Penn and Teller

So, this month, AT&T - via their UVerse Service - is giving subscribers access to Showtime, Flix and Starz channels. I don't normally get access to these premium channels, as its not worth the expense and, frankly, I'm not home enough to make it worth the expense.

That said, I can occasionally tune in, and last night was one of those nights. I am a huge fan of the Penn and Teller 'Bull$#!@' series, but no more so than last night, when they took on the myth of the adverse affects of video game violence.

While their argument was abrieviated, the most telling portion of the episode was surrounding a mother of a pair of children, one of them a 9-year old boy. Because the argument about playing violent video games is often cast as protecting children from violence, or that violent video games are 'murder simulators' that train kids to perform orgys of violence, it was interesting to hear the Mom say:

"I know my son, he knows the difference between reality and fantasy."

That statement, alone, speaks volumes against the argument that I hear most often about banning violent video games which states that Children do not know the difference between reality and fantasy.

So, what will I do with my son? Good question. He's pretty savy on the computer right now - can navigate the websites he enjoys with a few clicks of the mouse and can play the simple flash games contained within, so he likes games. I know that I grew up without a content filter by my parents - I saw Aliens when I was 7, I played with toy guns, etc. Should a child play a game with gratuitous dismemberments? Does your child understand the difference between fantasy and reality?

That's the real question, and one that the government should not be answering.

I may have to buy Guitar Hero: World Tour after all...

...now that they have announced that this total geek song will be a free download.

I'm such a geek.

Six Days in Fallujah

Like many others with their fingers on the pulse of the gaming industry, I was appropriately intrigued by the recently announced game, Six Days in Fallujah, but for reasons different than the average gamer or developer.

From the screenshots, the graphics looked surprisingly pedestrian.

When described as a survival/horror style game, I didn't think that I'd really enjoy the gameplay all that much.

What did intrigue me about the game was its subject matter. It was a pretty bold move to chose to use a very specific engagement in the Second Iraq War as the basis of your game, particularly when the Second Iraq War draws such heated responses from both sides of the political spectrum. But it wasn't just the subject matter that got my attention, rather, it was the response to the fact that this was a game, about a real and recent event, that got my attention.

A great majority of the feedback was wholly negative. The event was "too recent" and that the game would "do a disservice to the men who fought and died there."

The first point is debatable, and the second is the real crux of the complaint. Clearly, games are more than childish playthings at this point: the Nintendo Generation is now over 30 years of age. The Playstation 1 generation of kids has graduated college and entering the workforce, and the PS2 generation is nearly there.

Gaming, as a medium of artistic expression, is here and holds relevance for those that have grown up with it. It is more than a child's play thing, though, there is much of gaming that fills that role.

The general response of "disservice to those that died" is clearly made under the false assumption that games are not art. But if we are to be considered art, like film, cinema and literature, developers need to be able to take on controversial topics - like the War in Iraq - and do so without worrying about publishers pulling the plug.

To put it another way: if "Six Days in Fallujah" had been a movie, would we even be having this discussion? Obviously not. Atomic is making a serious game, on a serious subject matter, using a significant and recent event as the backdrop. That alone, for those like me that enjoy serious games and see games as an art form, is enough to pique my interest and hope to see the game on the shelf.

Will the game be any good? I don't know. I hope it is. More importantly, I hope it does treat the subject matter seriously and not put it into any sort of political context. You can tell the story of Fallujah without any NeoCon or Liberal spin - simply putting the player into the battle, and tell the stories of the men around them (ala Brothers in Arms) should be compelling and engrossing enough.

LOTR:O

Lord of the Rings: Online was only my fourth EmEmOhArPeGuh, and, only the second I took really seriously.

To give an idea of how serious, I played LOTRO in:

1. Closed Beta 2
   
2. Open Beta
3. Preorder
4. Launch

Unfortunately, in that time, I committed one of the major blunders that most EmEmOhArPeGuh run into: burnout. By the time of launch, I'd been just about everywhere, and seen just about everything.

The game is gorgeous, and, more to the point, it always felt like Turbine really got Middle Earth, with all of its rich history and diverse cultures. From walking into Bree and the Inn of the Prancing Pony to viewing the Hobbits in Hobbington, Turbine's loving treatment of the universe made the game that much more enjoyable.

Not to say that the game is flawless, but it is a clean, easy to get into game that isn't quite as newbie friendly as WoW, but it certainly provides a more engrossing PvE experience.

