compare new played games to the best game experiences of their lives, pithily describing the new game as "good, but not as good as Ocarina of Time".

Here - and really, only here - does the phrase "it's just a game" suitably apply because all video games are games, and games are fun, so every video game has the ability to be fun. Let's celebrate video games for the fun they can be.

That said, some games' idea of fun don't necessarily comply to normal community standards. Grand Theft Auto's concept of missions are in fact the commission of crimes required to advance the story of a low level thug in his bid to take over the city/game and become a crime kingpin. Midnight Club and Midtown Madness both feature racing in populated cities with streets crowded with other automobiles and pedestrians. Conan puts you in the soft leather moccasins of a lusty barbarian as he pillages and razes villages and "liberates" awaiting maidens who have never ever heard of bras with underwire.

None of these games comply with community standards, but that's the point: to offer an experience that video gamers would not under normal, legal circumstances get to sample. Such a contrasting perspective into the underbelly of society only adds to the fun that video games offer.

And that's what "Overlord" (2007) offers - fun, but at the expense of crossing over community standards. Developed by Triumph Studios and published by Codemasters Software, Overlord is a game that allows you to be the quintessensial "bad guy" of video games. A basic way to describe this game is what would happen if Sauron from "Lord of the Rings" came back to life to regain his power and dominance.

And even though this game has "good" and "evil" branches that give you the choice to be a benevolent or malevolent overlord (eg. return the food to the starving villagers or not, decide the fate of the endangered elf species), Overlord is at heart a game that lets you be as bad as you want to be. This game is the evil enabler that you've been awaiting all your life; this is the game that kicks the mumbling little angel off your shoulder and allows you to wallow in your basest desires.

All of them: pillaging, razing, pilfering, looting, wanton destruction, murdering innocents, the destruction of you enemies. Even the capture of female "servants" to cart back to your evil lair and live in servitude is a very loose metaphor for rape. Yes, you can do just about everything bad in this game, and the most intoxicating aspect of this embracing of evil is the fact that all of this is accomplished through the dominance of your minions who carry out your every evil wish for you.

Think about that: your power over your minions acts as the construct that outlines their role as your enablers. These enablers perform your every wish and thus make any evil act so much more easier to commit. A wave of your hand is all that is required for a wave of destruction and death to be unleashed. The result is a game that massages your ego and pride to no end, and provides so much more "hero-worship" than "Fable" (2004) ever could. This game endorses the megalomaniac in every person to gratify the dark id suppressed within. It goes without saying that this game fun - forbidden, rapturous evil fun.

Games that enjoy such wickedness and vice usually have paper-thin devices to explain themselves. In "Manhunt" (2004) protagonist James Earl Cash had to murder people and contribute to director Starkweather's snuff film or be killed himself. "Grand Theft Auto III" (2001) was a story of revenge borne of betrayal, though the unnamed protagonist committed many crimes unrelated to his quest to right himself. Similarily, "God of War" (2005) featured a protagonist Kratos so driven to vengeance that he will harm innocents to get his way (eg. sacrificing the Centurion in the cage as a means to progress to the next area - a linear, vital component of the game, in fact).

However, Overlord is rather special this way, because it has a very subversive subtext: evil is necessary. The game postulates that evil is necessary because without evil there is no good.

Yow. Serial killers and child molesters define saints and heroes? My conscience spins in tandem with my stomach churning. Evil is necessary?

Overlord suggests this in a story that goes out of its way to provide a happy ending, should that be your prerogative. The premise of Overlord is that you, Mr. Evil Overlord, have been vanquished by heroes who had banded together for the common good to destroy you. However, in the absence of you, evil incarnate, each of these "good" heroes have lapsed in morality and have corrupted to be that which they once fought against.

The heroes fallen into immorality as as follows: Melvin Underbelly, the hobbit, was corrupted by gluttony and through the overconsumption of food has ballooned to monstrous size; Oberon, the elf, has lapsed into conplacency and has fallen into a deep sleep, nestled within a large tree whose giant, overgrown roots symbolize his lack of vigilance to upholding good and order. Sir William is the paladin who has been corrupted by his own pride and vanity and maintains an order of worshippers in his name. Jewel is the thief who becomes corrupted by the greed of valuable material object, same as Goldo, the dwarf. Kahn is the barbarian who is blinded by his lust for Jewel, who now goes about destroying Heaven's Peak without care or mercy.

The end boss of the game, the Wizard, reveals a plot of exchanged identities that is pretty much on par with most video game plot twists, only this one tries to give the aforementioned "happy ending". Nonetheless, the Wizard's plan to corrupt the heroes still point out the same thing: in the absence of the evil that they had vanquished, the heroes all became evil in its place. What this means is that the heroes needed the evil they were fighting against to define them as heroes. There is no good if there is no evil.

And so, this premise neatly explains that all the havoc and evil you wreak upon innocents is necessary. You, the Overlord, must commit evil and become stronger (read: more evil) to combat the evil that the "good" heroes have become. By being evil, you are doing a "good" deed and righting the inbalance of the world. In a word, insidious.

And in another word that describes this game, fun. Overlord is a sleeper hit of a video game that houses a surreptitious subtext that is as contoversial as any headshot or nipple. Overlord suggests we need evil as part of society lest we all become evil.

Review: Overlord

Pro's:

+ innovative premise: "Dungeon Keeper" gets out into a third-person adventure via "Pikmin"
+ black humor matches the black heart that beats within: the game doesn't take itself seriously and thus becomes lightheartedly enjoyable by all, meddling do-gooders included
+ story fits the game play well; one hand washes the other, and so that nagging conscience doesn't get in the way of fun
+ customizable to fit your evil personality; tower can be upgraded as per your preference for skulls or flames, as can your weapons and armor. The gladiator pit is a nice touch where you can battle vanquished enemies.

Con's:

- not very challenging game play; puzzles and challenges are usually solved by waving your hand, or not
- buggy and some poor design; being evil, it appears, is not as smooth as gangster movies would have you believe

Finished story and achieved something around 70% corruption on the Xbox 360.

Rated two out of 3 stars. Recommended, but evil behavior everywhere not condoned.

Analysis: Burnout Paradise and the Corruption of Youth and Man-Boys

2009-05-02T20:13:00.000-07:00

If online play wasn't so much fun, it would suck.

While that seems to be a contradictory sentence, another way to say it is that the best thing about online play is the fun had while playing. Fun, as it is often pointed out, is the point of playing games.

But at what cost? Since online play features opponents that are exclusively human, other factors come up that dimminish the fun and provide an otherwise flaccid experience. Such factors include: griefing (ie. the active harassing and interference during online play), unbalanced matchmaking where the wide gap between players in game knowledge and skill cause uneven game play, overhearing via the headset information you don't need to hear and is not conducive to the game play (ie. overhearing arguments with someone else's mother, or listening to someone whine about how "this game sucks") as well as general douchebaggery in which normal people with normal lives suddenly turn into raging douchebags when they become armed with the anonymity of the internet and trash talk devolves into invectives hurled by trash.

However, let's forget that everybody on Xbox Live is a 12 year-old douchebag. (Really, let's forget). The real problem of online play is that the fun provided by online gaming allows game developers to make and release a game that comes up short in design; in the ensuing chaos on the internet, no one will notice these shortcomings.

And that's where we come to "Burnout: Paradise" (2009), the online racer made by Criterion and published by Electronic Arts. Burnout is a maniacal game of speed and reckless abandonment; it's the rush at deadly velocites and the subsequent spectacular crashes that happen when you go wrong. And you will crash. And it will be spectacular.

Burnout has had a long history as a franchise; I remember it back on the Xbox in its #2 offering, but it was "Burnout 3: Takedown" (2004) that made a jump in graphics technology, rendering crashes in spectacular fashion, as well as introducing takedowns, race combat where you can slam and shunt into other cars and clear the circuit of your competition. Burnout 3: Takedown revitalized the franchise and also still stands as the franchise's top entry, because this latest offering isn't it.

Let's recap: Burnout has been a fantastic single player game up to now. It has had to be; a key feature of the franchise is the "Aftertouch" option, whereupon crashing the game shifts gear from a breakneck pace to the etheral calm of slow motion, where the choral strains of sopranos accompany the sensational spectacle of a car crashing and disintegrating into the tiniest bits of car the current generation game platform can render. Aftertouch is important because it allowed the player to use his apparent mistake to his advantage by controlling the movement of the crashing car in slow-motion to strategically place it in the path of your opponents.

Aftertouch and the depiction of dramatic and impressive car crashes have long been staples in the Burnout series, but not here. Burnout: Paradise emphasizes online multi-player, not single player, and so can not implement the Aftertouch feature since time is a constant when you involve two or more people (Einstein may have something to say about that, though). Likewise, since competition takes place between people the interval between crashing and the resumption of racing is at a minimal; this means those lovely crashes that would go on for half a minute and feature barrel roll after barrel roll and flips and roof slides and nose grinds - it's all gone. Burnout: Paradise features car crashes that have all the excitement of crushing of piece of 8 1/2" by 11" paper. In slow motion.

Burnout: Paradise also does away with the criminally enjoyable "Crash Mode" to replace it with the limp and ineffectual "Showtime Mode". Crash Mode has never since been as fun as it was in "Burnout 2: Point of Impact" (2002) in which the player must rack up points by crashing their car into traffic and cause an ensuing pile-up that causes further additional collisions from other cars and trucks. It was basically a puzzle you had to figure out, and the points were in the form of money, money made in insurance claims. That's right: Crash Mode started out in the Burnout series as insurance fraud claims. It couldn't be more fun; Crash Mode awaits you in Heaven, along with your 40 virgins and an eternity's supply of smooth peanut butter and ramen noodles.

Like most other modes in the game, Showtime isn't really much fun, as does Stunt Run, which by the name alone suggests otherwise. Really, the only fun modes are "Road Rage" and "Marked Man" which feature car combat, the one fulfiling and fun thing to do with this game online. While not much can equal the satisfaction of shutting up someone by slamming them into an oncoming tractor trailer, the question is still there: at what cost does the fun come in the form of online play?

Paradise City, the city depicted as the place for all this gleeful car carnage and douchebag racist-racing trashtalk, is well designed as a place for this speed depravity. It has alleys, jumps, hills and valleys. Paradise City is a place that, once you get to know it well and all its shortcuts, is awaiting you to exploit it. However, as a place it's eeriely hollow and cold; for a city designed for racing it doesn't have any destinations really worth racing towards.

Perhaps it's because Paradise City is an artifice and not meant to be a real city. As such, you'll notice that there is no real heart of the city; this also comes to no surprise when it's mentioned that there are no people depicted in this city. None. Every car driving on the roads, racing or otherwise, is piloted without a driver as though it is KITT from "Knight Rider" or "Christine" by Steven King or "The Car" (1977). Gas stations have no attendants; sidewalks have no pedestrians; parks have no mimes trapped in invisible boxes.

This is likely a ploy by Criterion to make this "family friendly" and feature a game that has both racing and car wrecks but no violence by not showing any people to do violence towards. And, it worked: this game is rated "Everyone: 10 and Up". However, this admission to allow minors who can't drive a car legally but can play a game that simulates racing in a city is nothing short of insidious and contemptable. Criterion, you're teaching children how to drive before any licenced driving instructor will ever reach them - and Burnout rewards aggressive driving like driving on the wrong side of the road and near misses.

However, this isn't as irresponsible as the impact it will have on the single most dangerous demographic in driving and the one with the highest insurance rates - male drivers from 16 to 29. While these people are arguably responsible and mature adults who should be able to make well informed decisions, a game like Burnout: Paradise doesn't help things. The "non-violence" of this game also has another outcome: it suggests that there are no ramifications to reckless and dangerous driving. A car crashes in Burnout: Paradise, but it's okay because there are no people in the car, ror any people in the other car, nor any people on the sidewalk or any people in the entire area. As realistic as this game is in depicting cars and buildings, it doesn't realistically depict the outcome of one's actions when one is careless.

Flatout (2004) demonstated this to great comic relief by featuring a character model that was ejected out of the body of a car with the resultant humor gained from gimmicky rag doll physics; this was put to great practical use in the game's mini-games which required you to launch your driver out of the car to knock down a set of bowling pins, for example. This showed the outcome of a crash, but for comedy relief and not the grave realism WWII shooters would propagate upon catching sniper bullet to the head. All the same, a car racing game with crashing set in a city without people is like a knife-stabbing game without any blood. If you have such a stabby game but no blood, what's the point? Are you teaching children, if said game is allowed for children to play, that there are no ramifications to stabbing people? That people aren't full of blood?

This leads me to the conclusion that Burnout: Paradise is worse for children than pornography or Mortal Kombat. Sure, porno is bad and children should never see it (I think, however, the internet might have changed everything, so look out parents). In the case of Mortal Kombat, while it is a violent game that should be intended for adult use only (I think, however, that minors may have played this game in arcades) if the depiction of violence doesn't show the realistic end result of your actions it will influence one's perception of reality.

So, don't buy your children porno or Mortal Kombat, but especially don't buy them Burnout: Paradise. If they're going to learn anything from boobies or blood though, let them learn something useful and wise.

Review: Burnout: Paradise - The Ultimate Box

Pro's:

+ big expansive city; so, this is the place Guns N' Roses was singing about - the grass may be sweet, but where are the girls you're singing about, Axl?
+ the furious and the fast; Burnout is still sleek and sexy (in a Jessica Alba MILF sort of way)
+ Crash TV/Radio announcers suitably cheesy; taking the right page from Capcom, the sultry cougar announcer encourages you to race rather than fantasize how she looks like
+

Con's:

- several bad modes make this yet another bad Burnout game; Criterion, at this point please re-release Burnout 3 with better graphics
- arcade racer tradition replaced with an open city; I just wanna go fast. Why do I have to keep pausing the game to look at the map? Give me back my invisible walls marked by huge reality-defying arrows
- terrible music; does the fact that every racing game released has a terrible soundtrack mean that I have nothing to do with the demographic it was released for? C'mon - Depeche Mode's "Route 66"? Quiet Riot? Criterion, I never ever want to see what's burning up on you iPods.
- online play dependent; if you're not playing this online, you're not playing this right. This doesn't make up for the fact that enemy car AI sucks and there are hardly any traffic on the streets in this "living, breathing city".
- "Checking Traffic" still exists; you can plow into the back of same way traffic and not suffer any consequences. Just like real life.
- too easy on single player; everything since Burnout 3 has been casual gamer friendly, making for a poor game. Rival pop up from out of no where to await your takedown. Every race is winnable, even if you are in last place on the final leg of circuit.
- no people depicted means no consequences to actions; Burnout, stop corrupting our youth and immpressionable 20-something man-boys

Played to almost obtaining "A" licence on off-line single player on Xbox 360.
Rated: One out of 3 stars. Not as good as Burnout 3, Midnight Club or Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Also not as fun as racing for real on city streets, but that's illegal and not condoned by the author. Remember, always buckle up!

Analysis: Conan, Jerks and You

2009-05-01T19:57:00.000-07:00

Conan the barbarian is a jerk. A big jerk. And, he's perfect for video games. That means, of course, that jerks have a rightful and natural place in video games.

Previously, I had stated that Conan has a world view that would be consistent with that of Republican. This isn't to prove that all Republicans are jerks, as such a fact doesn't need proving since they prove it all by themselves - with pride, no less.

Instead, this is an analysis of "Conan" (2007), the video game as developed by Nihilistic Software and published by THQ, and the nature of barbarianism. Barbarians are a warrior culture who fear no fear as they face death on a daily basis; they are a culture that acknowledge strength and power over civility, rationality or the aestheticism of art. As life is cheap, so too is a barbarian's respect for other cultures, deeming civilized men as weak and two-faced. Barbarian culture is sexist and xenophobic; upon meeting you, Conan's first impressions are only whether he wanted to have sex with you or kill you.

Robert E. Howland's character is the anthesis of the modern day civilized man, a man constrained by the trappings of proper decorum and ettique who is bred to betray his natural primal sexual and violent urges. Conan is a man who is not afraid of death, and speaks his mind to expose the hypocracy of people who use language as a means of persuasion. However, Conan persuades people as well, but not through words but by savagery and brutality. Conan walks softly and carries a big, pointy stick.

The world the Conan lives in, Hyboria, is largely a lawless and intemperate land where the value of life and property is not respected. And while great cities and civilizations exist with their corresponding political and social systems, barbarians eschew this sophistication as shallow and unmeaningful as words and niceties have no place in a world you will be killed over your boots and armor.

In Hyboria, it makes sense to live and die by the sword as exerting power through force is the only way to exact any influence in this hard, unforgiving land. However, any commentary on the corruption and deceitfulness on civilization has to be taken cautiously from a barbarian who lives in a world where life is cheap and civilization isn't all that civilized.

Conan is a jerk, and it works for him because he lives in Hyboria. There, if you're not a jerk you're either exploited and dominated or dead. However, we don't live in Hyboria and in most places in the world life isn't cheap. The idea of relating to Conan from our perspective has to take in account his jerkness and the fact that someone like him does not fit into our modern civilized world.

