Lifezone

Above: Flower is a sweet game. That is not opinion. That is fact.

We live in an upside-down world, one in which power-hitting steroid users tell kids that performancing-enhancing drugs will ruin their lives, and bank CEOs lecture homeowners on personal responsibility while lobbying the government for multi-billion-dollar bailouts. And we live in a world where PS3 fanboys are so desperate for respect that they're pinning their hopes and dreams on the one thing video games do not need: another first-person shooter.

Look, Killzone 2 might be a great game. I'm looking forward to playing it. But in the perverse and often baffling world of fansites and message boards, it has become the central front in the PlayStation 3 offensive. Why? The Xbox 360 has plenty of grim shooters. PS3 partisans' desire to have what 360 owners have, only better, will never be satisfied. There's always another GAEM OF TEH YEAR OMG BEST GAME EVAR right around the corner.

But so many wonderful things are happening right now on the PlayStation 3. The PlayStation Network has become a boutique the likes of which Xbox Live Arcade and Nintendo's Virtual Console can't match.* In a world that made sense, PS3 fanboys would be shouting from the rooftops about Flower. They'd be challenging the "Xbots" to match that, you jerks!

Here is a game that is utterly unlike any other on any system, and which is unlikely to be followed by imitators any time soon. It's transportive, exhilarating, even moving. Yes, it's simple, and no, it doesn't use 100% of the Cell processor's capability. Nor, I must sadly report, is there any way to "teabag" other users' flowers in a multiplayer mode. Nobody is trashing it in a cheap ploy for pageviews.** It seems to be drifting through the consciousness of the average gamer on a gentle breeze of its own.

My request to PS3 owners: give Flower a try. If you truly care about discovering what makes your console worth owning -- if your top priority is finding great games and not swinging your dick around on the Internet -- then play this game. Make Flower a hit.

Besides, it's only ten dollars. If you don't like it, I'll give you your money back.***

*Which is not to overlook the many gems on both of those platforms, too. I tried out Death Tank over the weekend and it was a blast -- literally.
**In fact, Edge gave Flower a 7/10, the same score they gave Killzone 2. This... is... a... lie!
***Disclaimer: If you don't like it, you actually owe me ten dollars.

Collecting scalps

Friday, October 17, 2008 -- 3:47 P.M.

ETpwnhome: d00d i got far cry 2

doobyscoo420: what!! it doesnt even come out 4 like another week

ETpwnhome: haha i no they totally broke street date at my best buy

doobyscoo420: i gotta go check mine

ETpwnhome: good luck man im gonna go SHOOT THE FUCK OUTA AFRICA

doobyscoo420: k have fun

doobyscoo420: guess ill just play dead space or some shit :(

Friday, October 17, 2008 -- 11:10 P.M.

ETpwnhome: OMG U HAVE 2 PLAY THIS GAME

ETpwnhome: OMG OMG OMG

doobyscoo420: they didnt have it at my best buy :(

ETpwnhome: IT SO AWESOME

doobyscoo420: and i tried gamespot and even target

doobyscoo420: :(

ETpwnhome: GAME OF TEH YEAR

ETpwnhome: GAEM OF EVAR

doobyscoo420: well i got to the last boss of dead space and its pretty cool

ETpwnhome: dude.

ETpwnhome: srsly?

doobyscoo420: it has big tentaculs and stuff

ETpwnhome: who cares about dead sapce lol

doobyscoo420: did u ever get past that asteroid shooting part

ETpwnhome: my guy has MALARAIA

ETpwnhome: fuck u

Tuesday, October 21, 2008 -- 7:37 P.M.

doobyscoo420: DUDE I GOT FAR CRY

doobyscoo420: i havent even started it yet but im so siked

ETpwnhome: lol good luck with that pos

doobyscoo420: we should play mulitplayer

doobyscoo420: wiat what

ETpwnhome: its so dumb

ETpwnhome: like it doesnt make sense. theres all these dudes who keep making u do dumb stuff for no reason, and like u drive around 4 an hour and dont do anything

doobyscoo420: what about the malaria

ETpwnhome: its GAY

doobyscoo420: so do u want to play multiplayer or no???

ETpwnhome: haha no dude i got littlebigplanet an im about 2 play the FUCK out of it

doobyscoo420: what i thought that got delayed 2 next week!!

ETpwnhome: lol ya i got mine from gamestop cuz i no the manager n they have tons of copies in the back

doobyscoo420: oh shit i gotta check my gamesotp

doobyscoo420: guess ill just play far cry or some shit :(

All aboard the hype train! Last stop: Liberty City station

I don't know how great Grand Theft Auto IV is, but I do know this: After today, people will finally stop telling me how great it's going to be. That ranks a 10/10 on any scale.

