Friday afternoon tidbits

I am in lovely St. Louis, MO, for the weekend. We're going to visit the Gateway Arch, catch a Cardinals game, and barbecue. Oh God, how we will barbecue. Unless my plane crashes, that is.

What a morbid way to start a links post.

-Hardcasual is always good, but every once in awhile they really knock it out of the park. Such is the case with "Professor Layton Solves Brain Teaser, Grisly Prostitute Murder." Amazing.

-Leigh Alexander makes a good point about how the leisurely exploration gameplay of Shadow Complex seems to be at odds with its ticking-timebomb storyline. There is a point, at least, at which your character determines that he's going to go back in, which I took to mean that he was planning to arm himself to the teeth before taking on the bad guys. Still, I did follow the blue line most of the time, and I was more than satisfied with how things played out.

-Nels Anderson makes a point I often try, and fail, to make: that "fun" is the wrong word for most video games. For some people, fun clearly is the objective, and there's nothing wrong with that. But many people are seeking more meaningful interactions with games, and for those people, fun's got nothing to do with it. The more kinds of experiences games can give us, the better.

-The passage of time has enabled some more sober looks at Grand Theft Auto IV. Still a great game, but it's hard to argue with the kinds of criticisms Sparky Clarkson makes. "For me, this is the defining flaw of GTA IV — so many of the missions, cutscenes, and incidental moments actively undermine the propositions the game is trying to sell you on." Paradoxically, the more choices a game gives you, the more obvious it is when the game makes decisions for you. I've never felt constrained in a Half-Life game, for instance, even though I'm just a puppet on a string.

All right, time to party with the St. Lunatics.

The Year in Review: The Best Games of 2008

Above: This is the one.
(Note to Harmonix: "This Is the One" would make excellent DLC.)

We're wrapping up our recap of the year that was. Today: the best games of 2008.

If you want to read the blurbs, you'll have to read the feature at thephoenix.com. But for discussion, here's my list of the top 10 of 2008:

1. Rock Band 2
2. Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII
3. Braid
4. Far Cry 2
5. Left 4 Dead
6. Fallout 3
   
7. No More Heroes
8. Grand Theft Auto IV
9. Geometry Wars Retro Evolved 2
10. Yakuza 2
    

A couple things should go without saying. First, yes, I am aware these were my favorite games of the year and not objectively the best. Second, there were more than a few 2008 releases that I missed, although thanks to my cram session I think Fable 2 might be the only serious contender there. But who knows, maybe I would have loved something that got tepid reviews elsewhere, like The Force Unleashed.

I do feel that 2007 was a much better year for games overall. Not that it matters what the calendar says. You could reframe the debate and come out with a much different-looking list, as Iroquois Pliskin does in suggesting that video games completed the Tiger Slam from August 2007 through August 2008. What the heck -- we all enjoy these year-end lists, even if bitching about them is also fashionable. It's nice to take a minute and reflect on what we already have, before rushing headlong onto the next thing. Isn't that what the holidays are all about?

With that, I wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

(Posting is likely to be light until January 5.)

Quiz: The Year in Swooning

Match each of these games with the breathless excerpt from its review.

1. Grand Theft Auto IV
2. Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots
3. Dead Space
4. Far Cry 2
5. LittleBigPlanet
6. Fable 2
7. Fallout 3
8. Resistance 2

A. "Is it possible to give a game an 11? If so, this would be the game that would merit that score."

B. "I now know how film critics felt after screening "The Godfather." ...doesn't just raise the bar for the storied franchise; it completely changes the landscape of gaming."

C. "It is not hyperbole... an achievement that rivals greats like Half-Life 2 and BioShock. Its nuanced and labyrinthine plot, fully-realized characters and devastating attention to minute graphical details are beyond reproach."

D. "...a staggering, genre-defining achievement - marrying an utterly immersive world, memorable characters, incredible production values, some of the most inspired ... mechanics ever devised and so much heart ... Stands so far ahead of the majority of the games ... that it would be a crime against gaming not to laud this title as anything other than a masterpiece."

E. "...a landmark title that fundamentally changes the genre. Better than the original in every way, it is an amazingly rich adventure packed with anything and everything from exploration to fierce gun battles to harrowing car chases. It's incredibly polished, enormous in scope, and one of the best games of 2008."

F. "While the single-player experience is a great tale with an epic scope, it is equaled, and perhaps surpassed, by the multiplayer modes, which are perhaps some of the best I've ever played, and I'm particularly picky about my multiplayer."