Let's begin with that most barbaric of combat techniques, testicle kicking. Perhaps my vast video game wisdom is failing me, but I can't think of another ball kicking game at all. There probably has been, but it probably didn't follow-up on hitting the family jewels by splitting skulls in half. That Conan would use this as a regular move in his arsenal - called "Gemcutter" - just emphasizes his stature as a big jerk. Conan doesn't respect anyone, least of all his opponent. He'll kick you in the balls because it hurts, dammit.

That is being a jerk. Other video game protagonists when faced with even greater odds and even eviler evil have fought back proudly without any scrotum contact. Would Ryu Hayabusa kick you in the balls? Would Kratos kick you in the balls? Sure they wouldn't think twice about decaptitating the melon your hat sits on, but why would they need to kick you in the balls? Both of them are so bad-ass that they could tear you in half using their bare hands - literally (God of War) or zipline down active powerlines from tower to tower (Ninja Gaiden). They don't have to resort to that type of behavior.

People who do resort to that type of behavior here on planet Earth are practitioners of Krav Maga, an Israeli martial art used by their military. Less of a martial art than a survival skill, Krav Maga stresses neutralizer your opponent quickly by exploiting your enemy's weaknesses; this includes capping them in their genital stones. In fact, Krav Maga's status as a martial art comes into question when it is revealed there are no rules or regulations to this fighting style, nor is there a sport federation nor any official way to progress through training like the awarding of different colored belts.

It works. I tell you, kicking a guy in the balls will make him fall down. In fact, this is by far the most scientifically factual litmus test to see if someone is possessing of an x and y chromosone. But it begs the question, do you have to do it? Sure, if the circumstance is protecting yourself from Nazi youth as it was originally conceived as a defensive response, or if can repel an rapist as taught in self-defense courses. However, both these instances are a threat to life and is a survival skill and not an honorable method for similarly matched foes to test each other's skill. Is there a Krav Maga tournament where two opponents try to kick each other in the cojones? Would you ever see two ninjas put down their katanas to go on a sperm-sphere-busting red-letter-day blue-light-special hoe down?

Being evil is not the same as being a jerk. Being evil means you actively wish harm to others; being a jerk means you are selfish and just don't care. Several video games have allowed the player the option of trifling with good and bad decision-making; urban crime games have allowed players to play as a thug and perpetrate malfeasances upon innocent civilians. However, Conan goes that extra yard in "great moments in being a jerkwad" by giving a linear game about a disrespectful hero who has the option of dispatching foes with a boot to the gonads; in Conan, you can be a jerk while you are being a hero.

That's what bothers me most about this game - jerkness is celebrated. Jerkness has always been in videogames (eg. Jackass and Crusty Demons), but being a jerk has been equated with being a hero.

Conan is no hero; he's a selfish prick. He goes on a quest to vanquish the evil sorcerer Graven to re-claim his lost armor. Conan doesn't do this to aid A'Kanna, the pirate queen to seeks to aid her people who are suffering because of the Black Death (some kind of sickness denoted by black figures wearing a gimp suit); instead, he's just thinking of himself. It can't be more emphasized that the person who started all of this in the first place - the one who freed the trapped Graven and released the Black Death - is Conan himself; we see this in the very beginning of the game as a tutorial when he went looting tombs in search of treasure (By Crom!). Conan never shows any remorse at the suffering he has wrought upon Hyboria, and likewise never tries to redeem himself; that A'Kanna's need for vengeance against Graven and Conan's quest to reclaim his armor should dovetail is just a coincidence.

It goes on: Conan is a clumsy brute who brakes everything he touches. He smashes used wine jars instead of lightly putting them back down. Not content to loot treasure chests, Conan also has the indignity to burn down the huts of his opponents. You can tell Conan has passed through an area from all the dismembered limbs and blood carpetting the ground and well as entire villages razed to ashes. Freeing chained, nude women fit into Conan's world perfectly; having no ability or influence, women are just objects to rewards for those who can prove themselves "manly" enough.

That's the barbarians' code: to have no honor. Conan is a guy who will rape and pillage your village, and then blame you for having your village there in the first place. I mean, don't you know he's a barbarian? What's your problem?

This all likely goes without saying. I mean, a "barbarian" is an insult to call someone; Bone Crusher says the word as the demeaning slur it is by adding a few more consonents than what is written. However, "Conan" is also a fun, kick-ass game that fits into the genre just about perfectly. See, a barbarian is a character who does anything he wants and puts his survival above all else; that type of character is a boon to script writers of video games who have traditionally had to explain characters with motives. Well, not anymore. With Conan, you just have to provide a dangerous environment with similar lethal enemies and show some boobies from time to time. The common, insipid barbarian doesn't care, and neither does the common, lethargic video gamer. A perfect fit.

The question you, the video gamer, need to ask yourself is, "If Conan is a jerk, and jerks are perfect for video games, am I then a jerk?"

If you need further guidance, ask your local ninjitsu authority.

"Conan" Review

Pro's:

+ funday bloody funday; good thing they don't have many carpets in Hyboria because the cleaning bills would be astronomical
+ inventive moves; "there's a trick I've been learning to do with a knife"
+ jubblies galore; the game represents the barbarian would view perfectly by featuring the breasts of the same nakkid woman model over and over again
+ decent voiceacting; lines all delivered with aplomb, including the slave girl's "Take me and crush me with your love!" - though I did keep getting Conan confused with Hellboy talking to Selma Blair

Con's:

- Conan is a jerk; this game isn't a story in heroism as it is an exercise to allow assholes to expand to goat.se proportions
- cheap-ass boss battles; I didn't master all the moves of my sword-styles to finish the game as a platformer with an end boss whose so cheap he doesn't know what time it is at night because won't buy a watch to replace his sundial
- Let Crom judge the story! - the narrator of the story is one of the supporting characters, but not the main one? Why does she keep talking from his perspective and never from her own? Damn pirates..
- Die, you scurvy coders! - a buggy game is okay, but a buggy game that doesn't trip essential cutscenes during boss battle is inexcusable.
- essentially a poor God of War rip-off; everything from the camera to the combat to the platforming to the puzzling to the same lame-ass bad-assness is taken - poorly - from "Kratos' Family Trouble"; this game could have been "great" (*cough*) if it had copied from "God of Sulking" better
- decent music score kept fading in and out at strange times
- sometimes the next goal is not presented properly; this may be a sign of poor design, or of Conan's inability to follow proper decorum and manners

Played to completion on Hard mode on the Xbox 360.
Rated 2 out of three stars.

Top Ten Reasons Why "Top Ten" Video Games Lists Suck

2009-04-30T00:38:00.000-07:00

You've all seen them; in the field of video game journalism lies the proliferation of "Top Ten" lists that list anything from "Top Ten Hottest Babes of Videogames" to "Top Ten Largest Breasts of Videogames" to "Top Ten Videogame Characters I Would Like to Have Dinner With Before Having Sex". Yes, we've all read them, and we all know they are terrible. The following is a compendium of the top ten reasons when they suck like a black hole in the "Lame-O" unverserse on an off day.

10. "Top 10" lists are an excuse for poor journalism.

A "Top 10" list is simply an arrangement of an itemized list of a personal opinion. There is no journalism done here, no investigation into a hidden truth or cover-up nor a spotlight onto shady facts that have not seen the light of day. A "Top 10" list can be drawn up on a cocktail napkin during the elevator loading screen of Mass Effect. It is lazy and shallow journalism that doesn't say anything new that hasn't already been said a number of times before.

9. "Top 10" lists are an exercise in poor English.

An essay, that type of writing you got graded on in school and did poorly, has a thesis. A thesis is an opinion you are trying to prove in an essay by using a number of arguments to prove your point. "Top 10" lists have no thesis, it's just a bundle of opinions. Even within such a "Top 10" lists you'll find tenuous arguments why something is what the author says it is.

8. "Top 10" lists provide fodder for continual meaningless arguments and fan-boy proliferation.

Video games love "Top 10" lists because it provides something to argue about. As the entire internet is a medium that allows netizens to voice their disagreement, "Top 10" lists provide a vehicle for gamers to instantly disagree with each other on subject matter, and if not that, the ranking of subject matter.

7. "Top 10" lists endorse the fallacy that everything is gradeable on a scale from one to ten.

As a tech-savvy person of the information age, we think we can control the humongous flow of information that passes by our doorstep every passing second. One way we think we can do this is by assign a digital value to this information; the fallacy of this is that criticism is not true criticism if you don't actually think and interpret this information before you judge it. What use is a "10" if you don't know what it means, or why it is a "10", or how it relates to other information and products?

6. "Top 10" lists are simply an affirmation of an experience.

So you've played a video game. Then, you finished it. Congratulations. Perhaps you had a great time while you played it; hats off, three cheers. However, the need to tell others of the excellent time had with the game doesn't really say very much, considering people around the world are having likewise similar excellent experiences. Compiling these experiences into a "Top 10" list is as meaningless as affirmations of enjoying fresh air, tasty food, good weather and hot sex. A "Top 10" list usually is rendered redundant by adding "So?" or "And?" at the end of it.

5. "Top 10" lists are testimony to the maintainance of the status quo in video games.

Gamers are always looking towards the next big video game release because we are always excited about the perceived advancement in video game and how future games will look. Video games have changed alot over its short history, but then again video games are still conceptually and fundamentally the same. Players control the idealized figure of a bad ass figure who runs around breaking crates and defeating the same two or three enemy figures who drop red orbs for experience and green orbs for health (blue for mana) until collect all the keys to progress to the next level, not before fighting a boss character that kills your protagonist a few times until you learn the predictable sequence of the boss that you can then use to your advantage. This status quo also includes the "boy's club" mentality that endorses violence and sexism. "Top 10" lists are important because they say everything without saying anything, and so nothing ever changes.

4. "Top 10" lists only detail the perspective and experience of the list's author, and so have no relevance except to people of the same perspective and experience.

There are a whole lot of video games; lots of good stuff, even more bad stuff. So when you write a "Top 10 Best" list you are constrained to all that you ever experienced and not anything more. Besides only just being an affirmation of your experience, it also just shows how little you know. If you've only ever just played Nintendo games, it would make perfect sense that you would consider the best game of all time, let alone the ten best games of all time, to be a Nintendo game. Such a list is only important to the person making it and people of similar experience.

3. "Top 10" lists by nature are itemized sets of ten, but are usually written with less than ten points in mind.

Video gamers hate filler; we all hated Halo for basically being a game that had a story that progressed into the middle and then rewound the story until the end; it was the video game equivalent of a palidrome. However, gamers tend to pad out their "Top 10" lists by putting in filler in-between points until they eventually reach number one. You don't need ten reasons or points to write about when you only have six or seven, and so a "Top 10" list is thereby rendered irrelevant.

2. "Top 10" lists have become an end to itself, and so have evolved to become too varied for any real significance.

Gamers love "Top 10" lists, but many "Top 10" lists have already been written to the point of becoming immaterial. "Top 10" authors know this, and so write "Top 10" lists that have nothing to do with anything important. A couple of examples that will eventually be written once the "Top 10" list genre become oversaturated (if it hasn't already): "Top 10 Weapons in Video Games that Based on Tropical Citrus Fruit That Have Become Extinct Through Globalization", "Top 10 Videogames that Rhyme with 'Obama-rama-ding-dong'", and "Top 10 Why Aliens From Alpha Centari Will Not Buy An PS3".

2a. "Top 10" lists don't encourage independent thought.

If you have ideas and thoughts but they don't fit the mold of a "Top 10" list, what is one supposed to do? Start a rogue video game blog so far off the beaten path that no one reads it? I don't know why anyone would do such a thing.

2b. "Top 10" lists glorify the number ten.

Back before the ratings war and before he became a big jerk to guest (and subsequently reformed), David Letterman came up with the Top 10 list to pad out the show's length. Since then it has become a staple in pop culture. But why ten? Sure, our numberic system is based on a base ten format whereupon at increments of ten the cycle resets to start again - but there are other great numbers. Eleven (Spinal Tap), forty-two (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and that British band Level 42), seven (that movie that made everyone think Brad Pitt and Gwenyth Paltrow are a perfect couple and also that "UP" soda), eight ("is Enough") and seventeen (magazine) are all great numbers. It seems after Bo Derek we've only become judges out of ten.

and...

1. People only care about #1 on a "Top 10" list.

Even if you are a fair and balanced author who has scientifically judged your subject matter and weighed them with the impartiality of King Solomon (that guy who wanted to cut a baby in half - you know, that nice man), readers will only care and remember what you put at number one. That pretty much makes the other nine redundant and unimportant, and not what a list of ten would serve in the first place.

Everybody: stop making "Top 10" lists; stop reading "Top 10" lists. I realize I just added to the problem by writing this - it's like putting up flyers to urge people not to put up flyers - but how else do I get people to read this?

On Post-Modernism, the Intrinsic Meaning of Video Games and Snoopy

2009-04-29T21:02:00.000-07:00

Snoopy is cool. That suave beagle from Charles Schultz's "Peanuts" is the hippest character in the comic strip, out-styling a crabby megalomanic, a philosopher with a security blanket, two androgynous girls and the most depressed and cynical bald six year old boy you will ever meet. Snoopy is a dashing extrovert who fights WWI flying ace the Red Baron in his Sopwith Camel and works on his manuscript "It was a dark and stormy night..." on his free time; no little feats for a dog who can't talk.

Yes, Snoopy is cool, so cool that he sleeps on top of his dog house rather than most of his contemporaies. And while he has been the outgoing and gregarious mascot of "Peanuts" and has adorned lunch boxes world wide and been featured as a balloon several times in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade, he's outdated. He's almost sixty years old.

Coolness is always changing from generation to generation, and Snoopy is an obsolete model of hipness. That was the 50's; today's generation lives in a post-modern cynical world where kids are too smart for their own good to correspond with their opinion that nothing matters anymore.

It's hip not to believe anything anymore.

Lack of faith is something Buddha, Jesus, Ganesh and the prophet Muhammad can probably all get along and agree is not generally a good thing. However, the cool factor doesn't seem to be in atheism, the belief there is no god or higher power, but in agnosticism, the belief that it's impossible to determine whether there is a god or not; since there's no way for mortals to say definitely there is a god (since that's where faith comes in), some folks would just easily throw up their hands and say, "What's the use? Nothing matters anymore, because nothing means anything."

I am not a pastor, priest, rabbi, monk or clergyman; I'm sure you have your own religious beliefs, whatever they are, and even are confident enough to espouse your faith on a T-shirt. Awesome. Just keep doing what you're doing.

What this piece of writing is addressing is the world view that nothing means anything in the world. A dog, Snoopy or not, is a dog. A tear is a tear; it doesn't symbolize anthing because it doesn't have to - a tear comes out of your tear ducts when you cry, and people cry when they are sad. It all makes literal sense.

As the technology that powers the graphics of video games becomes more and more powerful, so too will they become more literal; never again will a soldier rush in from offstage to relate an account of a battle as happens in any Shakespearean play - in a video game, a cutscene with thousands and thousands of meticulously rendered soldiers will literally depict the entire battle for you. Why does anyone have to believe anything anymore unless you can see it for yourself?

You do have to feel some sympathy for these spoon-fed children of baby boomers who have been born into priviledge without having to endure hardship and challenge because it means said priviledge, having been awarded freely, comes free of meaning and significance. After all, they'll have to find their way somehow. Still, kids everywhere know and appreciate the sacrifice the "greatest generation" paid for the conflict of WWII, but that won't stop them from enjoying yet another WWII shooter that lets them enjoy war as a game.

Maybe you don't believe in anything anymore; maybe you don't think anything means anything anymore. You can believe whatever you'd like, but I'm telling you: the world is full of meaning; whether or not it's actually "meaningful" is up to you, but it's still full of meaning nonetheless.

If you need spiritual guidance, seek out your local guru or missionary. If you're lost, consult a map. Right now, I'm going to tell you what this video game blog has been doing and will keep doing: this blog will interpret and tell you about the meaning of video games.

I won't get into examples, since this blog is rife with them. But let's this be agreed upon: art can be defined as something that is made, intentionally or not, with inherent meaning and subtext. Since video games are art and qualify for this definition, we can then also agree that video games have meaning and subtext to them that may or may not be associated with the creator's wishes. This has all to do with that most powerful of literary devices: the metaphor; however, as noted, the metaphor has been enduring a losing battle as a viable construct in today's cynical and literal world view.

It begs to be asked: why do things have to have a meaning? Why can't things have no meaning? For example, abstract expressionist painters like Barnett Newman, Mark Rothko and Jackson Pollock made subjectless art that avoided all narrative and story. Classical composers like Johann Sebastian Bach made "pure" music that had such abstract titles as "Air in G" that served only differentiate works from each other and not as a title to suggest or describe themes, subjects or emotions.

However, all art has one thing in common: art is made by artists. As it also is begged to be said, artists are all human and so are people with unique experiences and perspectives. That said, even though a Pollock painting looks to a layman like the end result of a spastic 6 year-old during fingerpainting, upon closer inspection we can delve into the experience and perspective of the artist himself. Indeed, the thrown paint or messy smudges of a master painter can tell you as much about himself as it can the nature of the universe.