Don't get me wrong -- I am looking forward to playing GTAIV. But there is something strange about the culture of hype that is so much a part of the gaming community. No matter how many times we get burned, we're still willing and eager to bestow "game of the year" status upon something we haven't played. We pass along screenshots, trailers, and preview pieces from the enthusiast press as though we had no idea they might be cooked. We don't consider the possibility that all these press materials are made available for the publisher's benefit, not the consumer's. It's a lesson we never learn!

Variety's video-game blog, "The Cut Scene," has a post about the troubling implications of the exclusive review, which is as pernicious a part of this process as any. The first American outlet to post a GTAIV review was IGN, which awarded it a rare 10/10. I am not surprised that the only people to have posted reviews of GTAIV prior to this weekend gave it perfect scores (besides IGN, a few European outlets gave it a go). The same thing happened last year just before Assassin's Creed was released. The Metacritic score was in the 90s until the embargo lifted, and then it dropped over ten points.

An even better example (cited in the Cut Scene post) is that of Game Informer's world-exclusive Mass Effect review. The magazine gave the game a 9.75/10, while still noting its myriad flaws. As I wondered at the time:

...what was Game Informer reviewing? The Mass Effect in front of them, or the Mass Effect they expected to arrive in stores months later? Were they willing to overlook certain problems to secure the exclusive? Were they willing to furnish a certain minimum score?

After scans of the Game Informer review popped up online, they were breathlessly reposted in a (non-game-specific) message board I frequent. I pointed out the offending paragraphs about poor AI, play control, and so on, and was told, essentially, to STFU. I felt no joy when the game turned out to be terrible, for all the reasons that Game Informer danced around.

Now, here we are again, doing the same dance with Grand Theft Auto IV. Posting screenshots. Relaying each new review as it's posted. Strenuously arguing the merits of one console version or the other. Strategizing to acquire the game at a midnight launch, as though it will rot like an avocado if not consumed immediately. Maybe it will deliver on the hype, but that would make it one of the only games ever to do so.

I'm not saying anything that people don't already know. What's strangest about a game with this level of hype is that everybody knows what's happening, and they don't care. They enjoy it. There may even be something genuinely helpful and positive about games that act as a communal touchstone, particularly when they grab the attention of casual gamers or non-gamers. But a mob mentality is always troubling, no matter what the context. There's little harm in forum wars, really, but the mindset is one that any individual should strive to avoid.

Look at it pragmatically. If you convince yourself that something is going to the greatest game ever, then the best-case scenario is that it meets your expectations. More likely, the game will fall short in some way. That's no way to live. To me, nothing is better than being gobsmacked by some under-the-radar title that I had no expectations for, positive or negative.

Of course, that's not so easy with games as it is with other media. At $60 a pop, blockbuster games have an almost prohibitive barrier to entry. Imagine if the cost of a movie ticket were proportional to the budget of the film. It would cost ten times as much to see Iron Man as it would to see Son of Rambow. But that's not the case. As a result, people can afford to take a chance on something unknown, without any marketing muscle behind it. With games, though, the cost of development is passed on to the consumer. Despite a burgeoning indie scene on Xbox Live Arcade, and a vibrant one on the PC, in the world of consoles people are going to save their money for the sure thing.

It's a shame, really, and it's one of the areas in which games still can't measure up to other popular media. Despite the massive revenues the video game industry pulls in, much of that is still due to the price of software and not its ubiquity. It's much more expensive to blindly buy an Xbox 360 game than to pick up a book with an interesting cover, or download an MP3 by a band with a funny name ("Echo and the Bunnymen? I've gotta hear this!"). If buying a new game potentially means throwing away sixty dollars, then you can't blame people for not wanting to take chances. And you can't blame publishers for focusing their efforts on hype instead of gameplay.

Our own worst enemy

Via Kotaku, the latest episode of the aroused fanboy hordes involves an op-ed piece in the Sun-Sentinel. In it, the author, Ralph De La Cruz, grapples with the moral issues raised by Call of Duty 4, which he bought as a Christmas present for his son. De La Cruz contrasts his sanguine attitude toward killing Nazis on the virtual battlefield with his uneasy reaction to a game set in modern times, and which speaks to contemporary fears. The column is thoughtful and moderate, completely lacking any animus toward games. But you'd never know it from the comments -- 15 on the newspaper's website as of this writing, and 227 on Kotaku.