G. "...one of the most important games to be released this decade. A tall order with the hype machine running overtime for the game but the way it reinvents how video games are played is sure to have lasting effects indefinitely."

H. "One of the greatest RPG’s ever made, a must own game for fans of the genre and anyone who wants to experience something truly unique."

Answers:

1. B (Game Informer)
2. A (IGN)
3. C (GameSpy)
4. E (GameShark)
5. G (Kombo)
6. H (WonderwallWeb)
7. D (Xbox World 360)
8. F (IGN)

Grand Theft Auto IV Review: Citizen Kane? Or 'Citizen You'?

It's the moment you've been waiting for! My Grand Theft Auto IV review is up now at thephoenix.com. You'll notice it's a bit longer than my usual, which still proved to be not nearly enough words to cover everything I wanted to. Still, I think it's pretty good.

Because this review is running later than most mainstream coverage, I tried to avoid talking about the game in terms of whether it was good or bad -- although I think it's pretty clear that I thought it was good. Instead, I tried to look a little more deeply at why it's so good. Why is this game resonating where so many others don't, especially with people who aren't full-time gamers? I think it all comes down to player choice. There are some ways in which the framework Rockstar gives you is more restrictive than it appears, but I think their most impressive achievement is giving the player so much control over his own destiny. There are millions of ways to beat most missions, and we've all had several little moments in the game that probably won't ever be replicated by anyone else. That's really why we play.

By the way, that four-star review actually translates to a 9/10 in the paper. You don't see this critic getting swept up in the wave of hype!

What, I thought we were supposed to congratulate ourselves for that.

Supreme Court rules Supreme Court rules

Above: Grander theft auto

My arch-enemies at Village Voice Media* have posted their review of Grand Theft Auto IV. They are fairly bold in giving it a tepid write-up. It's still positive, but it's certainly the lowest rating I've seen for the game thus far. The reviewer, Gary Hodges, gives it an 8/10, and spends the bulk of the text highlighting some of the gameplay problems.

They're good points all, and I can't say I disagree with any of them. In fact, the unflattering comparisons to Crackdown are well taken. If I had to say which was the better game, I'd go with Crackdown. It doesn't try to do as much as Grand Theft Auto, but as a result it's tighter and more playable. The makers of Crackdown opted to do a few things exceptionally well, rather than try to do everything passably.

For all the ways GTA lets you explore the open world of Liberty City, Niko and the environment never seem to mesh perfectly. He looks like he's being filmed against a green screen when it comes to scrambling up hillsides and other areas with irregular footing. By contrast, in Crackdown, characters really could go anywhere and do anything. If you noticed a little outcropping on the side of a building, your character could jump up and grab it. He could pick up any objects, provided his strength level was sufficient. The entire environment was usable. In Grand Theft Auto, much of it is ornamental.

And that's okay. Part of the reason GTA is so successful is that it puts the character in a living world in which he isn't always the focal point. Liberty City is full of citizens going about their lives. They don't know or care who Niko is. To them, he's just another stranger they'll encounter out of thousands -- you know, unless he happens to be running from the cops with guns blazing.

The Voice's criticisms of GTA are well taken, and I think any honest observer would have to admit that they are fair. In fact, it's strange to me that such a negative review still resulted in the 8/10 score, but I know from personal experience that sometimes the score you give a game and the review you write don't necessarily match up, even if you believe in them both. We in the alt-weekly biz have little space in which to work, and that sometimes means choosing one thing to focus on at the expense of balance.

Hodges does seem to give himself a 10/10 for his own critical prowess, devoting his introduction and conclusion to belittling the across-the-board perfect scores the game has gotten (this is mentioned off-handedly in my own upcoming review), and congratulating himself on standing against the tide of mainstream opinion. I'd like to be bothered by this a little more, but, damn it, he's pretty much right. The Metacritic score for the PS3 version is holding steady at 99, and the Xbox 360 version is just one point lower. That's crazy. It's crazy for all the reasons Hodges points out.

I've heard a lot of people praise the controls as being such a huge step forward for Grand Theft Auto, but they're exactly as far behind the curve as they were in past GTA games. Compared to San Andreas, sure, the shooting controls are phenomenal. Compared to Gears of War or Rainbow Six Vegas, not so much. Given how important shooting is to the game, you'd think this would have bothered somebody. No, it doesn't ruin the game -- not by a long shot -- but it's hardly compatible with "best game ever" accolades. If somebody wanted to catalog every legitimate complaint a person could have with this game, they'd soon have a novella.

So, Gary Hodges, I salute your vainglorious iconoclasm. You and your VVM cohort may have won this battle, but the war is far from over. The Phoenix will crush you!**

*Not really.