Video games are a product of definite planning and preconceived thought; and while that planning more often than not is used to make the spatter of blood more realistic (read: enjoyable) as does the movement of breasts more realistic (read: hyper-realistic), there is still a meaning there to be found, intentional or not. That's because video games aren't just art, but a culture, a amalgamation of thoughts and feelings. It's there.

Perhaps you don't see that Resident Evil 5 is racist; perhaps you don't see that the "viral zombie outbreak" is a close metaphor for the real-life viral problems Africa is dealing with (ie. AIDS, Ebola etc). Or, perhaps you see but don't accept it; fan boys all have eyeballs that see selective truths, after all.

Allow me to tell you of this first occasion I started thinking about subtext, hard. It was the playoffs, and a bunch of us had gathered to watch the hometown heroes lose, again. Anyways, right during intermission (the hockey game went into overtime) there was a commercial on that we all watched for BMW. It was very amusing: in it, a boy is riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. The camera is travelling with him to track his every move; while he is very unsteady and obviously new to riding a bicycle, he is enjoying it very much. Soon after appearing, our concern for the novice bicyclist is taken care of by a man who appears travelling alongside the boy, driving a BMW. He looks to be the father as he appears very concerned for the boys safety, whose anxious consternation contrasts the blissful joy of the boy.

We all watched the commercial in silence, and then when it was done I said suddenly, "You know what this commercial means? This man loves his boy as much as he loves his car." I think I shocked everyone with that, but no one was more shocked than me.

Post-modern or otherwise, art in this world hasn't stopped having meaning; instead, the cynic in us has stopped looking for meaning, especially provided that much modern art has adapted to the times by becoming very literal in depiction.

Hasn't anyone else wondered why the proliferation of super hero movies has taken over Hollywood? Marvel and DC have tripped over themselves seven times to Sunday as though they walked around with six legs in order to ship out yet another super hero movie. While some would say the advancement of computer graphics has allowed filmmakers to finally and faithfully be able to produce images that years ago would be cost-prohibitive and difficult to produce, I would say that the fantasy of absolute good fighting against absolute evil is very suitable for a target audience who is only interested in literal and absolute values and imagery.

Writers like Neil Gaiman have all but destroyed the traditional super-hero mythos in books like "Black Orchid" where the villian, being post-modern and aware of the literary foibles of villians, shoots the hero in the head and kills her - at the very beginning of the book. However, the post-modern audience is such that they are so savvy to the illusion of "good vs. evil" that they will sit through an entire movie knowing full well what it is without having to suspend their disbelief. Unlike a generation ago, people like super-heroes not because they represent other themes or ideas, but because this abstraction of "good vs. evil" is just enough of a literary construct to allow the audience to enjoy said spectafular CGI effects. This type of renting-out-of-awareness is similar to the phenomenon of celebrities who become famous only because they look attractive, like FHM models or women photographed getting out of cars who don't wear underwear.

Hey, savvy know-it-all kids: don't believe meaning. Find it, and then do what you will with it. For video games, it starts with accepting that something else is going on inspite/despite the story that has to do with technology gone amok/saving the world against evil/becoming a crime overlord/something or another that has to do with space marines, ninjas and large breasts.

Video game culture is defined by video gamers, not video games. So let's find it.

Opinion: Why Video Games Aren't Evil

2009-04-28T00:34:00.000-07:00

Last night, I met someone new and if that person will be you in the future, expect that I'll bring up my blog. And why not - I'm proud of it, I'm articulating my thoughts and making arguments. All of you "new" people should get wise.

When I told her my blog was about video games, the sky went black and mothers rushed out to pluck their children from the streets and away from harm. Because some guy told her so, she thinks that video games are evil and are fundamentally on par with drugs or alcohol. They are a waste of time and a corruption of the soul.

I kept smiling. I did. Despite all the many counter-arguments I had to politely offer her, I had one big thing to smile about: I had something new to write about the next day in my blog. Baby, your stern expression just made it to Last to Blame - consider yourself internet famous!

I don't know what would possess a person to immediately respond with the new information given them to turn around and rebuke what was said. If nothing else, that's a real conversation killer; the only thing after that is the aversion of eyes and an awkward silence to which I possess a superhuman capacity to stretch out longer than Marlon Brando's attention span when there is a buffet table nearby.

I'm not offended; really, I'm very surprised that there are people in the world who believe things without having experienced for themselves. I try, humbly, with this blog to explain my thoughts about video games and encourage people to think and interpret video games in their own way. So, Aurora, if you took my advice and are reading this, or are some video game bigot who blames these games for taking away your job, your wife and your dignity, please continue reading and let me explain the good about video games.

Before we get to that, I will say that when I tell people about my blog and I explain that it's about video games (and not music, say) people don't know what to think. I don't really know, myself, and I imagine they think I have a blog full of pictures of Mario and Zelda and write slash fiction featuring all the gravelly-voiced video game characters Ron Pearlman has done over the years. I don't know what the conception is, all I've got is my own perception.

I think the assumption of video game culture, if people even think it a culture, as a toy is deeply ingrained in the public, above all within the minds of gamers themselves. People lavish all this attention and time to video games in a way that pre-school kids will fight each other for a rubber bouncy ball. Video games are a culture and gamers should acknowledge this lest they let large corporations dictate the culture to them, like hip hop culture does. That's what I do here on Last to Blame; interpret video games as culture (which they are) and reappropriate this culture from the big money that makes it to the small guy like me who consumes it.

So, to begin: video games are a world-wide culture that has deeply affected many people. I think Aurora would argue that World of Warcraft players or other devotees of MMO's are deeply affected by addiction, but playing a video game does not necessitate addiction. Likewise, someone who works in the alcohol trade need not be an alcoholic; that's like saying sommeliers are all boozehounds, or that wine exporters are drug dealers. To get the subject of addiction out of the way, let it be said that any number of things can be addictive: alcohol, drugs, sex, food, the internet.. and video games. Video games simply gets a bright scarlet letter from the aforementioned tenuous link the public makes with video games and toys and children and also from the simple fact that video games are a new culture and many misassumptions arise from this.

If video games are culture, so what? Well, culture doesn't have any intrinsic value; rather, it's the importance and relevance it has to people, be it high culture (eg. Shadows of the Colossus) or low culture (eg. Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad). What matters is the meaning and fulfilment that culture brings into the lives of those affected. Whether video games can inspire someone to get involved in cosplay or bake a video game cake, or as passive participants can stimulate and arouse excitement and emotions from us from a few hours of playing - well, this has affected us.

Even if video games are culture, it's still base, immature culture at that, right? Well, that's actually something I wholehearted agree with, but I don't leave it at that. Video games are a vibrantly changing medium; tastes and preferences often change at the speed of technological progress. While we have seen a glut of unoriginal games recently (ie. the success of Gears of War means we will see more copycats to come) it stands to chance that with cheaper technology independent game makers will come up with games that stand out against the status quo. Braid, Flower and Noby Noby Boy come to mind as games that are groundbreaking simply for existing in a genre where duplication and imitation are not just expected but encouraged; furthermore, upstart game developers like Molleindustria are making controversial games that are daring enough to instigate discussion on provocative subjects like multi-faith conflicts ("Faith Fighter") and sexual abuse in the Catholic church ("Operation: Pedopriest").

The consumption of video games as art aside, we can all still appreciate video games for what they are to most people: an interesting diversion for some, a hobby for most, and as fun for everyone. And let's take that statement at face value: video games are fun. A whole lot of fun. There isn't much to prove here, but rather let's accept it and not baggage this statement with further opinions and accusations like "things that are that much fun can't possibly be morally good and productive."

To be as blunt as Dorothy Parker and a rucksack full of door knobs: video games are fun, and that's okay. Video games don't need to solve the world's problems and cure the world of cancer. Video games are entertainment that may at times include a thoughtful metaphor, or include a newsworthy current social issue, or provide thought-provoking fodder or something that can make a grown man cry (so I've heard). When that season of "Lost" ended by opening a door that led to yet another door, the resultant face-palming by non-fans could be heard simultaneously throughout the world. To them, it's fun, it's a story, it's entertainment; this same type of attitude could be adopted by those who haven't quite understood video games.

Video games do have a bad rap for being violent, sexist and homophobic and even racist. True, yet we shouldn't brand all video games with the same brush. In fact, we should see that the more artistic video games become, the more violent and sexist and ignorant they can become; as the ability to express becomes more varied and articulate, so too can it convey objectionable themes and ideas. However, that's just the way it goes: "Triumph of the Will" (1935) is a well made film using several innovative techniques that won several international awards and continues to influence the way films are made today; however, it is also a brilliant and charismatic work of propaganda.

Video games also shouldn't be seen as a tool to instruct youngsters how to commit crime and used as a device to decay morals and values. Besides being clearly labelled to which age catagory the game is suitable for so parents will know what is and is not appropriate for their children, video games aren't simulations to instruct children to shoot guns properly nor are tutorials teaching how to carjack a car. If video games could really do that, then we are living in a generation of young super-spies with training in hand-to-hand combat and demolitions; furthermore, video games would have given rise to a whole generation of ninjas with lightning quick reflexes who can catch shot bows in mid air. If this was true, entire governments are at the mercy of these trained assassins who will organise to rebel once the nation's frozen hot-pocket and Mountain Dew supply runs out.

Video games are fun. Video gaming is a culture. Video games are an immersive experience that allow you to actively participate in experiences that you might never ever get the chance to do in real life: you could be a race car driver, an amnesiatic yet powerful blue skinned immortal, the general of vast armies and navies at your command, a dog. The exciting thing about the development of video games is that it appears to soon be only limited by the developer's imagination (and, unfortunately, the demands and expectations of the audience, but that's another story..)

There is, of course, the option that you could try a video game yourself, Aurora. I'm sure a round on the Nintendo Wii Fit board spinning a hula hoop wouldn't be so beneath you. And as I said, I wasn't offended by your statement. In fact, I thought it funny you didn't say anything about the music I had just performed for you, that being jazz, considering that around 30 years ago jazz was considered by your people to be "morally decadent" and outright banned.

So, you prefer Diana Krall over Lara Croft. Hm. Okay. Eidos isn't Blue Note after all. All the same, give video games a chance. I'm sure Diana Krall would approve.

Analysis: Bioshock and Compromise

2009-04-27T01:56:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, some things are just too good for their own good.

While that seems to be a contradictory statement simply on its own, it makes sense (but not too much sense) when you consider there are many things that haven't enjoyed any success when it is fully conceivable that they should. Critical success does not neccessarily mean popular success; sometimes art is made that is so advanced that the current generation can not accept it (the term avant-garde comes to mind). The public can only handle so much.

This may seem to be critical of the average layman, who can't be faulted for being who he is, a man--a laying man, at that. In that case, to put it another way (other than saying the public can only accept so much), beauty is the beginning of fear. You know that new sports car? That fancy expensive one, the one you fantasize about? If you buy that, you're going to worry about it all the time; you're going to worry about it being stolen, scratched, towed, and even targeted by malicious flying birds and their gooey excrement. You know that hot, attractive girl? The one you fantasize about all the time? Once she becomes your girlfriend ("oh yes, she will be mine") you may find yourself constantly worried that someone may steal her from you. Again: beauty is the beginning of fear, and some things are just too good for their own good.

While these two points aren't necessarily the same, the same point can be made: the public can only handle so much. So, that's where Bioshock lands, firmly on its capable and talented feet and stooping low to bend to the lowest common denominator so that even the most lay of the layest of layman will "get" this game.

Bioshock is a beautiful game that takes place in the undersea city of Rapture. Based on the philosophies of Ayn Rand, Bioshock is an exploration of Objectivism gone catastrophically wrong. In the game, a charismatic leader named Andrew Ryan founds the city of Rapture as a capitalist haven safe against influence and pressure from outside political and religious powers. Literally shut off from the entire world at the bottom of the ocean, the Objectivist experiment of Rapture fails due to internal problems; this is suggested due in part to Objectivist dogma where the scientist, artist and capitalist aren't constrained by ethics or morality.

This is quite an interesting basis for a story; furthermore, Bioshock would continue down the "interesting path" some more and spin a tale of betrayal, deceit and domination. However, the fantastic research and writing that went into making this video game comes at a price: it's too good for its own good.

When applied to video games many gamers could only shake their heads in disbelief. "How can a game be too good?" they may say. I suppose this can be someone asking how vanilla ice cream can be too vanilla-y, or how someone can have sex too often and have too many orgasms. Well, I can't complain about vanilla ice cream nor about orgasms that are too good to have, but there is something to be said about Bioshock: its story and game play are terribly unbalanced with each other. Bioshock can't make up its mind whether it wants to tell a story or let you blow things up; stuck as a compromise, Bioshock delivers an interesting story in a way only video games can tell at the cost of overpowered game play that is too easy even for the average layman.

The story is too good for video games. I admit this sounds insulting to all video gamers and layman everywhere, lying down, but when the news broke that Bioshock is getting the Hollywood treatment with "name" director Gore Verbinski attached, who made alot of money and fame making movies about a ride at Disneyworld, I suspect the excitement was mostly over the fact that the great story in Bioshock would finally get told properly - in another medium that can tell stories well.

How can a story be too good for a game? Well, the high quality of a story in a video game can be detrimental when the developers emphasize the importance of the story over everything else; what this does effectively is subvert every other aspect including game play, difficulty, and enemy selection. You know (you laymen guys), everything that makes a video game a game.

First, the game is entirely too easy. Of the three difficulty levels, the hardest level is about the same level as most other games' mild medium difficulty level; compared to a hardcore game like Ninja Gaiden, Bioshock's hardest difficulty level is on par with the former game's easiest difficulty level. Other elements add to this ease: the game pauses when selecting weapons or plasmids, basic enemies (splicers) are all the same and so similar stategies can be used against them throughout the game, weapons are upgradeable to over-powered status, after halfway through the game money becomes so easy to make that a 500$ maximum capacity is forced on the player (unlike my wallet in real life), a map and a directional arrow points to the objective so that getting lost in a level is an impossibility, and furthermore no penalty is ever exacted on the player for dying - the player is instantly resurrected at a Vita-chamber to redo a level until ultimately he succeeds.

Secondly, the game play is so unbalanced that not long after beginning you become a
unstoppable powered tank. The average enemy soon doesn't have a chance against the player, and in fact by the game's end you are pretty much just as powerful as the end boss. It appears the makers spent alot of time designing cool ways to blow things up real good that they forgot to give you a suitable opponent; while it may be argued that Big Daddies are tough mini-bosses, the truth is they don't appear often enough and once you learn the technique how to take down a Big Daddy quickly it actually becomes routine quite quickly. In fact, one of the biggest challenges in Bioshock is cycling through your weapons and plasmids regularly to use them all equally, whereas in most cases you'll stick with one familiar weapon and upgrade it to make short work of all splicers and Big Daddies.

The fact of the matter is that the game has been designed to be overly simple and easy for the simplest of laymen to ensure that absolutely anyone and everyone can make it to the end - to ensure that this story gets told, from beginning to end. In four (and a compound) words: great story, bad game play. This is the antithesis of most games that have a bad story but great game play. Video games have traditionally not had great stories because usually they have been about game play, the meat and back bone of video games.

Consider all the audio diaries scattered through each of the levels. When put together they weave together the complicated social tapestry of Rapture, a blend of unbridled ambition and treachery and despair. An interesting part of the story... that isn't an integral part of the game. In fact, listening to these audio diaries will commonly displace you from the immersion of the game, and in fact distract you from attacking enemies. These side-stories are entirely skippable for those who wish to simply blow things up.

And that's a problem too: as a straight-forward first-person shooter, Bioshock is strangely unsatisfying for not having unbalanced game play. Bioshock looks beautiful, sounds realistic for sound effects and dramatic for voice acting and has period songs of the era, and is a high class offering that should be a great video game - but it isn't as much fun as DOOM to shoot monsters and blow stuff up.

This is where Bioshock deviates from the norm (watch out, lying-down people everywhere!). As a game, it isn't much fun or challenging, but as a story and as a work of original art, it is fascinating and nuanced and fresh. As a top tier well-hyped video game with enormous production values, it's clear that sacrifices were made to this game to make it enjoyable and accessible to everyone; to anyone who has studied art knows, art is something that is for anyone, but not everyone. Bioshock could have been something really special and extraordinary, but instead we have something that allows the basest fan boy to blow stuff up.

This isn't to say Bioshock doesn't understand its medium and the limitations thereof; on the contrary, the single most genius fact of the design of Bioshock is the use of linearity. Long a bane of video game design, Bioshock whole-heartedly embraces linearity as the basis of the shocking twist at the game's mid-section. Without explaining it completely to encourage people to play it for themselves, the linearity of the game and lack of choice is used to turn the entire convention of video game stories on its head. This same type of head-turning convention was last used to great effect in "Shadows of the Colossus" (2005), in which, without the use of speaking script, the player realizes in horrifying dismay that the colossus you are slaying aren't evil - the sad, melancholic music that plays upon killing a colossus is in stark contrast to the happy, heroic music that plays when you finally mount them.