The majority of the comments challenge De La Cruz on the same point. Although he says the game "sends you... into the teeth of the Iraq war," most commenters point out that Iraq is never mentioned and then do a victory lap. This is the first, typical response to the newspaper piece: "Call of Duty 4 is an entirely fictional conflict that takes place in an equally fictional country. How you missed this, I can't even imagine."

Well, er, that's not right either. The Middle Eastern country is indeed not Iraq, and given the storyline of the game -- a strong-armed dictator controls a nuclear-powered military -- there are several real-world countries that are better parallels. Pakistan, for one. Furthermore, much of the game takes place in Russia and Azerbaijan, which certainly are not fictional. Nor are the allusions to the nuclear material that went missing and unaccounted for in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster. (For crying out loud, there's a slideshow somewhere online that compares the computer-generated Pripyat with its real-life counterpart. "Entirely fictional," you say?) The single greatest security threat in the Western world today is nuclear terrorism. How willfully obtuse do you have to be not to apply that knowledge to a topical game like Call of Duty 4? Maybe playing games really does desensitize you.

My biggest problem, once again, are the kneejerk attacks on Mr. De La Cruz simply because he bothered to engage the content of the game with his higher brain functions. Besides the petty gotcha of the "fictional Arabic nation!", one thing most people are saying is that it's just a game -- no need to take it so seriously. If you'll recall, when Roger Ebert dared to suggest that video games are merely playthings, unworthy of scrutiny or respect, the fanboy howls could be heard from miles away. After all, games are Serious, Important Art, and anybody who doesn't think so is trailing the zeitgeist by a good 20 years.

I've said it before and it didn't take, but I'm going to keep saying it until somebody listens: if you want people to take games seriously, the necessary first step is for you to take them seriously.

If your stock response to these types of criticisms is that it's only a game, then why are you playing video games at all? Why not just play Parcheesi? I don't accept that any video game is "just" a game, although there is obviously some wide latitude for pure escapism, or even video Parcheesi.

Call of Duty 4 doesn't fit that mold. Its aim, plainly, is to be realistic: to show the hectic and confusing nature of the battlefield, in which the difference between living and dying often comes down to something as simple and arbitrary as where you choose to take cover. It invokes historical events and real-world locations. It is deliberately set in legitimate geopolitical hotspots. Instead of running from this, as gamers, let's embrace it! Let's start the conversation ourselves.

Look at what De La Cruz actually wrote. He didn't condemn violent video games or worry that he was turning his son into a psychopath. He considers what the computer-generated foes of Call of Duty represent. One of the great things about art -- if you want to call it that -- is that it can mean different things to different people. One person isn't wrong and the other right, as long as they're arguing from a place of reason and mutual respect.

Why are we, as gamers, so apt to distance ourselves from this kind of discussion? When a movie like No Country for Old Men comes out, critics and audiences spend weeks or months talking about what it means. Gamers are more likely to be talking about how much it rules or sucks, and the extent to which we can pwn n00bs at it. Frankly, I find this embarrassing. I love games too much to treat them so disrespectfully.

A New Taxonomy of Gamers: What We Talk About When We Talk About Games

This is the first in an 11-part series. A new installment will run each weekday until the conclusion.

Why are online game discussions so contentious? Why are Joystiq commenters and NeoGAF boarders so apt to substitute chest-beating and mud-slinging for substantive debate? The easy answer is the dismissive one -- that gamers are socially stunted men-children who have been conditioned by years of fragging to consider every online interaction a fight to the death. But that can't be true of everyone. I don't think anyone who ever has shared an opinion about games online would put themselves in this category, and we can't all be wrong. (Can we?)

I think the answer is more prosaic. I think the rancor stems from a lack of understanding. Playing a game, even a multiplayer game, is a singular and subjective experience. No two players will experience a game the same way, even one as rigorously linear as, say, Half-Life 2. It's not simply a matter of interpreting the events differently, as it might be when discussing a movie. As a participant, your unpredictable actions and style of play are what determine the end product.

Continue with the example of Half-Life 2: if you spend your time trying to find new and creative ways to exploit the gravity gun, then you'll have a vastly different experience than somebody who sticks with the more familiar firearms. Your proclivities determine equally how you respond to a game, and how you affect the game. We may be talking about a particular title, but in a very real sense, we're not talking about the same thing at all. What we lack is the vocabulary to bridge that gap.

By "vocabulary," I don't mean words about the games themselves; rather, we don't have a workable idea of the different kinds of game players out there, and that makes it difficult to establish a conversational framework. I don't want to just slap labels on people or pigeonhole them, but I think it's important that we make an attempt to better understand the people we're talking and playing with -- and ourselves, too. Because when we talk about games, we're really talking about the people who play them.

Next: Hardcore? Casual? Hardcasual?