**Not really.

When is a game finished?

Today's brain food comes from Stephen Totilo at MTV Multiplayer, who wrote a post called "A New Theory: Maybe Game Reviewers Don't Need to Finish Games." Frankly, I didn't realize they did need to. Even Gamespot's own review policy says they don't necessarily finish everything they play.

I wrote a fairly long comment on the Multiplayer post, if you click through, but I want to focus on another point that I addressed only obliquely: Just when is a player "finished" with a game, anyway? Sometimes, the answer is pretty obvious. Take BioShock, for example. Although that game gave you several ways to make it to the finish line, everybody who played had to follow the same basic path through the story. There were no other gameplay modes besides the single-player campaign. I think most people would agree that playing through the story to the end credits would count as finishing BioShock.

What about Grand Theft Auto IV? You can play the main missions and still miss a hefty chunk of what the game has to offer. I would argue that ignoring the missions altogether is no way to play, but lots of people do just that. They set up explosive interactions in the game world like kids with a chemistry set. They don't care about structure or narrative, and they wouldn't have it any other way. Some people will never be finished with this game in a definite sense. That's part of the design.

Finally, take it all the way to the extreme: When is World of Warcraft finished? When is Tetris finished? When is The Sims finished? These are games that don't actually end. Or, more accurately, they end when the player decides they do. The ending isn't built into the game; it comes from the player.

This brings up, again, one of the inherent pitfalls in reviewing games. We don't all approach games with the same set of expectations. One of the things that actually sucks about reviewing something like Grand Theft Auto is the temptation to charge through the story in order to finish the game. That's missing the forest for the trees. It wouldn't feel fair, either, to ignore the game's numerous scripted events and missions, and just see how many different ways you can murder bystanders. But there's always going to be a huge group of players whose interests don't align with the reviewer's, because of all the different reasons we play.

A key task for any reviewer is to identify what a game is trying to do, and judge it accordingly. Sometimes a story is perfunctory. Sometimes a multiplayer mode is tacked on. That doesn't necessarily mean that the game's core strengths are lessened. The best games do find a way to succeed on several levels, but it's simply not a requirement for your garden-variety good game to excel in several different areas. Doing well in one is usually enough.

I would argue that storytelling is but one of a few crucial elements, without which GTA would be a different game. So while it's important to get a good sense of the story (and it is very involving), completing the storyline at the expense of exploring the city, building relationships with the characters, and trying some multiplayer would certainly not be the same as finishing the game. Frankly, I'm not sure what would.

What do you think? With so many games designed to be played and replayed endlessly, when can we say we're finished with it?

This bugs me every time

It's been confirmed that Grand Theft Auto IV pulled down over half a billion dollars in revenues in its first week. As always, one of the first things the publisher has to say about this is the comparison to a movie's box office:

Grand Theft Auto IV's first week performance represents the largest launch in the history of interactive entertainment, and we believe these retail sales levels surpass any movie or music launch to date.

Well, sure. I don't want to downplay the significance of GTA's success, because those numbers are ridiculous. But it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. A video game costs almost ten times as much as a movie ticket. When a game grosses $500 million, that's not the same amount of popular success as a movie that grosses the same amount. The movie had to sell significantly more tickets.

Look at it this way: At $60 a pop, you're looking at approximately 8,333,333 units of Grand Theft Auto sold. That's not counting the more expensive collector's editions. Assuming an average ticket price of $6.88 (which seems really low to me), the same number of movie tickets would sell for just over $57 million.

Iron Man crested $102 million in its opening weekend (clearly, Grand Theft Auto did not impact its performance). Still using that average ticket price, that's about 14.8 million tickets. In other words, almost twice as many people saw the movie in three days than bought the game in one week.

Then again, $60 is a much higher barrier to entry than $6.88. It's asking more of a consumer to buy a game than to buy a movie ticket. By that standard, GTA's performance is even more impressive. Even so, it doesn't represent a cultural penetration that rivals that of a blockbuster movie. We're not there yet.

Let's nitpick about Grand Theft Auto IV

I've got problems with Grand Theft Auto IV. I appreciate its ambition, and the storyline is suitably engrossing. Overall I'm enjoying it a bit more than I expected to. Yet it's far from perfect. I don't think a perfect review score means a game lacks any and all flaws, but when those flaws undermine what makes the game good, a perfect score seems more like wishful thinking. There are small things that take me out of the world of Liberty City, annoying gameplay quirks that may have been unavoidable but still smack of poor design, and, most regrettably, a sexist and homophobic streak that gets close to crossing the line for me in some ways.