This perspective as a gamer progressing through levels to satisfy an objective only to realize, after the fact, the real ramification of what you have done can only lie within the realm of objective-reaching video games that feature a challenge/reward system that films, TV and books can't compete. However, films - the film adaptation of Bioshock, for example - aren't limited by the conventions and devices of video games and so aren't constrained in storytelling: films don't have power-ups, crates to smash and tutorials telling you how to cycle through your weapons. Unlike a video game, films have a set, finite duration of time and will finish whether or not you can kill the end boss who has cheap-ass attacks. Movies tell stories; video games are stories unto themselves that depend upon your mad video game skillz, layman or otherwise.

It is with this sad fact that the Bioshock movie, if it ever gets made, will be much better than the original video game and become the best video game adaptation ever made. This is not so surprising since Bioshock isn't as much a video game as it is a delightful story set awkwardly as a period piece masquerading as a first-person shooter. While its confusing that this story wound up being told first as a video game, it shouldn't be surprising that this video game was made as a first-person shooter - it's these fps games that get bought. Getting bought means money. And money is an end in itself that ensures compromise over integrity.

While we may never know to what end Bioshock was compromised, it's clear that the result is an unbalanced game that has a better story than its gameplay. For being innovative and challenging as a work of art in the field of video games is noteworthy, but laymen should now understand why I enjoy playing Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad more than this game. Chicks in bikinis using samurai swords to slice up zombies - now that makes a fun game; the movie... (Oneechanbara: The Movie (2008)) not so much.

There's hope for you yet, Bioshock.

Review: Pro's and Con's

Pro's:
+ great story - would you kindly get your foot outta my ass?
+ great visuals - water, that most intangible of elements, looks like water
+ atmosphere supports the story - immersive environment makes the 50's look hip again, no thanks to Marty McFly's dad
+ stuff blows up great - all underwater secret cities should have full tanks of flammable propane lying everywhere in case a video game gets made there

Con's:
- way too easy - Bioshock has an invincable "god" mode - it's called default
- the movie will be better
- could have had more varied enemy selection, like that gigantic walking spider-thing mech from DOOM, but that wouldn't have "served" the story
- once again, the best weapon in the game - the crossbow - is also the most low-tech; development time spent on hells-yes plasmids may have been better spent on crowd favorite "2x4 with rusty nail hammered through it"

Rated: 3 out of three stars on basis of it being art (as a video game, just enjoy the explosions); but play it on hardest difficulty, finish it and reflect on why more games aren't like this one. Highly recommended - as a barometer of the quality of video games.

Played on the Xbox 360 - twice: once on medium difficulty then on maximum difficulty. Took more time to play than neccessary.

First Glance Analysis: Conan the Republican-arian

2009-04-26T23:44:00.000-07:00

Conan is a bad-ass mofo. He's big, he's bad, he's an asshole - put that together and he's a big bad-ass. If my simplistic deducting skills only allow me to accept walking and talking ducks as the only kind of duck acceptable, then allow me to put it another way: Conan is the perfect kind of video game character - he says things very loudly and plainly by splitting other people heads open: he walks softly and carries a big dual-handed stick that is upgradeable with spent red experience orbs from said splitted-head enemies.

Conan has been described as an "anti-hero" for being a protagonist who isn't the nicest guy you'll meet who'll offer you the loincloth off his bare back. However, when playing "Conan" (2007) by Nihilistic and published by THQ I interpreted it in another way: if Conan was alive right now he'd vote Republican.

Now, this isn't the first video game character with a political agenda. A.V.A.L.A.N.C.H.E. from Final Fantasy VII were terrorists fighting against the evil corporation Shinra with a pro-environmental and pro-life force agenda. Red Faction stars a blue collar miner who leads an armed revolt against the oppressive corporation that has reduced them to wage-slaves on Mars, making this more or less a sci-fi video game first-person shooter union trainer. Deus Ex was also about something, except that I didn't play it.

Conan leans to the right of the politican spectrum. Not content to riff off witty one-liners like "Don't get ahead of yourself!" or "Two heads are better than one - lying decapitated on the ground!" or "Hats - and heads - off to capitalism!" , Conan instead has to remind us at every turn his world view.

Even though the world Conan lives in is rife with anarchy and chaos, Conan has a specific view on how to live the world: that only the strong survive, and the weak will fail. Conan prides himself on his ability, and lives without reliance on anyone. If people suffer because of him it is only because of their own weakness and inability. In this way, Conan's life as a barbarian has similar ties to an corporate banker or lawyer who likewise have a "live by the sword, die by the sword" philosophy of life.

He believes that his god, Crom, is the best and strongest of all the gods in Cimmeria's multi-faith culture and will deliver the final judgement to those who face him in battle, even if they don't believe in Conan's religion. "Let Crom judge you!" is a religious epithet that lies very close to the "Jesus saves" of the religious right.

Conan only does things for himself. In this game, only the fact that his goals and the goals of the pirate queen what's-her-face-advancing-the-plot dovetail that Conan gets any treatment as a sympathetic character. Were it not that Conan is trying to recover his lost magical armor, he wouldn't care at all for the pirate queen's plight to save her people from the Black Plague. Conan is a selfish son-of-a-barbarian; in fact, many in-game character say the word "barbarian" as an insult to suggest that nobody likes barbarian who are considered uncouth and uncultured. It seems that Conan has pride in that title the same way many southerners take pride in the derogatory term "redneck". The only thing missing is a comedy bit by Jeff Foxworthy that goes, "You know you're a barbarian when..."

What this makes in a video game is a character that unapologetically likes to mix it up, roll up his sleeves metaphorically and allow us to spam on the attack button. Freed of any morals or logic in stories, the video game then can let us murder pirates and dragons indiscriminately. If Conan doesn't care, why should we? This results in unabashed head-bashing goodness.

That this game also shows nipples and full-frontal female nudity only just reaffirms the game's rightist position. Lewd sexuality is a reward for all your hard work. Would unions and pooling your individual efforts to a common goal let you see nipples? In this case, the two points deducted off your paycheck would result in a PG-13 game.

That said, Conan (2007) is a fun and bloody game that's probably better than an average Monday at corporate HQ. That is, unless hookers and blow aren't in the equation. The Republican-right subtext probably wasn't intended to be there, but the parallels are definitely there.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Republican. I just don't know how they sleep so easily at night.

Analysis: On "Portal" and Love

2009-04-21T01:37:00.000-07:00

Passion kills. Love hurts. The more you bring someone into your heart the more you will strike back when a straightforward rejection feels like betrayal. We spend our entire lives building up emotional armor to protect us from doubt and regret and shame until one day someone comes along and can break down all that armor and hurt you like you've never been hurt before without even meaning to do so. That's love.

Love has traditionally been the territory of poets to define and explore, but love appears to be an unpopular subject with rappers and spoken word artists, the poets of our age, who favor subjects of gender and race. This post-modern cynical society favors not sentiments of longing and whimsy but respects cold hard facts and data. In that case does it mean a suitable poet for our times to talk about love could be a machine, a heartless device without emotions? Specifically, an artificial intelligence?

This is the premise of the video game "Portal" (2007) by Valve Software. In amongst the many themes of science run amok, morality versus science, survival, black humor and the juggling of perceptions of reality lies the main theme of the game: Portal is a story of relationships and, ultimately, a story about love.

This is not to say Portal is a love story but rather a story about love, from which a differentiation can be made by contrasting the movies Titanic (1997) with Citizen Kane (1941); one is a unabashedly real-time-sinking chick flick that constitutes our main ideas of a love story, and the other is an examination of the life of a powerful man to discover his main pathos is missing out on his lost childhood. Irregardless that the movie wouldn't make much sense if Kane didn't give his sled a name, Portal, like Citizen Kane, pushes the limits of its medium or genre to deliver a story that you did not expect.

"Portal" is a hybrid of video game genres where puzzles are solved using a portal-firing gun from a first person perspective; what results is an experience where the perspective of your character mind-numbingly becomes an amalgamation of first and third person perspectives. By shooting a portal into a wall a player can travel instantly from one place to another, and thereby be in two places at once. While this seems challenging to accept seeing yourself from a third person perspective with your own eyes, gamers have long acclimated to working out spatial relationships under the duress of time.

That's what makes Portal so amazing, so loved by men and especially women: it's all about relationships. Men will watch this game and think its about in-through-here and out-over-there, but women will remember their short but intense relationship with the Weighted Companion Cube and make plush toys and cakes of them for their video gamer boyfriends. To list, the relationships in this game are the silent protagonist and the computer that mirrors a authoritative mother/child relationship, the silent protagonist and the Weighted Companion Cube in a preconceived symbiotic relationship, and the awkward and jealous trio of characters all together.

It may be a stretch to consider Portal a game about love that is demonstrated through relationships when only one character talks and she is a computer. However, this all makes sense when you consider that the story is not about the protagonist at all: in Portal, the story is about the computer, GLaDOS (not mentioned by name in the game, however), and her search for love. After all, Portal resembles any other sci-fi story that apes Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001" (1968) about technology gone crazy. TV's "Star Trek: The Next Generation" featured the android Data freaking out and taking over the ship every other episode, and video games have had "System Shock", "Half-Life" and "Doom" as leaders amongst many imitators and flatterers.

However, GLaDOS from Portal is very different from HAL in 2001. HAL is a emotionless computer who, when given two conflicting orders simultaneously, lied and would even commit homicide to cover up the truth. While many movie goers would just remember that apes are scared of atonal long shadows and a hyperspace segment that lasts longer than most LSD trips, this assessing of HAL is most clear in Arthur C. Clarke's book. (And if you're mad at me for not posting the words *SPOILER ALERT* earlier, I will tell you I've no respect for any gamer who hasn't watched a 40-something movie that has influenced all sci-fi and video games whose title is eight years into the past. By all rights you should have seen this movie ages ago in your own personal flying car.)

GLaDOS is very different than HAL. While we do not know exactly the extent of her backstory nor why exactly there are no other personnel seen at the Apeture Science test facility (though we assume she released poison gas and murdered everyone), we do know that GLaDOS is in charge of running experiments there. In contrast to HAL, GLaDOS blantantly fabricates lies and admits it; furthermore, she demonstrates more and more emotion as the game wears on, whereas HAL is completely emotionless as he denies Bowman's order to open the pod bay doors or when he pleads for his own life.

Portal is a story of science gone amok, but what isn't interesting is the silent protagonist's adaptation and success over the test chambers, but instead GLaDOS' ever-changing expression and demeanour. At the start of the game, GLaDOS helps the player and acts as a narrator and explains the portal concept; later, she taunts the player with sarcasm and passive-aggressive remarks to encourage the player by the weight of her authority; lastly, GLaDOS turns into a manipluating and vengeful adversary who will do and say anything to save her life.

What this has to do with love is that over this time GLaDOS is "byte by byte" revealing herself emotionally to the player; if love is a battlefield, then the aseptic environment of Apeture Science is the battlefield in which every puzzle solved and step closer to her defeat make another chink in the emotional armor of the computer until at last she reveals everything, as poets do, in a poem.

The emotional breakdown of GLaDOS can be best seen early on in the Weighted Companion Cube test chamber where all relationships in the game can be viewed. As with everything she says, GLaDOS' self-redundant yet ironically charged bureaucratic warnings can be heard here with the addition of hearing her speak her emotions - specifically, that of jealousy.

Despite the unsteady monotone of her voice, a palpable emotion can be felt coming from GLaDOS as she first nurtures your relationship with the Weighted Companion Cube; embellished with a pink heart on every side, GLaDOS encourages a rapport with the cube through the entire test chamber experiment by reverse-suggesting that the player not get too emotionally involved with the cube. Spouting such lines as, "The
Enrichment Center reminds you that the weighted companion cube will never
threaten to stab you and, in fact, cannot speak," only endears us more to an inanimate object.

It is then with a great deal of malice and satisfaction that GLaDOS instructs the player at the end of the test to "euthanize" this Weighted Companion Cube by immolation in a furnace. This delight at the misery of other people's relationships points at one thing: GLaDOS is incapable of nurturing of loving relationship with anyone else, and so derives great satisfaction at ruining relationships between others.

That's right: an aritificial intelligence is jealous, not to mention has emotions. This is the arc of the entire story that really appeals to gamers; while this may seem preposterous to the layman who concedes Portal is "just a game" that has "no story", consider the length of the game, which is regarded as very short at around four hours when compared to most games at 10 to 20 or even 50 hours. While the short length of a video game is commonly complained by video gamers, Portal drew near universal critical and popular success. Even though Portal only has 19 test chambers, it would be practical and easy enough to continue adding more and more test chambers to "pad" out the experience for a longer duration.

However, doing so would counteract what Portal is trying to do: tell a story. The four-odd hours spent playing Portal is economical enough to challenge us with the puzzle part and yet be able to entertain us with a story and subtext about a computer that wants to be loved and yet does not know how. Once again, this seems preposterous until you consider the topic of cake.

Because the cake is not a lie. The cake is real, and it symbolizes the computer's love.

"Crazy, it's just a game, you're looking into it too much." I bet this would be the common response to such a statement, but I feel this has got to be said since it appears no one "gets" this game and keep touting that same joke "The cake is a lie," again and again.

Let's back up. At certain points in the game, GLaDOS uses cake as an incentive for completing the objective or for compliance to her orders. As visual proof the player can look at the warning icons on the white sign at the beginning of each test chamber to see that there is a cake icon to indicate cake is an option, only that it isn't filled in and availible for this level. Furthermore, at the very end after the credits in one of the game's few cutscenes a flying shot moving through the facility ends in the basement with a close up of the cake, adorned with a single candle. The cake is very real; it is Black Forest.

This is completely the opposite to the eerie warnings left by a "ratman" on the walls of the backstage of the test chambers. In amongst empty cans of food and a dirty mattress, someone has left half-coherent scribbled warnings and poems about GLaDOS; besides directions on how to escape, there lies repeating warnings of "the cake is a lie". Why the discrepancy?

Most players would take the statement "the cake is a lie" at face value since the computer lies so often that it would then make sense that the offering of cake is a lie as well. However, we should take into account what the cake represents to each character. To the "ratman" living in fear behind the scenes and trying to escape the homicidal computer, the cake is part of the computer's reward system. As the computer can't be trusted, neither can the rewards.

However, the cake represents something different to the computer: it represents the computer's love. Being a sentient computer with emotions, being left alone with nothing to do at the Apeture Facility has made her very lonely; barring the internet and phone connections, GLaDOS is cut off from the world. However, wanting an emotional relationship does not mean being able to correctly have; GLaDOS wants that which she can not have.

That's what makes the cake so important. Not able to articulately express herself, GLaDOS instead puts all her love into making this cake which she absolutely wants to share with others. However, it seems that she is more adept at making high-tech weaponry and gadgets than cakes; at the game's climax when disposing of the cake sphere, one part of GLaDOS' brain, it lists off the ingrediants of the cake, in which some of them are not edible but instead hazardous to one's health (eg. fiberglass surface resins).

The biggest argument to prove Portal is a video game about love is the game's kick ass ending in which GLaDOS sings a song. That's right: upon defeating the computer, the player is rewarded by having their vanquished foe sing a song that reveals everything about herself. Most telling about cake is the line, "But there's no sense crying over every mistake/ You just keep on trying 'til you run out of cake." This directly proves that GLaDOS has done this before; she has run previous experiments with other test subjects, baking cakes and attempting to foster relationships.

This makes the first line of the song, "This was a triumph/ I'm making a note here: huge success" somewhat perplexing in light of being blown up by the player, but does make sense in the view that finally someone was able to pass all the challenges set by the computer and give her what no one else was able to grant her: an end to her suffering and loneliness. The player survives all the tests and makes it to GLaDOS' inner sanctum, thus becoming its equal and peer. As such, the player represents change and can give a "way out" to this intelligence that has likely spent a specific amount of time wallowing in its own misery. To a highly intelligent emotional super-computer, a day alone is probably like a dog's year of Sunday afternoons. In that case, we can take the entire song as truth and believe the computer when she says she is "happy for [the player]".

Honestly, players shouldn't be surprised that Portal be the video game equivalent of a "chick flick" when all the game's characters are female, that many of the game's creators are women and that Portal boast so much yonic imagery--contrary to so many first-person shooters and their phallic imagery, Portal features vaginal-themed/looking mysterious holes that transport the player to new, mysterious places. That Valve was able to convey such a subversive subtext in the male-dominated genre of first-person shooters only confirms the sublime genius of this game, a testament that many a Weighted Companion Cube cake or plush toy will confirm.

We can only hope that the upcoming inevitable "Portal 2" will continue this narrative and have game play that doesn't revolve around an online multiplayer where you can drop grand pianos on the heads of your opponents. Indeed, if GLaDOS is still alive as the song suggests, maybe we can find out if she has learned how to love by dueling against us actively in puzzles set in yet another test chamber. If Bridget Jones got a bad sequel, well hopefully Portal can do better, the absence of Hugh Grant notwithstanding.