So, when I saw that the Mines of Moria expansion was dropped, I was intrigued, but, I really couldn't afford the time or money to play. Don't get me wrong, the idea of putting together a longsword Adaneth Bario (look up the Sindarin) and exploring the Delve known as Moria would be a treat, but with the work hours I was keeping, and being a devoted father, spending the time needed to get that far into the game just wasn't an option.

Well, now that I spend most evenings home alone once Max is down to bed, I've got a couple of hours to kill most evenings.

So, I broke down and purchased the expansion, and once again, LOTR:O has sucked me in. All it does now is make me want to make an MMO...

What's wrong with me?

So...I'm playing Left4Dead again...

I was an early adopter of the game, and much like TF2, I'd gotten myself burned out on it.

I had purchased both with the understanding that Valve would release sufficient content drops to make the purchases worthwhile. In TF2, that was certainly the case.

Left4Dead, not so much. The game consisted of approx. 10 multiplayer maps, and 20 cooperative & single player maps. That sounds like a lot, but, in multiplayer, a full 'campaign' takes about an hour or so to play. Further, because the campaign is pretty linear, it didn't take long for experienced players to quickly realize what you should and shouldn't do, and where you should and shouldn't go as both Survivor and Undead.

Ultimately, it got repetitive. Not to say that wiping out the survivors didn't get less sweet, rather, it got more so - you knew the strategy for survival, it was always a question of breaking the survivors out of their plan.

So, two things happened:
1) I started playing the game again with former co-workers (to which I'm called 'The Lucky One') and it is a hoot when you are playing the game with people you know. The enjoyment factor is much much higher.
2) The release date for the new content was announced, which caused Point 1.

So, I've been enjoying Left4Dead again. Now, if they finally get the SDK released, like they said they would, the possibilities for awesomeness will only increase.

Hello, Old Friend...

Let me put on my Internet Nerd Hat for the moment and make a confession:

Yes, I play in a PBeM RPG. I've played in one, off and on, since the mid to late 1990's.

And in that time and within those games, I've had the opportunity to work with a variety of different people. Sadly enough, I find that with my participation in these games, I've found my writing ability and, more importantly, writing discipline has greatly benefited from my participation over the years.

I write for myself, by and large, to keep my creative writing skills up - and since I am trying to focus now more on content design and game writing than system design, I find the process a really fun way to keep my skills up.

Friends have come and gone through these games, and most I have lost contact with while I continue to write.

However, of late, I've been able to work again with an old friend. We'd lost contact, or, at least, extremely inconsistent contact for the last few years. We'd worked together for...six or seven years. We have had a strong friendship, and definitely have a kindred intellect and creativity.

So, it's been wonderful to work together again, even if it is for our own benefit and enjoyment.

Thoughts on the Wii

Alright, so, there's this large elephant in the video game room. It has sold like crazy, so, as a result, all of the publishers need to address it. We're talking about the Nintendo Wii, of course, and with it, all of the baggage associated with it.

In the spirit of that large elephant, I have the sneaking suspicion that the gaming press are hoping that the system will be something that it isn't: a mainstream gaming machine that appeals to the broader hardcore market.

We're all aware at how grossly underpowered the Wii is when compared to her current generation siblings. We're also well aware that there have been some games that have come out on the Wii (Resident Evil 4, the Metroid and Zelda games, and the latest, MadWorld) that purport to cater to the hardcore gamer. While RE4 and the latest Zelda were clearly developed on or for the previous platform (Gamecube/PS2), and Metroid was created by an internal development team, we only have MadWorld as the one, true, independent, hardcore targeted title for the Wii until The Conduit drops.

Which leaves me wondering: what part of the Wii audience are really hardcore gamers? I ask this as a serious question, because when I look at the vast majority of games out there, it reads like an inverse bell curve: you've got casual, older gamers on one side, and you've got kids on the other, with the hardcore, early-adopters stuck squarely in a blackhole of suck in the middle.

So, why make hardcore games for the Wii? They are already going to be at a pretty severe disadvantage in terms of graphical and even technical (memory) capabilities. The base control scheme, reliant upon a somewhat foggy, and typically requires a great deal of flailing about like an idiot. While that might fly in party games where laughing at your friends is required, trying to get into a game like...dunno...Mass Effect if I have to waggle that Wii-mote to perform combat...

...ugh...what makes the Wii so special? Can someone explain it? Please?