When I read discussions of the game online, it seems like most people are awed not only by the scale of the city, but for the almost limitless minor interactions with city dwellers. Sometimes I get what this is about. Upon loading up one session, I stepped out of the safe house and heard somebody yelling nearby. I walked across the street to investigate, and found a manic street preacher with a bible in one hand, sharing the gospel with anyone who would listen. It seemed as though I was the only one who was.

Nearby, I saw an ATM, and thought I might see if I could use it. As I approached, another pedestrian cut in front of me and took some money out. I thought about beating him up and robbing him, but it's just not how I roll. Instead, I went back to my parked car and saw someone crouching behind it. Suddenly a cop ran over, gun drawn, and shouted at him to put his hands up. Another police car screeched to a stop, sirens blaring. Man, I thought. This is amazing. It really was. A whole city, teeming with life, regardless of what I was doing at the time.

Then it fell apart.

The criminal, apparently apprehended, never got in the police car. He backed away and put his arms down. The cop, still pointing his gun, seemed to lose track of what he was looking at. The criminal ran about half a block, then started walking as though nothing happened. The cop walked in a circle. What had been an amazing display of dynamic AI seconds earlier had turned into gibberish. And this happens a lot.

In another mission, I was tailing a drug dealer. I was warned repeatedly not to get too close to him, lest I arouse his suspicion. So I was wondering, as I stopped in the middle of the road blocks from a stoplight, how I was any less conspicious there than if I simply pulled up to a red light like every other driver on the road. As I was musing on this, there was something of a traffic jam up ahead. The dealer couldn't get through a couple of stopped cars. I waited a full minute, and they didn't move. I started to wonder if I would have to restart the mission, when suddenly the cars in the intersection vanished into thin air, and the dealer kept driving.

That's one of the problems I keep having. It's not catastrophic to the gameplay, but every time I start to get immersed in the world, something happens to shock me back to reality. Maybe these kinds of problems are inevitable, but it's hard to dismiss them when they undercut the main attraction of the game.

Another thing I'm less than thrilled about is actually intrinsic to the game design. I wish there were checkpoints within missions. GTAIV is actually a big jump forward in this regard, because it lets you choose the option to restart immediately upon failing, and even teleports you back to the starting point. That's helpful. Problem is, lots of missions take place far from their alleged starting point.

For example, in the mission "The Puerto Rican Connection," you have to follow the train as it travels along elevated tracks. But first, you have to drive from Manny's place in South Bohan to a bridge in Algonquin (I think? I can't keep the place names straight). Only then does the chase begin. When you fail, you don't start at the chase -- you start back in South Bohan. That's all added downtime, and it's a problem I've had with open-world games in general. Since this game lets you warp to the beginning of a mission, why aren't there sensible intra-mission checkpoints?

Lastly, I've bent over backwards to defend the content of Grand Theft Auto, even though my reasons for doing so are no longer clear even to me. I had a tough time reconciling one mission in particular, called "Out of the Closet," which struck me as cold and bigoted even within the jokey tone of the game.

I want to be clear on one point: There's a difference between portraying homophobic characters, and homophobic portrayals of characters. Brucie is a good example of the former. He's a shirtless, 'roided-up beast who's constantly angling for bro hugs and chest bumps, and then without prompting proclaims his staunch heterosexuality. It's as though he's trying to convince himself moreso than Niko. I also accepted Manny's continual accusations that I was gay when we were trailing a drug dealer and got too close to our quarry's rear. That's reasonable for the character, I think.

But in "Out of the Closet," you find out that a gay guy owes Brucie money, and therefore needs to be killed. Simply retrieving the money from him is not an option. You set up a date with him through an Internet dating site, which is a pretty inspired idea in itself. The guy shows up at the diner and is, basically, a flaming queen -- theatrical lisp, ostentatious clothing, all that. He chatters at you, still thinking it's a date. He's a little annoying, but nice.

Then you stand up and gun him down. That's it. That's the mission. You lured the gay guy into a trap and killed him. You win.

Maybe it would have been better if he'd fought back instead of run. If Niko did something to tip him off and he pulled the gun first. Or if the date had moved to business talk and I had any better idea of what the hell the guy had done to deserve getting whacked. I don't know.

It may be a fair question to ask why this bothered me, and it hasn't bothered me to run over drug dealers or shoot a bunch of cops. After all, gang warfare is a problem in real life. Cops are killed in the line of duty all the time. None of that is any more fantasy than gay bashing is. I can only say that I have mostly understood Niko's motivations in the game to this point, even though I wish they'd made him a bit more reluctant to dive right back into a life of crime. But this mission really seemed senseless to me. At least the victims in the other missions shot back.