(listed below are the lyrics to "Still Alive", the end song to Portal as written by Jonathan Coulter in all its emo glory; you can pick out for yourself the "love" subtext that never gets mentioned)

"Still Alive" (Portal) by Jonathan Coulter

[Test Assessment Report:]
"This was a triumph
I'm making a note here
HUGE SUCCESS!
It's hard to overstate
my satisfaction.
Aperture Science
We do what we must
Because we can
For the good of all of us
Except the ones who are dead

But there's no sense crying
over every mistake
You just keep on trying
'til you run out of cake
And the science gets done
And you make a neat gun
For the people who are still alive

[Personnel File Addendum:
Dear << Subject Name Here >>,]
I'm not even angry
I'm being so sincere right now
Even though you broke my heart
And killed me.

And tore me to pieces
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you!

Now these points of data make a beautiful line
And we're out of beta
We're releasing on time.
And so I'm GLaD I got burned
Think of all the things we learned
For the people who are
Still alive.

[Personnel File Addendum Addendum:
One Last Thing:]
Go ahead and leave me
I think I prefer to stay inside
Maybe you'll find someone else
To help you.
Maybe Black Mesa...
THAT WAS A JOKE HAHA! FAT CHANCE!
Anyway this cake is great
It's so delicious and moist

Look at me still talking
When there's science to do
When I look up there
It makes me GLaD I'm not you
I've experiments to run
There is research to be done
On the people who are
Still alive!

[PS:] And believe me I am still alive
[PPS:] I'm doing science and I'm still alive
[PPPS:] I feel FANTASTIC and I'm still alive
[FINAL THOUGHT:]
While you're dying I'll be still alive

[FINAL THOUGHT PS:]
And when you're dead I will be still alive.
STILL ALIVE!
Still alive!"

Portal Review: Point Form

Pluses:
+ innovative and fresh: this fps puzzler will challenge you
+ short length/no filler or padding of length - more games should follow this lead
+ strong narrative to a solid story - a beginning, middle and end. In four hours. Screw you, Suikoden V; 20 hours of "beginning" means you suck at telling a good story.
+ great ending - emo rock finally has a purpose

Minuses:
- left wanting more - if only all of life's problems can be solved by shooting a portal
- not enough yonic imagery - yonic imagery is so rare that people don't even know what yonic means

Rated: 3 out of a possible 3 stars; highly recommended.
Played to completion on the Xbox 360 in approximately 4 hours as part of the compilation "The Orange Box" (2007) by Valve Software. Advanced mode and bonus trial runs not tried.

(analysis was posted before, but underwent a re-write for clarity)

No more non-reviews; here come "Analysis" and "Criticisms"

2009-04-21T00:23:00.000-07:00

Getting sick is always a pain.

Seeing how I'm getting the knack of writing self-proving statements, I'll just go on to say that getting sick isn't so bad as it gets you into a different state of mind. Pain-relieving medicine is mind-altering by itself, but it's also something else to watch yourself from a third-person psyche perspective when you are a feverish madman with illogical anger swings; it's like enjoying the immunity from responsibility that the criminally insane have, or tantrum throwing celebrities.

The whole point is that I haven't been writing much because I haven't been thinking in sentences lately, making articulation a mouthful of crackers in the desert sun. Still, I have been thinking about this blog; it's obvious where my passion lies and it isn't Senate reform or the Ottawa Senators (sorry about the playoffs...).

I was thinking about re-initializing and re-formating this already rather new blog; specifically, that I don't do reviews. I do non-reviews. A review can be many things: criticism, analysis, an affirmation of your experience, or even an attempt to convert others to your specific "geek" love.

For video games, this always makes for the exact same review. The "professional" video game places do that and assign a specific value on a scale that brings with it the conceit that, on a scale out of a hundred, you can rate one hundred games where one is better than the other.

I'm somebody who thinks video games are art; bad art, but still art nonetheless. Many gamers share this opinion, and while that makes us at the very least friends on Facebook, I don't think people take this opinion respectfully. Rating a video game out of 100 is reducing it to some consumer product like a car tire or mouthwash. Video games are products made for consumers to buy, but these are different because these are products with culture.

This is why I'll never write the words "buy" or "rent". It's a product, sure, but I'm going to write about the culture of video games that I've lived with all my life that I've only just now started to articulate and interpret this culture. It's not important to curing cancer or relevent to world peace, but for an industry that makes so much money and in turn is embraced and loved by so many I think it's time we really look at what we are interacting with.

It's not just the fever. I need an Tylenol now, though.

On Death and the Need for Mortality: Prince of Persia

2009-04-14T15:06:00.000-07:00

I take myself to be a hard core gamer, and despite the negative connotations of video games that resonate with me to this day I do feel a rush of pride to call myself that. At times it's a sense of elitism--a false, empty pride of knowing more useless information about a hobby devoted to wasting time; at other times it's the bravado and dedication that I bring to gaming that elevates me above casual gamers that inflates my ego. All of this still boils down to sitting in front of a screen and buying into an illusion, but the pride is real.

Video games are still quite a young medium but it isn't with a shortage of games. While there seem to be games that really are universal--DOOM, Super Mario Brothers, Tetris--there also are popular games that one simply missed out on. Frequently seen in the only type of article video game journalists are inspired to write, a "Top Ten 10", many gamers will often have their own opinion to games that are important to play, or "games that every hardcore gamer needs to play in order to be called hardcore".

First of all, I resent that statement. Video games don't necessarily define a gamer; it's the attitude you bring to gaming that defines you. Let's contrast two individuals: one owns an Xbox 360 and just about every game availible for the platform, and then the other owns a Nintendo Wii and a Wii Fit board. While the common thinking would to label the former a hardcore gamer, it could very well turn out that the Xbox 360 gamer is some trust fund boy not in possession of "mad skillz, yo" and commits to playing just an hour a week; just the same, the Wii-ist gamer may be exercising frantically every day on the Wii Fit board because the prom and swim suit season is coming up or just generally enjoy waving his arms around in the air and this platform finally gives this personality defect an application.

Tangents aside and the peeving of pets taken care of, there are games that have completely been missed in my illustrious gaming career. I've always heard about the Prince of Persia series but have never played it. It just didn't work out for me, and I figured that it is the type of game one plays earlier in your career to pad out your experience, like joining the peace corp or become an intern. I suppose it can be boilied down to genre preferences; I prefer to spill the blood of my enemies rather than jumping up and down for joy.

However, like two titans on a small rock destined to meet each other, I procured a copy of the latest Prince of Persia called just that, apparently. Whether it is the hideously termed reboot of the series or whether I missed out on the subtitle as downloadable content is lost upon me. And as jumping and Middle Eastern platform games go, it's not bad. There's jumping, it's Middle Eastern and it fits all the neccessary criteria for its subgenre.

But I'll be honest: I didn't finish the game. I just don't want to, and I'm not inspired to do so. Prince of Persia may just be a good game full of exciting story, crisp graphics and gripping action but I just don't care. Really, why should I? As some guy with the internet and a blog I'm not compelled to finish this game and give a definitive opinion whether or not you, the loyal reader, should buy or rent this game. I don't care, and I don't know why people care so much about this opinion. If you're going to have 5 dollars worth of opinion, then I would say make sure your opinion counts about something that matters like about the government of your country, current world affairs or gender or cultural issues; dude, you don't need to have a rock solid reason why this game should be bought or sold.

I mean it. In fact, I encourage everyone reading this to go out and simultaneously buy and rent this game just to spite me and my lack of opinion on the matter. Or rent all availible shelf copies of the game at your local corporate monopoly video store so no one has the ability to rent it. Hijack a truck and ransom your city of retail copies of Prince of Persia so everyone will have to rent it, reluctantly, as you stand at the window of your dark castle on the hill overlooking the scared populace, laughing. Though I will not capitulate to terrorism, neither will I bend from this unpopular opinion of opining.

Video game reviews should be more than a thesis to prove you should either buy or rent a game. The term "review" connotes a judging of good or bad, but it also means a critical analysis. The use of reviewing is an active reaction to the passive experience of playing video games; sure, you're doing stuff and pushing buttons and lol-ing your a55e5 off, but you're not thinking or interpreting the game at all.

So, again, Prince of Persia: maybe a good game, but have stopped playing and not going to continue. Why? Because you can't die.

Immortality is one of those perks of video games, ranging from cheat codes and "god mode" to the entire game of Planescape: Torment. The idea of death and the use of lives as "turns" has long defined video games as games of success or failure. The old school of gaming is merciless in difficulty and forgiveness; the new school is much more accomadating with save points, health bars and power ups.

And then you have Prince of Persia, in which you can't die; any failure, whether from falling from missing a jump to falling in battle, will be compensated by the chick in the white blouse following the eponymous Prince around. This blouse and the chick it houses will grab the falling Prince or pluck him from the reach of mortally wounding weapons just in time. This makes for no break in the game play so you won't be punished with watching yet another loading screen, but this also has the effect of rendering game play unfun. Why? Because death, and the failure it represents, becomes meaningless; that in turn makes life meaningless.

We, as human people as well as electronic avatars, need to die. Yes, it's sad and forces us to wake up early to funerals, but it's necessary and important. Death isn't just a consequence to a decision, it's also an end to a story. Death is grab-bag chock full of meaning for this reason: a miserable person with an anguished existence has a meaningful life is they are somehow able to achieve a happy death, just as those one hundred deaths your character endured trying to reach that ledge will mean something if they eventually get there.

It's the same way when told you have a month or a week or a day left to live; when faced with such knowledge you would be sure to make the last days of your life important and meaningful, shared with your loved ones and those important to you. So if you're told that you better make this jump or else your character will purchase a rural estate in Schnectedy, New York, then you better make this jump.

I'm a hard core gamer. I guess you can say I enjoy death, or more specifically that I enjoy watching loading screens. That defines me.

On Racism: Resident Evil 5

2009-04-13T20:57:00.000-07:00

Resident Evil 5 is a racist video game.

While this is a provocative statement worthy of monsters living under bridges everywhere, I would say it just to get under people's skin who feel they must defend their way of life as defined by a hobby spent pretending to be other people and murdering. Furthermore, I would say it just for the reason that for all the controversy that Resident Evil 5 has generated, not one article or review can be found that actually calls this game racist; all that has been found are journalist who find the imagery "uneasy" and say that it can be "disturbing".

This may not be an internet first, but without the support of any known adherents I'm going to make the first move and be the leading hit on any search engine with "Resident Evil 5" and "racist".

Besides the apparent grab for attention, the first question might be "Why? Why does that have to be said? Why do you have to ruin it for everyone?" to which my first response might be, "Because the minority of opinion has to be said to offset the opinion of the majority." Also, because it's right and because most gamers know this but won't accept such an ugly truth.

Let's get our definitions out of the way. Like terrorism, abortion and euthanism, racism requires a specific definition before discussion or else the only thing debaters can agree on is that everyone is speaking too loud and at the same time.

Without using a dictionary or wikipedia, racism is the act of insensitivity towards another race or culture that inflicts pain or suffering. And before readers start changing the channel to FOXNews, this isn't about political correctness; racism has always been around and will continue to do so--political correctness is just a modern movement used to mute expression as a reaction to special interests groups. It's not any good for anyone; normal people are constrained to re-think their thoughts before they say them and the racist people are allowed to hide behind a veil of propriety.

I don't believe in political correctness. I believe that if you want to say something bad and insensitive, you should so that everyone can see what a bigot and ignoramus you are. The use of political correctness as a morality policier means that people will do things for the wrong reasons, making politcal correctness a hollow shell game that will expose attitudes and prejudices thought long eradicated when it one day is not required by society. People should do good things, but they must be allowed to perform them by themselves or else it isn't a good deed or act--it's just a empty gesture that makes going through the day easier.

At this point after mentioning I don't believe in political correctness I take it that I'm supposed to rattle off a couple of South Park quotes to demonstrate that I'm on "your side", but truth be told I don't watch South Park nor any other comedy show that has devolved from generally funny and provoking to a hackneyed mess which is spending too much time preaching and moralizing. This is also not to take me as some sort of aloof divinity above the cares of mortals; I did watch--and enjoy--the South Park movie, after all.

This act of stating Resident Evil 5 is a racist game is most important--not for political correctness--because people, gamers and non-gamers, should see racism for what it is: insensitivity and ignorance. Being a person who is not racist is to be a person that is sensitive and aware; by overcoming one's prejudices and fears you would be contributing to the world at large, let alone one's own capacity to be great.

Also, we should be wary of what racism is not: something that occurs in variations and in small degrees. Someone or something is racist or it is not. Similarily, that's like saying someone is a little bit pregnant, or had caught a little bit of the Ebola virus over the weekend. It's one or the other; what makes this not simple is the fact that no one ever wants to admit to being racist, especially those people who are especially racist.

There are degrees to severity to how deep one's racist beliefs goes--an off-color joke doesn't make you a Ku Klux Klan member, and one racist action doesn't mean you support unequivocal genocide to wipe an entire peoples. However, going back to this definition of racism--that it is an act of insensitivity and ignorance--will inform us that if by your actions you offend at least one person because of their race and culture, well then you sir/madam are racist. It doesn't help the situation that the current society-economic order is full of people who are overly sensitive, leading back to that facade of political correctness that still persists. While this may seem excessive to be responsible for all one's actions and words, really it's not. You, being you, control yourself and do actions and say words; no one else is responsible. This means that you should believe in your words and actions, else your words and actions have little significance.

Let's take it to a common example, one we've all experienced. You're in a group of people and someone makes a racist comment that makes one person in the group uncomfortable. Is this racist? Being a subjective concept, all it takes is for all the people to deny that it happened for it to be "non-racist" for these individuals; if someone objects, this racist act can be passed off as "just a joke" or "just a little racist, but not really". However, these opinions mean little to the individual who became upset not because it broke the order of a "politically correct" world or was morally wrong but because it touched upon something inside of them. That's racism; it's ugly and no one likes it but it's that giant invisable elephant that no one wants to point out. By being silent in this situation is to tacitly condone this type of behavior, and by agreeing that someone/thing isn't racist when it certainly is makes for an act just as bad as the original transgression.

Racism is real; anyone is capable of racism. I realize that talking about it in this way is like getting people to wake to to the invisable cage that's right in front of their eyes, but that's what it is. Many Americans don't identify with being racist because they consider their country the "land of the free" and that racial problems are a thing of the past, and being racist connotes a connection to racial segregation and lynching. However, if you are being insensitive and ignorant towards another race or culture, what else is it called? There aren't two words for racism, and "a little bit racist" simple does not suffice.

Miley Cyrus chink-eye incident? Racist. Relative importance in the grand scheme of things? Not big, as neither is blink-and-you'll-miss-her Miley Cyrus and her Myspace photos. Significance to her fans? None, as this PR blunder that has the potential to offend over one billion people can be passed off as the indiscretion of a young girl who just doesn't know any better.

Resident Evil 5 is different, Capcom should have known better but just didn't. Japan has a different racial balance than the United States, which is a country split into white and black segments of society. Resident Evil 5 could never have been made in the United States, but Japan lacks the charged racial animosity of the USA's checkered past; that so, Japan likely doesn't construe Resident Evil 5 as a racist piece of art, but then that just shows the rest of the world the kind of insensitivity and ignorance Japanese will hold for other cultures.

Resident Evil 5 is racist on many levels; it's actually a shame because it is a fun game. Much of the criticisms deflected by video gamers have been with pointing out Resident Evil 4 wasn't labelled racist with its depiction of Spanish zombies, and also that Resident Evil is a game where you shoot zombies, and in this case Resident Evil 5 is a game where you shoot zombies that happen to be African because the game occurs in Africa. These are all pretty weak arguments coming from a community that emphatically states that "video games are art" except in cases like these which prove to be inconvenient in which case it is stated "lol its just a game don't take it so seriously".

With these justifications in check many gamers set their conscience at ease and can get back to shooting, punching and stabbing Africans (who are zombies, let's not forget that). Despite the status of video games being works of art that can convey complex themes and concepts as well as the growing use of high end technology to render highly detailed graphics, video games like Resident Evil 5 have remained simplistic and the rejection of racism in this game keeps in line with this thinking. This is because thinking only ruins fun; if one were to question the depiction of Africans in this game the game play would suffer from your pondering. Video games need constant interaction with the gamer to keep fun and immersion high, but these interaction are small and superficial compared to, say "Guernica" by Picasso, a painting that you can only "look" at.

Resident Evil 5 is racist in many ways, most above all it is racist in terms of cultural appropriation. Leaving the dictionary behind along with the pipe and cardigan vest sweater, cultural appropriation is taking the elements of another culture and exploiting it for your own gain and personal use. A famous example of this is the use of "blackface" in vaudeville whereby white entertainers pretend to be black singers by adopting make-up that exaggerated the facial features of blacks. A more recent and hilarious example would be the prevalance of "wiggers", white teenagers who are so infused into black urban hip hop culture that they look and act black and fool nobody.

Resident Evil 5 is guilty of cultural appropriation all throughout the game. Africa (and whatever fictional country of Endovia Resident Evil 5 takes place in) is only a backdrop to place this current iteration of the franchise. Much like traditional James Bond movie of old, Resident Evil 5 simply uses Africa as a tool to bolster exotism and wonder. For example, the city environment is doubtlessly well researched and rendered beautifully for an ugly, downtrodden slum. However, zombies aside, we never learn about these Africans and why they are so poor; by not answering these question Resident Evil 5 propagates stereotypes of poor Africans who can't help themselves until the presence of a foreign power come to help them.

Comparisons from this game to "Black Hawk Down" (2001) are apt because both video game and movie are content to portraying a single point of view that is at odds with the culture it appropiates to convey an enjoyable experience. Black Hawk Down is a movie based on facts--all from the US soldiers that took part in the fighting. It's a great movie to discuss issues of honor amongst men and courage, but not a great movie to discuss questions like why the US was there in the first place, why wasn't an alternative plan pursued to capture Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid, and why was the local Somali populace so angry and militant against the US troops. Black Hawk Down is an excellent and action packed movie of a humongous military blunder that killed so many and cost so much; this type of portrayal is in line with the idolizing of American failures into American heros, like General Custer's last stand or Apollo 13's failed attempt to reach the moon.

This cultural appropriation can be seen in the "Marshland" level. Using a flat-bottomed boat, the protagonists navigate through a marsh to various village, upon which are beset by African zombies. What makes this culturally offensive is that these African zombies are dressed up in tribal warrior gear; the move to define these enemies as evil and different from the heroes is to use their culture to highlight this difference. African culture, though by no means homogenous, is used not to promote or explore itself but rather just as a means to convey the end goal of a exotic, fun experience. Perhaps Africans do put on war paint and war masks and, to this day, still fight with spears and arrows; but when another culture steps in and portray Africans in this light it reeks of insensitivity and ignorance. It's no wonder that Capcom officials were surprised at the controversy; it seemed before the first trailers were released for Resident Evil 5 no Capcom employee had ever met or talked to a black person (refering to Ngai Croal's quote).

This cultural appropriation could have been stemmed if Capcom were willing to let us sympathize with the African natives there; a very effective way to do that would be to provide subtitles for the language that they speak in the game (Swahili? Endovian?) Nevertheless, not doing so has effectively pushed the image of African people ever further into the "other", or the "unknown". In that case, we have mobs of mindless African zombies who possess some intelligence and culture that is never made availible to us. As authentic as the language may be, the video game only allows us to shoot them and never ask any questions.

Africa is portrayed as a world of poor Africans who can't take care of themselves. Africa itself is portrayed as a lush virginal paradise just waiting for prospective exploiters. The game currency is bolstered by jewels you will find just lying on the floor or on cave walls and ceilings. Vast secret underground lost villages exist to be discovered and plundered of treasure and gold. The two different worlds of Africa--the poor people and the rich environment--don't make sense together and seem to imply that Africa is a world waiting for Westerners to come and use it to its full potential, something native people there can't seem to do.

Another racist issue in Resident Evil 5 is the use of imagery and issues that are still connected to racism and other problems. The imagery of a rampaging, savage mob of Africans is problematic because it was used not too long ago polarize Africans and legitimize entertainment and serve as arguments from anything from the slave trade to racial segregation. Any person living in the world today knows that Africa as a continent has suffered under Western colonialism; the image of a mob of African zombies does tie in with this checkered past. Furthermore, the theme of a virus running rampant throughout the continent of Africa isn't fictional, it's real and it's called AIDS. If its not called that it's called Ebola; these are just two of many viruses that threaten the continent. Running around and shooting people in the head trivializes the struggle going on there. Further inflammatory material to the problem is that not one infected person is saved from their illness, nor is any attempt made to do so. If you become a zombie the prescription is a bullet to the head, something sick people in Africa too poor to buy a PS3 don't need to hear.

It doesn't stop there; while its great to have many arguments to support your thesis, after a while it's like beating a dead sacrificed goat. Chris Redfield's B.S.A.A. partner is Sheva Alomar, a native of Africa born to African parents who enlists in the B.S.A.A. to avenge her parents and her countrymen (for the last time, I don't know the name of the fictional country this takes place in. Kijuju? Endovia?) Perhaps in a move to de-emphasize the game's "great white hunter" bias, Alomar is presented as an African and a hero to show balance to the games's depiction of Africans. The problem with Sheva Alomar is that she doesn't look or sound African. If she really is a black person, then she has to be the whitest black person God rolled up God's sleeve to make on the sixth day. Alomar is a black woman with very light, fine skin, straight hair and a tiny nose. She doesn't dress like any African in the game. Besides speaking perfect British English, she never speaks any African dialect. If Alomar is truly indeed black, then she is designed to be beautiful in terms of white beauty, not black beauty. She is more like Chris Redfield than any of the countrymen she apparent sympathizes with.

By far, the biggest case of cultural appropriation is the second unlockable Sheva Alomar outfit. After shooting 30 B.S.A.A. emblems, the player is rewarded with an Alomar outfit that consists of a tiger print bikini and tribal war paint. This is nothing more than the use of sex as a reward and simplifying African culture to primitive savages stereotyped for their sexual prowess. I'll say it another way if you don't get it: rewarding a player with the Sheva tribal outfit is to reward the player with sex and the subjugation of another culture. Honestly, if you have to ask why such imagery is racist and could possibly be insensitive to any African alive today you probably don't understand other people exist in the world besides you.

It seems troublesome that a video game so advanced in technology be so backwards in cultural awareness, but then it's telling that this type of imagery could exist in video games but could not possibly exist in films or television. And, it still doesn't stop there. No, because Josh Stone, Delta Team captain and the only other "good" African survivor left to represent all of Africa, is really nothing more than a subserviant house negro. Initially a helpful character that saves the protagonists, Stone eventually devoles into the errand boy who gets to have no fun but just pilot boats and helicopters and open doors (his figurine depicts him at his iconic best: wide eyed, afraid, and behind a computer console). While this type of supporting character is required to let the protagonist be the hero (like Tom Arnold's character in "True Lies" (1994)), this further doesn't paint Africans in a positive light; instead they are passive people waiting for instructions from Westerns to tell them what to do.

The goal of repeatedly stating and ultimately proving Resident Evil 5 is not to say that it's a bad game, though is quite a simple one; instead the idea to have gamers take a long look at this game and find that fundamental design concepts in this game are racist, and are issues that need to be avoided or addressed in future similarly themed games.

You don't have to be a racist to enjoy this game, but it helps.

Review of game play in point form:

Good:
* on Veteran level provides a fun challenge (so long as you don't "farm" ammunition on earlier stages)
* great graphics and cutscenes, breasts and asses are depicted hyper-realistically
* Chris Redfield punching a rock has to be the best videogame climax in years
* "COME ON! COME ON! COME ON! COME ON!"--two player co-op is fun and ensures replayability

Bad:
* racist but blissfully self-unaware
* simplistic game play that has you running around in circles avoiding an enemy with no discernable strategic skills and breaking the most well rendered crates in Resident Evil history
* too easy, no suspense, predictable story
* will serve as the KKK's most favorite video game for some time to come
* ridiculous names like "Wesker" and "S.T.A.R.S." prove Resident Evil has a mindset that is stuck 10 years in the past

Played to completion on Veteran mode only on Xbox 360

Rating: 1 and a half stars out of 3 - worth experiencing to decide the racism issue yourself

Article: The Failure of the Video Game Review - A Case Study of Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad

2009-04-12T23:03:00.000-07:00

Wanton sex appeal; crass exploitation; exploding blood and gore and violence that no mop and bucket could possibly clean up: this recipe, if not for a successful video game, at least would make for one that would pass your time well—especially one that is innovative with depth to game play, challenging and actually fun to play. However, if you read and believe everything you read in video game journalism you may be missing out on a worth while game; from what it appears also missing out maybe the video game journalists who believe their own bad press.

Oneechanbara: vorteX (2006), made by Tamsoft and published by D3, is a budget video game based on the long running Oneechanbara series (the English version is written with one less "e"). Having debuted to Japanese gamers on the budget "Simple 2000" series on the Playstation 2, the franchise has since crossed platforms onto the Xbox 360, the Nintendo Wii and cell phones. This popularity spawned a live action motion picture, "OneeChanBara: The Movie" (2008) starring celebrity actresses and idols Eri Otoguro, Chise Nakamura and Manami Hashimoto that was released in Japan and screened at the New York Asian Film Festival. Oneechanbara: vorteX sold so well in Japan that it placed 32nd in the top 50 lifetime domestic sales on the Xbox 360 in 2007, selling better than such games as Call of Duty 3 and Need for Speed: Most Wanted. (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=220841) This is a successful video game in a popular franchise that has sold well in Japan; it should then be logical to think such success would carry over for the 2009 United States re-release.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad, the title for its US and European release, was received very poorly from video game critics; the aggregate critic score on Metacritic (based on 33 reviews) is 39 out of 100, a low and rare score. Despite the success of the game in its native Japan, Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad was generally criticized for its bad production involving graphics and sound, nonsensical story, crass sexual exploitation, repetitive game play and a minimal presentation that had no tutorials or other explanations of game play. A gross oversight on the part of publisher D3, this lack of polish on the Western re-release--a game in-waiting for 3 years--ensured the long running Oneechanbara franchise would not enjoy the same success as it did back in Japan.

However, this lack of presentation and tutorials also had another unexpected result: based on playing the game and the lack of information it gave them, many video game reviews made statements that simply weren’t true. Determined to let a lack of information set the bar on a review full of opinions, certain journalists braved forging ahead without bothering to get their facts straight. Judging from their comments it seems that many of these reviewers simply played through Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad once quickly in order to write their review without learning about what this game can offer them.

To begin:

“But while you will need to mix up your attacks for some enemies, for the most part you can just jam on buttons indiscriminately without too much worry.”
“Every attempt to leave the tedium of button mashing behind results in pure stupidity.”
- Kevin VanOrd, Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/chambarabeautyx/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review)

Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad is a button-masher, an action video game that is dependent upon pressing buttons quickly and often, but it isn’t a mindless button-masher as described by Mr. Van Ord. Instead, this is a button-masher with style. In an interesting case where style is more important than substance, Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad is a game that rewards the player for being stylish rather than opting to go the easy route, say like to plod mindlessly through the game pressing attack indiscrimminately like Mr. VanOrd appears to have done. This game does for beat em' ups what Project Gotham Racing has done to the racing genre and what The Club did for first-person shooters.

“This usually consists of beating one of three attack buttons, and while it’s possible to chain together combos – all with a rating, as seen in countless action games – most foes are so easy to defeat that there's very little reason to ever learn a sequence by heart.” – Simon Miller, 360 Magazine
http://www.x360magazine.com/games/onechanbara_bikini_samurai_squad/onechanbara_bikini_samurai_squad.html

In the case of Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad the style is all about timing and not about learning complex button procedures like Street Fighter II or even contemporaries like Devil May Cry or God of War. Called a “Cool Combo”, this is performed by precisely pressing attack the very moment your first attack lands; doing so will cause a large white “x” to flash on the screen, the resultant sound effect, the rumble pack to activate—in other words, you can’t miss it unless you are blind, deaf and aren't touching the game controller. Performing a Cool Combo will exact double damage and lead to a drop of larger experience orbs, but they aren’t easy to pull off. Your character in the beginning will have at most a three hit combo, and with a Cool Combo can extend this to four. However, if you upgrade Aya’s combo meter to its maximum you will be able to perform a room clearing twelve hit combo; with double sword style this can be raised to an astounding seventeen--astounding because each of these hits must be pulled off with split second accuracy and then be repeated for each time. Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad has the zombie perfectly cast as the enemy because the game is not about how difficult the foe is but rather how stylish you can pull off your moves. While there are several different moves to learn, the Cool Combo is the most important and is the essence of game play.

“This is one of those games that hopes to sell itself to gamers based solely on the premise... There is little in the way of substance or compelling gameplay to back up this concept.” – Eric Brudvig, IGN
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/954/954624p1.html

As stated, this is not an integral component to finishing this game; one could mash their way mindlessly through the game, be done in three or so hours and write a quick review. However, once the Cool Combo is learned and accessible, it becomes a self-fulfilling goal of the player. Similar to playing Star Wars Arcade (1983), destroying the Death Star is end goal of each chapter but is not as fulfilling a goal as shooting down all the laser turrets on towers on the second stage. In fact, in could be said that the real game of Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad is the challenge of the player besting himself, trying to outdo himself by continually performing successful Cool Combos in succession; this game specifically targets the issue of bad artificial intelligence, common in many video games, by deliberately taking the focus off it.

“It does indeed transpire the combat system is much more complex than it appears. There are upward slashes, jumping kicks, taunts, counter attacks and all manner of other moves to perfect... [In the game’s manual it] is explained over the course of three pages, seven paragraphs and 650 words. Though from what I can tell it could be summarised as "keep pressing X ". - Ellie Gibson, Eurogamer
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/onechanbara-bikini-samurai-squad-review

The combat system in Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad is surprisingly deep for a beat em’ game; zombies can be dispatched in any number of creative ways. While the Cool Combo is the staple in this formula, each character branches off into their own specializations. Aya has two sword styles that can be upgraded to a maximum eleven hits on the single sword and seventeen hits on dual. Saki specializes in martial arts where she can wrestle with various zombies; Saki can perform suplexes, tear off arms and decapitate zombies with her knee. Annna has a choice between two weapon sets and can perform such stylish maneuvers as shooting from the floor and with arms akimbo, both in front and behind as well as to each side. As a matter of fact, a PDF file that details the movesets, a walkthrough and a FAQ of Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad comes in at 83 pages. Each page doesn’t describe a special move as “keep pressing x”.

“A rigid camera means you are often slashing or shooting blind, unable to see most of the enemies attacking you.” - Scott Alan Mariott, G4tv.com (http://g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1928/Onechanbara-Bikini-Samurai-Squad-Review.html)

“Its level of difficulty is so cheap, the camera so bad, and the controls so unresponsive that the game's poor quality comes immediately into focus.”
-Kevin VanOrd, Gamespot(http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/chambarabeautyx/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad features a lock-on camera that allows you to specifically target one enemy at a time. By pressing the right bumper, a green arrow will target an enemy that will flash green as well; pressing down on the left thumbstick will allow you to shift between the enemy of your choosing. This is the same type of z-targeting featured in “Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time” (1998) that allowed circle strafing around enemies and had the camera locked on such that both you and your chosen opponent are on screen and centered at all times. Whilst locked on in Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad and jumping to the left or right, your character will perform cartwheels to elude enemy attacks; if an attack is dodged at the last moment a slow motion "bullet time" will occur, allowing you to perform greater damage.

Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad features the tightest controls you’ll find in any game. The heroes in Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad don’t conform to the natural laws of physics, thereby able to stop on a dime and change directions or are able to move basically as quickly as you can control them. The greatest testament to the responsive controls is that the game will perform each and every of your button presses; if you were to press attack or jump one too many times, this game will perform that action. Therefore, an on screen character that “spazzes out” and is hard to control is indicative of a player that simply mashes the buttons without any thought and not of controls that are unresponsive; if anything, the controls in this game are too responsive.

“Then there's Rampage Mode, which characters enter when they are totally covered in blood. It makes them move twice as fast and deliver double the damage. Great, except they also take double the damage, and their health meter drains constantly. Which makes it one of the more rubbish berserker modes ever invented,” - Ellie Gibson, Eurogamer
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/onechanbara-bikini-samurai-squad-review

All the points Ms. Gibson makes about Rampage Mode are true, but she leaves many points out. Throughout the game as the two half-sisters slaughter zombies and accumulate the resultant red orbs their “Splatter Meter” rises. When full, the hero will enter Rampage Mode and have the abilities of moving twice as fast and dealing double the damage but also have the disadvantages of taking double the damage and a persistently draining life bar. These disadvantages can be offset by the use of strategy. The red orbs that formerly added to the splatter bar now will contribute to the character’s health. In this fashion, game play resembles arcade-style action and becomes exciting race against time to kill more zombies and harvest more red orbs before your life bar drains and your character suffers major damage.

To add to the strategy, hearts obtained from mud zombies with a technique called “pulling hearts” can be used to heal a character in Rampage Mode, and as these mud zombies are more prevalent than rare healing crystals it would be worth it to keep a character in Rampage Mode. In fact, with two available characters for play, a strategic move would be to leave one character in Rampage Mode and one in normal and switch between them as the situation required. This blend of strategy and arcade action makes it, arguably, one of the best berserker modes ever invented.

“Some other modes add replay value, but they don't improve the game's quality; since the title isn't worth playing the first time, any replay value is wasted.” - - Robert Verbruggin, Cheat code central
http://cheatcc.com/xbox360/rev/onechanbarabikinisamuraisquadreview2.html

Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad features an upgrade system where one of four statistics can be increased: Combo, Power, Vitality and Reach. (in the case of Annna Reach is substituted with Gun). Experience is gained by collecting yellow orbs from fallen enemies. Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad differs from other third-person action titles like the Devil May Cry series and the God of War series because there are no purchasable moves; this applies to the sword-slinging half-sisters Aya and Saki but not to the gun-toting Annna. Instead, maxing out a combo bar will add one more hit to the existing combo; basically this means to max out the entire Combo stat lots of experience must be gained, thus ensuring several playthroughs—and defining one single playthrough as missing out on a lot of the experience. This may seem like a cheap way to encourage gamers to replay an inferior product, but it does take a lot of practical experience to pull off a “Cool Combo”—especially one that ultimately adds up to a room-clearing twelve hits on single sword and an astonishing seventeen on dual swords for Aya. The technique of completing “Cool Combos” is necessary for defeating Blood Mist zombies and acquiring bracelets that can change your character status and gameplay greatly, like doubling yellow experience orbs or preventing your “Splatter Meter” from growing permanently.

There are a great number of other features that won’t need further explaining: sword fatigue that requires regular cleaning else the blade may get stuck in an enemy; a three tier “Ecstasy” meter in which successive successful attacks culmulate in an invincible attack, independent of the “Splatter” meter; strategizing character switching between their specific attacks as well as being able to regain some lost health; a Practice mode to learn and rehearse special moves and combos; and a Quest mode in which completing certain tasks items are unlocked for use in Dress Up mode, a mode where the player can dress the heroes in different clothes. What is important is not whether or not these modes, combos and game play are valuable assets to this game but rather the fact that many reviewers did not make any mention of them, specific or otherwise, but were still compelled to judge these games as journalists.

It’s very clear that D3 was lazy and released a video game that is largely incomplete despite having three years since the first time it was released; it appears the only change made to the Western release are adding subtitles to the cut scenes and translating the game menu and story script to English. For such little effort expended it looks like their business plan of not making any money on a product they didn’t spend much on succeeded. However, it is also clear that many video game journalists were content with their first impressions and didn’t bother to investigate further into a video game many of them considered not worthy of their time. By doing so they let their personal opinions and genre preferences get in the way of being able to report faithfully on a topic. Obviously, any of these video game reviewers can state that they judged and criticized a game specifically with the material at hand, just as the common consumer would do with purchasing Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad from any video game retail store. After all, this is the final product D3 released for sale and consumption.

Nonetheless, a video game journalist is not the average consumer. A level of professionalism should be required for a video game journalist that shows expertise and impartiality and an impetus to provide for the truth; after all, a journalist is someone who contributes to the public good. Just as we would demand that a video game in the beat em’ up genre should be reviewed by someone knowledgeable in the subject, so should we demand that a video game should be reviewed in context to previous games in the franchise, similar games in the genre, and also to what the video game is trying to achieve: not every game is trying to be Halo or Gears of War; Katamari Damacy, Braid and Portal are all games with limited resources that make due with what they have successfully, but also don’t make any apologies for looking or sounding any better nor being longer.

Some journalists found time to use an internet search engine and provide some background information on the game. While information is scarce on Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad, information like the IGN pdf FAQ, written by Leonard D. Lyons III and of undeterminable date of origin, do exist as long as you search for it. While searching for answers to questions that some would consider not worth asking may seem beyond the call of duty for a video game review, one video game journalist did just that.

Andy Eddy of Team Xbox gave Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad a 2.7 out of 10. While this does not stray from the average Metacritic score, what is out of the ordinary is the reaction Mr. Eddy had with a game that had “incomplete information”; frustrated that the video game and the manual did not explain the game to him well enough, Mr. Eddy took it upon himself to find out the truth. By asking a co-worker with previous Oneechanbara experience and through other means, Mr. Eddy was able to find out about the game play (Cool Combos) and the various modes (Quest, Practice, Free, Story) and other unrevealed information. Mr. Eddy was ultimately disappointed and called Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad “an incomplete game”. He would do what no one else would care to do: he based his opinion on facts that he investigated when no facts were readily available.

While Mr. Eddy’s final assessment isn’t that different from that of his peers, what is different is the weight of his opinion, having done the legwork to investigate a game that proved difficult to appreciate. And though the game proved to be of not suitable quality to Mr. Eddy, the game was suitable enough for Mr. Eddy to investigate, proving that good journalism is a deed in and of itself. While opinions are not fact and can’t be right or wrong, proven or otherwise, what can be wrong is the lazy attitude towards journalism and the assertion of opinions of fact when no research is undertaken to support arguments. While video game reviewing doesn’t safeguard lives like flying an commercial airline or performing brain surgery, it is journalism and journalism is, basically, telling the truth for the sake of the truth—even if that truth is the journalist saying, “I don’t know.”

As objective as truth is, it is rather subjective. Specifically, truth is whatever people perceive it as. So if enough people will follow a certain type of thinking, opinion becomes belief—and if unchallenged—belief becomes fact. So if video gamers persist in giving the authority of opinion to an elite few who remain unaccounted for then it is no wonder why these same gamers who also persist in complaining so loudly about small grievances in video games (like the current controversy with Resident Evil 5’s DLC) will find themselves last to blame.

Notes:

1) Oneechanbara refers to the Japanese name of the budget D3 video game franchise of the same name that stars half-sisters Aya and Saki in revealing sexy clothes and features intense violence and gore. “Oneechanbara” is a Japanese pun called a “pillow word” that features two words combined together: “oneechan” is sister and “chanbara” is sword, so together “oneechanbara” means “sister sword” or “sword-fighting sisters” or “sister sword fight”.

2) “Onechanbara” refers to the US release of “Oneechanbara: vorteX” which occurred three years after the Japanese release, and is specifically missing an “e” in its title which can be seen in box-art, press releases and in-game. A similar typo exists for the third main character, “Annna”, whose name is written specifically with three “n’s”.

3) Onechanbara: Samurai Bikini Squad is not the first western release of the Oneechanbara franchise. The Oneechanbara and the Oneechanploo were released in Europe by 505 Game Street as Zombie Zone and Zombie Hunters in 2005. Both games were not released in the US.

4) OneeChanBara: the Movie aka Chanbara Beauty follows the characters and story of the video game franchise with some liberties; however, all three main characters – Aya, Saki, and Reiko – all appear dressed in the exact same costume as in the video game: a bikini with a cowboy hat and feather boa, a school girl’s uniform and a black leather motorcycle jumpsuit.

Weblinks:

IGN, Eric Brudvig, Feb 17, 2009; 30/100
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/954/954624p1.html
This is one of those games that hopes to sell itself to gamers based solely on the premise... There is little in the way of substance or compelling gameplay to back up this concept.
Muddy controls, an annoying camera, ugly graphics, repetitive level design, little variation from one stage to the next, and an awful story are just the beginnings of the problems found here. Compared to today's sophisticated games, Onechanbara feels -- and looks -- like a dinosaur.
Even so, small snippets of the visuals can't fully convey how monstrously ugly this game is. It looks like a PS2 game blown up into HD, and a budget PS2 game at that.
There are simply too many other better options out there to waste time with this mess.

Gamespot, Kevin VanOrd, Feb 13, 2009; 25/100
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/chambarabeautyx/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review
But while you will need to mix up your attacks for some enemies, for the most part you can just jam on buttons indiscriminately without too much worry.
Every attempt to leave the tedium of button mashing behind results in pure stupidity.
Its level of difficulty is so cheap, the camera so bad, and the controls so unresponsive that the game's poor quality comes immediately into focus.
On normal difficulty, the early levels aren't just easy--they're yawners, and you'll spend most of your time pounding on the X button while searching for keys to open new areas. Even though it seems like there’s a lot of variety, there isn’t, because all the different options really just boil down to hammering on buttons.

Gamepro, Heather Barton, Feb 10, 2009; 1 star/5 stars
http://www.gamepro.com/article/reviews/208812/onechanbara-bikini-samurai-squad/
As I approached the first boss (who resembled some sort of sloppy tumor) I was looking forward to a life-draining challenge, yet was able to button mash the monster to hell with nothing more than a scratch on my nubile, under-aged body. Each boss battle after that mirrored that experience: hack, slash, repeat.
Running around aimlessly chapter to chapter decimating zombies with little to no effort…I survived the entire game without coming close to dying even once, all while button mashing.

Eurogamer, Ellie Gibson, mar 5 2009 30/100
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/onechanbara-bikini-samurai-squad-review
Then there's Rampage Mode, which characters enter when they are totally covered in blood. It makes them move twice as fast and deliver double the damage. Great, except they also take double the damage, and their health meter drains constantly. Which makes it one of the more rubbish berserker modes ever invented,
It does indeed transpire the combat system is much more complex than it appears. There are upward slashes, jumping kicks, taunts, counter attacks and all manner of other moves to perfect... is explained over the course of three pages, seven paragraphs and 650 words. Though from what I can tell it could be summarised as "keep pressing X ".
This game looks and plays like it was made 15 years ago, and fans of the genre have had much better titles to choose from since then.
There's nothing wrong with a good, solid hackandslasher that doesn't pretend to be anything else. But this game is fundamentally flawed, from the daft control system to the bizarre difficulty curve to the appalling presentation.

G4tv.com, Scott Alan Mariott
http://g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1928/Onechanbara-Bikini-Samurai-Squad-Review.html
A rigid camera means you are often slashing or shooting blind, unable to see most of the enemies attacking you.

ZT Gamedomain.com, Professor Chaos
http://www.ztgamedomain.com/6580/Onechanbara-Bikini-Samurai-Squad.html
You can just run past most of them, unless you want to level up your character which I doubt you will really want to do.

Cheat code central, Robert verbruggin
http://cheatcc.com/xbox360/rev/onechanbarabikinisamuraisquadreview2.html
Some other modes add replay value, but they don't improve the game's quality; since the title isn't worth playing the first time, any replay value is wasted.

360 magazine, Simon Miller
http://www.x360magazine.com/games/onechanbara_bikini_samurai_squad/onechanbara_bikini_samurai_squad.html
This usually consists of beating one of three attack buttons, and while it’s possible to chain together combos – all with a rating, as seen in countless action games – most foes are so easy to defeat that there’s very little reason to ever learn a sequence by heart.

Team Xbox, Andy Eddy
http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1654/Onechanbara-Bikini-Samurai-Squad/p1/
Onechanbara is also a game of incomplete information. Unfortunately, unlike poker, it shouldn’t be an integral part of the game and it certainly doesn’t improve the enjoyment you should get from playing a video game.

onechanbara ign guide
http://guides.ign.com/guides/761554/

Analysis: Dead Space and the Enjoyment of Other People's Suffering

2009-03-31T02:19:00.000-07:00

Rollercoaster rides are a funny phenomenon: rational, sane people who value their safety will allow themselves to be hurtled through the air at precarious speeds just for a thrill; these same people will then celebrate the terror that they put themselves in by screaming and yelling in an irrational manner. Of course, it makes sense: by putting themselves in a risk situation that is safe and controlled, rollercoaster riders are able to experience the thrill of danger without actually being exposed to it.

Horror movies aim to provide the same exhilaration as riding a rollercoaster, with the difference that a horror movie provides zero direct risk; there is no chance that the operation of a horror movie will injure or kill you. Instead, the people at risk in a horror movie are the characters in the narrative who recently had sex and are now being chased by a serial killer.

Lingering nightmares aside, horror movies can affect the viewer only so deeply when compared to a the genre of survival-horror video games where the concept is that you are in inside a horror movie. The interactive component of video games demands that, when playing a survival-horror game, the player be responsible for his own safety at all times and thus making every moment playing it a visceral, heart-pounding adventure. Survival-horror games differ from other video games from the omni-present feeling that you are never safe, even when standing still in an empty room.

The challenge in a survival horror game is to stay alive, especially with enemies seeking your bodily harm that are horrible and monstrous. In fact, the struggle to preserve one's own life in a survival-horror game is so important and thrilling that any story elements of the game are shunted to a secondary or even tertiary level (the second being the level of gore and violence to be enjoyed).

Such it is with Dead Space (2008) by EA's Redwood Studios which proves that survival-horror video games are incapable of telling a story because you are the story. You are telling it with your fight to survive against overwhelming odds. Anything else that happens is not as important as the very life you are trying to protect.

Dead Space has a well-thought out plot and background involving science-fiction technologies, religion, deception and appeals to the player emotionally by having the protagonist's love interest involved in this catastrophe and her whereabouts and safety unknown. The influences are outrageously cribbed from the same three favorite sci-fi movies everybody has seen. However, "Dead Space" has interesting characters like the doctor who accepts the extermination of humankind as a higher calling, or innovative concepts like the "planet-cracker" spaceship that can tear a planet asunder to mine for valuable resources, and interesting themes like the role religion will perform in futuristic society. Dead Space is well-planned and scripted.

However, Dead Space is not very thoughtful when you are constantly involved in putting off the purchase of the proverbial farm. A case in point are the game's cutscenes where dialogue is used to move the plot forward. Much like Half-Life (1998) the perspective never changes from the gameplay view allowing for a greater sense of immersion and different experiences on following playthroughs. While this immersion in Dead Space heighten the tension and the horror, this also has the effect of invalidating the story's importance by emphasizing the need to survive; you are never ever truly safe, even in a cutscene. A traditional "movie" cutscene would cut away from your perspective and would allow for a feeling a "safety" by taking the immersion and interactivity from you, if just for a moment. Indeed, when the player, Issac Clarke, finally meets up with Nicole Brenner, his girl-friend, you are likely more concerned with collecting the precious ammunition and health scattered about the room rather than anything she has to say.

The nature of self-preservation is a strong one, and would prompt someone in a simular situation to ask, "How can I help you when I can't even help myself?" This leads the main/emotional story arc of Dead Space out to dry in a vaccuum. This is further hampered by a protagonist who is silent and not revealing of any character or feeling. While this tactic has served to be useful in games like Dragon Quest VIII (2004), Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy (2001), Half-Life and the survival-horror game play of Dead Space itself, this silence separates us from sympathizing with a character who appears emotionally detached from the proceedings of the game. Unlike these other games, Dead Space doesn't have many other characters to speak for or empathize with the main protagonist. In fact, Clarke will be both stoically silent at the game's emotional climax as well as fully masked, leaving us to guess at his thoughts and feelings from his body movement alone. The only time we are allowed to see Clarke's heart is when a zombie successfully attacks him and rips him in half.

Nonetheless, Dead Space excels at letting gamers tell their own story of survival, and here it's a good thing Clarke is silent because he just wouldn't be capable of describing the horrors and atrocities committed in this game. It appears many video games try to shock gamers and outdo other video games in their depiction of barbarity and depravity of violence, if just to paint a picture of evil without actually having be evil itself: games like Bioshock (2007), Manhunt (2004) and the Mortal Kombat series comply to this mold. Dead Space doesn't shy away from this and rejoices in the gore and violence involved.

That's what Dead Space is good at being: letting the player wallow in the same level of violent debauchery as your evil enemy. It's for the better that Clarke is silent throughout or else he would express regret and remourse for having to kill an enemy that used to be people, even people he once knew, in an extravagantly vicious and spectacular fashion. Dead Space may be the first video game to have an melee attack for stepping on and squishing your enemy with horrendous and messy results. Much like the Grand Theft Auto series, Dead Space allows the player to partake in objectable behavior not endorsed or encouraged by the game but availible to perform. While Grand Theft Auto allows for the picking up and hiring of street prostitutes, Dead Space allows for the debasement of corpses in grisly and appalling manner that is oddly satisfying. Similarly, both games have tangential benefits to both behaviors: Grand Theft Auto rewards you with a health bonus, and Dead Space lets you disable (literally) a potential enemy--both availible if you are willing to cross that moral boundary.

That would then be the most compelling reason why Dead Space can't tell a story: that Issac Clarke survived this horrific ordeal in which he was forced to commit terrible acts just for the sake of our enjoyment. What is a horrific lifechanging experience for him is simply escapist, gory fun for us. His silence on the matter never lets us know how he coped with this test of the human spirit because that would humanise him and get in the way of our fun.

Issac Clarke isn't "Doomguy" from the Doom franchise, a hard-boiled space marine trained for combat and relishes violence; neither is he Gordon Freeman from the Half-Life series, a resilient scientist who is searching for the thing all scientists are searching for: truth, albeit by crawling through air ducts and fighting off military black ops personnel with a crowbar. Instead of trying to save the world, Clarke is some guy doing his day job but now just wants to rescue his girlfriend and go home.

Graphics have long been by far the most important aspect of video games. The "uncanny valley" is a concept that appears to be the most challenging for the development of computer graphics currently; the "uncanny valley" is the concept that the closer artificial characters or their likeness become to to being human-like will generate an equally large emotionally negative repsonse. Basically, the "uncanny valley" means until science finally gets it completely perfect audiences and observers will find these human-like characters as creepy and unrelatable.

However, regarding video games, this isn't the only thing that has simularily adverse results with the more progress made towards it. Likewise, video games appear to have an "unsympathetic valley", where the more something is said to explain something, the less we care.

Doom was a breakthrough first-person shooter and provided lots of fun action and scares; even though it was very shallow and didn't explain much in the way of plot or character, this simply meant that we weren't burdened with any emotional restraint that would accompany the enjoyment of murder using such satisfying weapons as a chainsaw and a shotgun. Half-Life took the devoted and well-used video game plot of an accident gone wrong and having to save the world, and freshened-up a tired cliched story by telling it well for the first time in video game history.

Almost ten years later with Dead Space it appears we are sliding backwards. Dead Space's straight-forward story of love and deception (and, revealed later, dementia) does not work with the unresolved story of survival against evil and horror. The more we hear the less we care making the experience of playing Dead Space fun but cold and empty.

"Dead Space"'s Game Pro's and Con's that can be summed up in point form

PRO:

+ very specialized single-player experience crafted to scare you in innovative environments (zero G, the vaccuum of space)
+ fresh take on the well-versed zombie genre having players dismember enemies
+ a directional line to objective means never getting lost, encouraging exploration
+ takes a direct approach to gore and never backs down

CON:

- scares wear off after awhile, and most scares are fake, scripted events
- lame boss battles
- purchasable and ungradable weapons require several playthroughs to appreciate, leading to confusion on the first time around
- influences are very noticable, and isn't as innovative as it's potential
- story is predictable and forgetable, even though great pains are made to tell the story well

Played to completion on most difficult level on the Xbox 360.

Rated: two out of a possible three stars

Review: Final Fantasy XII

2009-03-31T01:23:00.000-07:00

Everybody loves “Rocky” (1976); I mean, what’s not to like about the quintessential American dream of some white guy who able to overcome the odds and defeat the heavyweight champion of the world, a guy who is stronger, more eloquent and blacker than him. Besides this important admission to the modern lexicon of the underdog, “Rocky” is also important for its unforgettable theme by Bill Conti and establishing a cornerstone of the modern film vocabulary--the “montage”: a collection of vignettes accompanied by music to establish the passing of time and the bettering of oneself; in this case, running up the stairs of Philadelphia Museum of Art and wrestling a chicken. “Gonna fly now...”

This is important to the fundamental concept of role playing video games. Besides the idea of pretending to be somebody else for awhile and do things that they would do (a concept quite a few RPG’s in fact ignore), an RPG can offer you the satisfaction of turning a nobody who can’t do anything into a somebody who is strong, smart, and likely has the ability to cast spells. The information shown in a five minute film montage can’t compare with the satisfaction of turning your farm boy on a quest to avenge/save the kingdom/princess into a hulking, spell-casting badass over the span of some fifty hours. From fighting rats in the cellar to dragons in castles, this predicable template is what brings back gamers for more of the same. We want that satisfaction.

The Final Fantasy series has long allowed gamers to indulge in this “satisfaction illusion” with providing hundreds of hours of grinding through dungeons to level up their characters. Final Fantasy XII goes the logical next step in turn based combat and offers a system that is automatic and for the most part, hands free. Final Fantasy XII uses a “Gambit” system which is just like basic programming (ie. Step 1: heal if health under 50%; Step 2: if health over 50%, then attack enemy etc.). All that button mashing “A” to confirm your party to “attack” enemy has been eliminated by this simple and straightforward system that has you wondering why it hasn’t been used before. However, this forward leap in technology is a step backwards in old school methodology: by taking away the monotonous act of making the same combat decisions over and over again, the game also takes away the pleasure of knowing you have something (if at least artificially) to do with your character getting “stronger”.

Indeed, if the “Gambits” are programmed properly then just about no stopping of game combat is required; you just steer your merry band of murderers as they gallivant across the countryside slaughtering the poor monsters they encounter. As the player you simply direct where you want to go and everything is taken care of for you. It’s like the difference between driving a car and walking fifty miles, but more pleasurable, say like driving a car getting a highway hummer at the same time, but without the satisfaction and an overwhelming feeling of impropriety, say like getting said highway hummer from your sister. Who is dead. And had her teeth filed into fangs.

However, “Gambits” aren’t mandatory, and in fact this “hands off” approach won’t work for the entirety of the game. Boss battles require different strategies compared to normal enemies. Conversely, someone could eschew the “Gambit” system entirely and micromanage every action, constantly pausing the action to simulate the turn-based style of yesteryear. Still, what’s done is done and there’s no going back. The sharp edge of technology has pierced the patchy screen door of RPG complacency, and the automated mosquitoes of “progress” have gotten inside and are here to stay and suck the blood of the soft, rubbery skin of fun. After this watershed, a RPG that still features turn-based combat is denying inevitable change and tacitly accepting an outdated system that shouldn’t have been improved a generation ago.

This aspect of Final Fantasy XII wouldn’t have been that bad except for the fact that in this game, as in most Japanese RPG’s, the main interactive component is combat. The acquisition of experience and money, accomplishing quests and main story goals, venturing into new areas—these all require combat, and lots of it. The Final Fantasy series does offer much besides combat: the series offers amazing visuals, music, elaborate cutscenes, Byzantinely convoluted plotlines, androgynous characters—more than enough to appeal to any sexually confused gamer. But this is a videogame, something you interact with, and having the main interaction with it on “autopilot” takes away part of the reason we’re playing it in the first place. If something is turn-based, then it doesn’t make any sense to artificially remove the “turns”.

These two contrasting modes of combat – turn-based and “automatic” - aren’t inherently flawed. While my criticism of Final Fantasy XII and early Final Fantasies sound like abject dismissal of their combat, in actuality both of them can work out to be quite fun if they were used in the right context. Fallout had an amazing, rich turn-based combat system that featured deep game play strategies. If you were going to take turns in combat, well, make sure every move counted. Likewise, an automatic battle system could be fun in a game if you had other things required of you to do, say solve puzzles. It’s a game; let me play it.

So, I was having my weekly video game think-tank session with JazzOleg where we try to solve the world’s problems by talking about video games we like and don’t like. I mentioned this review for Final Fantasy XII and also my main complaint that it takes the fun and satisfaction when the game basically “plays itself”. Upon hearing this Oleg put down his pipe, got up from the rocking chair and went out to the veranda that overlooks the valley that leads down to the lake and the boat house. He stood there for some time, watching the sun set as the temperature fell. In time he re-entered quietly and poured himself yet another brandy. Swilling it, he said at last, “While I hold your position, Msgr. Lasttoblame, to be one of logic and honor, I will inform you that the great satisfaction I obtain from playing Final Fantasy and other RPG’s is by outfitting my characters with the best armor and weapons and upgrading them as I see fit.” He then stood there silently, biting his lip, until he lifted his glass and downed the brandy in one swill. Oleg then did a line of coke the length of my arm and jumped out the window. When I peered through the broken glass I saw that Oleg had picked himself up and was running away, yelling “Video games can make a grown man cry!” and “It’s all about the story!” over and over again.

Wise words, even if I don’t agree with them. Gamers can play a video game whichever style fits them: cautiously, brashly, methodically, carelessly. Whichever style it is it doesn’t matter as the fun they derive from said game. If there are gamers like Oleg who enjoy looking over a menu tab again and again to agonizingly choose a +7 Sword of Vorpal over the BFG, well… there just are. People will have their fun however they want it. However, it should be noted that the automation that happened with the turn-based combat will likely also happen with upgrading your inventory and stats, as can be seen in the “X-Men: Legends” action-RPG’s. Just as there are people who don’t enjoy constantly confirming “yes” to attack, there are also people like me who don’t enjoy looking at a massive spreadsheet in order to marginally improve my characters.

Technology is change. Progress is change. But technology isn’t necessarily progress. The current trend in video games is to make games more and more accessible to more people, and the direct result is that of making games more and more easy. Final Fantasy XII follows this trend by using technology to make choice selection easier and faster. This is in effect “giving something for nothing” and gives the illusion of an action game without actually requiring the reflexes and co-ordination to play an action game. Easier and easier games redefine games as less interactive and demanding when the complexity of technology and the maturing of gamers’ sophistication requires the opposite.

Rating: 2 out of a possible 3 stars. Recommended, but with caveats. Played on the PS2 for over 30 hours, made it to the Viera village.

The view from atop this soapbox isn't that great...

2009-03-24T02:30:00.000-07:00

I just finished my "video game reviews are terrible" piece, and looking at it I'll admit it's very long. I could be outside running in the breeze, careless; but no, I'm inside tapping away at a keyboard trying to articulate myself.

I'll try to be more concise; my editor is out on vacation right now. I will say I've written elsewhere, made reviews and made posts on forums only to be labelled as "long-winded".

I don't think someone who plays video games frequently would ever be confused with being overly literate, but these essays of mine definitely aren't short. However, if I'm writing about it, then you can be sure that I'm saying it for a reason; it's all part of the arguement. I'll admit it; I think in essay form. I have an opinion, a thesis, something I want to prove; I'll back it up with other opinions and examples. I may segue into other topics, perhaps, but it would be for a reason.

I don't believe in an essay (a piece of writing in which you try to persuade others to your own opinion, and not just something you stay all night doing just to get a C) you should leave anything out. You take the pros, the cons, and piece everything together to try to make your argument airtight. It's a self-contained piece that should explain everything at once. Therefore, if you can fit everything you need to say into a 400 word essay, well then you are a masterful essayist.

However, I have some controversial opinions that I don't think I can explain so quickly. I think opinions like "video game reviews are terrible" or "Resident Evil 5 is racist" should be fully explored and have everything that needs to be said of them to be said.

Brevity is the soul of wit. The short attention span of netizens requires any and all information to be in short, manageable, consumable chunks. Sure, but I think I have something to say, something that hasn't been heard before, something worth saying. I hope you'll hear me out.

Reviewing Reviews: You Suck

2009-03-23T23:43:00.000-07:00

Video game reviews are terrible. If one were to judge video games purely by reviews and not directly play them, then you shouldn't be blamed for thinking that video games are shallow time wasters that don't have much status other than a toy to play with--something that politicians and lobbyists still stereotype video games as being.

Video gamers are often inspired to write reviews on the games that they play, and these are terrible. Never mind the fact that the spelling and grammar are horrific and any readthrough of these require a red pen to make corrections with; sure, it's good to see some high schooler feel the need to articulate himself by writing a paper on Super Smash Bros., something he wouldn't do if the subject was something old and stuffy like the "Grapes of Wrath" or "Inherit the Wind". However, as video games are interactive media that reward players for successful achievement, players will invest their time playing whichever game emotionally. This immediately alters the experience into one of being intimate and personal, and thus encourages extremity of opinion.

This polarization allows for only a narrow point of view: something is either good or bad. In gamer parlance this becomes either "this game rocks!" or "this game sucks!" (ie. "this game gives me the rocking feeling!") This kind of review isn't a review at all, but instead an affirmation of an experience. The playing of a good video game proves to be an exciting, exhilarating experience, one that isn't possible through other non-interactive media; if so, a review by a video gamer will serve to affirm this experience by sharing this with other gamers by saying things like "this is the best game ever!". Conversely, the playing of a bad video game is boring and staid, and is far from the fun experience of a good game; as the player feels betrayed for investing his time in something that he hoped would give him the "rocking feeling", he lashes out at this game and deems it to be the "worst game ever".

Besides the polarization of opinion of good and bad, it also appears that every video game review is written with the same composition: a brief introduction outlining the history of the game or peripheral information about the developer or a personal anecdote, then a brief synopsis of the story, and then a rundown on the graphics, sound, gameplay and controls. After that come the complaints the player has in which he make a wish list that may be addressed in a future sequel to the video game, and then finally the conclusion "rent" or "buy" as well as the note "for fans of the genre/movie/comic/anime only".

There are several problems with this, not the least of which is the fact that a review about something should at the very least inspire original thought when in fact the opposite is true regarding video games. Video games continue to improve and evolve and have long since started to involve complex themes and issues, but video game reviews have by and large not matured alongside with it.

Video game reviews are entirely defined by what gamers see themselves as: consumers. Video game reviews serve as mini advertisements that wind up serving the companies that put out these products. Fanboys with their pointless allegiance to a particular platform or brand or game serve as PR men who work without a salary. However, the pro bono work done by these disciples to their higher calling is besides the point; no matter what the game, a video game review tells you to "buy" or "rent" but not "enjoy" or "experience" or "let this influence your thinking".

This ideal of reviewing also affects professional game reviewers, people that should serve as . The difference between professional and amateur game reviewing is sometimes small and other times vast. A professional game reviewer is literate, writes well and can articulate ideas better, thereby opening up discussion to a wider level. However, a professional game reviewer can also be subject to the simplistic "buy or rent" mentality of review and ignore themes and topics brought up by the game; s/he will be biased by the emotional impact of their own playing experience (say, for example, they lack the skills required to play said game); or they may be ill-informed and have a wrong opinion (please see my upcoming review for Onechanbara: Bikini Samurai Squad, a game heinously misjudged).

However, these are are small problems of video game journalism compared with the main problem: the blatant buying of favorable opinions of game journalists by game publishers. Video games are a huge business and make lots of money; video game journalists will often work for a site/magazine that operates on advertising made from these same game developers. Barring the recent controversy regarding the Kane and Lynch Gamespot review, it is obvious a certain amount of collusion between the marketing of video games and the selling of video games occurs between the two are still the same industry, largely due to the fact of what we, the video gamer, see ourself as: a consumer. As a consumer we want the best product, and so the game publishers will disseminate this information through video game journalism, so therefore by proxy video game journalism acts as the video gamer's informed decision as to what to spend money on. We, as a gaming public, made the hypocracy that is video game journalism because it serves our need.

Another need is that of hype, or the anticipation of a game that will largely define it; other than spending money and playing it for yourself, this is what you can come to learn about a video game. The professional video game journalist is a product of this facade to generate interest and potential buyers of this game. If this professional journalist is specially invited to preview an advance copy before the rest of the public but is subject to certain conditions (ie. it must be played only at the game developer's premises for a certain amount of time), well, for this priviledge the game journalist will certainly only have good things to say about this game. By and far, the gaming public is more objective than a professional game critic could be.

This brings me to the last point in an already overlong post, that of scoring. Metacritic is amongst the worst things to happen to the internet, to put it mildly. Besides putting respectable , established reviewers out of a job by devaluing their individual voices, Metacritic emphasizes the fallacy that there is such a thing as a universal opinion. Metacritic celebrates uniformity and does not encourage freedom of thought. Netizens who use Metacritic as a valuable tool to judge whether something is good or bad should realize that everything that is rated on the site - movies, dvd's, cd's, tv and video games - isn't there because it's an art form. No, instead everything is there because it can be sold - it has a monetary value. Whatever you purchase that is rated high on the Metacritic scale is inconsequential in terms of artistic/aesthetic value since each critic, a separate voice, is blended into the other. When you listen to everybody you in fact are listening to no one in particular. No, the intrinsic value of Metacritic is for a particular person only - the people who make this stuff. They can figure out what gets high scores and what sells well to determine a formula to keep producing consumable products that will make money.

Metacritic takes every review and formats it to fit a scale from one to one hundred. This "out of a possible one hundred" is popular amongst video game reviewers; the conceit to know that one game is better than another, if just by a couple of points, is a fallacy to impose on a medium that is trying to be an art form on its own merits, inspite of us.

Indeed, if the popular notion is that something rocks or sucks, or is a must-buy or a rental, then shouldn't the grading system be matched with that? In that case, wouldn't the proper grading system be a one star system, one star for good and no stars for bad? That would be terrible; but then, video game reviews are terrible.

A Start to Articulation

2009-03-23T11:06:00.000-07:00

Damn, I thought I was special, I thought I was different from everybody else. Not anymore-now I have a blog.

As it's the first post, who's to say how dilligent I'll be with this? My Myspace page has really all but dried up. Facebook is cool, but I find it quite a drain on my time (why won't my friends just shut up?). Furthermore, on Facebook I don't get a chance to talk about what I really want to talk about...

...video games. This is exclusively a blog devoted to video games, and my many nefarious thoughts concerning such. Which will be many, as I have a few which I hope to publish here.

First off, why video games? For something that many would see as a toy and for others at best a hobby, why talk about something as trivial as video games? After all, there are many important issues worth discussing affecting the world at large, and video games just aren't that important in the long run. They're entertainment, they're a distraction, they're something just for fun.

True. I won't buttress the importance of video games against things that really do matter (no examples needed for clarification; just about everything is more important than video games). However, I am moved to blog about video games because I disagree with just about everything that concerns video games.

Video game journalism is non-existent or populated with shills. Video game reviews have no original thought or discussion. Casual gaming is ruining video games, as are the trend towards having easier and easier games. Video games are art, but are the lowest form of art on the planet. Online gaming is a fundamentally flawed experience that will only become more popular in time. Video games are incapable of telling a good story. Video gamers are the reason video games can't improve and become something better than what they are now.

Now, those are a couple of things I wanted to get off my chest. I suppose I have some explaining to do.. well, I guess I better start posting.

One last thing: about the name. I signed up to a video game database and used the name lasttoblame, and I just like it. It doesn't mean at all that I am the last person to blame others; instead, I always consider it to mean that you should consider me the last person you should blame. Sure, it's a simple twist, now that you've got it we're both on the right track..