Friday afternoon tidbits

A weekend of Grand Theft Auto awaits! But first, a few leftovers from the week.

-Many people had good things to say about my cover story in the Phoenix. Rick "32_footsteps" Healey, of Netjak, was not one of them. He penned a rather scathing critique of the piece, calling it muddled and factually suspect. Although I disagree with many of his points, it's a thoughtful essay with some valuable contributions. If I failed to persuade readers of my argument, particularly due to a lack of focus or specificity, then I can't blame anybody for that but myself. I will try to do better the next time. More important, it seems we agree on the basic premise, and that's a good place to start.

-Last weekend, the Washington Post published a much better story about Grand Theft Auto IV than today's Globe editorial. Which makes sense, because it was written by their technology columnist, and not a grandstanding editorial board. Mike Musgrove actually has hands-on experience with the series, and cites specific published works in support of his perspective. An article that acknowledges the troublesome elements of the game, without stooping to fearmongering and hysteria? Imagine that!

-The tracklist for Guitar Hero: On Tour includes songs by Smash Mouth and Maroon 5. Interest fading... fading... fading... gone.

-I'm actually not quite sure what to make of IGN's ill-fated "Ladies of Liberty City" video. Michael Abbott and Leigh Alexander have their usual well-considered opinions, and I think I agree with them on the merits. Try as I might, I still can't get too exercised about it. Partly, that's because I don't think much of IGN in the first place -- the first I heard about this was in the Multiplayer post. I hardly blame IGN for catering to the audience that's made them such a powerhouse in the first place. But still: They posted it, got slammed, and took it down. I'm not sure what else should be done.

-On Bill Harris's recommendation, I checked out King Leopold's Ghost from the library and have found it engrossing. The Belgian colony in the Congo was the inspiration for Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, and, as this book makes clear, much of that story was based on cold, hard fact. Reading this book, it becomes even more difficult to ignore all of the history bound up in that Resident Evil 5 trailer. (That's right, I went there!)

-This is the first ever Insult Swordfighting post to take advantage of Blogger's new future-dating feature. Ironically, implementing this functionality has served to bring Blogger, at long last, into the present. But I look forward to seeing how this post comes out -- in the future!

Boston Globe muffs the landing

I was disheartened to read an editorial in the Boston Globe this morning called "Nihilism at $60 a pop." As I've said before, I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about a game like Grand Theft Auto IV. The problem I have with these types of tirades is that they always seem to spring from a place of total ignorance, unsupported by facts. This editorial is typical. The editors make some wild assertions about the content of the game, but nowhere do they cite anything specific in support of their argument. It's just fear-mongering. Let's take a look at it, piece by piece:

WE LIVE in an amoral and violent world: human trafficking, gang warfare, beheadings, rape - oh wait, that's just the video game Grand Theft Auto IV.

I'm not so far into the game that I can say for sure, but in my experience to this point there has been a single reference to human trafficking in the main character's past, no beheadings, and no rapes. There has, however, been gang warfare. One for four ain't bad. Wait, yes it is.

I'm also confused by the implication: Are they saying those things don't exist outside of Grand Theft Auto? Or are they saying we live within the video game? Since a couple of the things they mentioned don't actually happen within the game, it's tough to say. In the meantime, there is more than enough of that stuff to go around in the real world, unfortunately. Which, again, is not to say that such content couldn't be fair game for criticism -- just that this is a sensationalistic way to start, and doesn't inspire much confidence that the rest of the piece will be educated or fair-minded.

Remember, this is only the lede! We're already off to a bad start.

Commercial movie theaters are expecting slow sales this weekend because the new edition of the addictive video game, released Tuesday, is expected to keep millions of youngish American males encased in their bedrooms, gleefully blasting people's heads off. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board, a voluntary industry group, has given GTA's new edition an M rating: "not suitable for players under 17." But there is little monitoring of video game sales, and few believe that a determined 14-year-old couldn't get his hands on the game.

It's interesting that they mention the possible loss of box office revenue this weekend, because you can bet your bottom dollar that the paper would never run an editorial condemning an R-rated movie. But why? There's little monitoring of ticket or DVD sales, and few believe that a determined 14-year-old couldn't make his way into the theater. Yet no one doubts that R-rated movies are intended for adults, even if they do hold inordinate appeal for young males.

I wonder what more the industry is expected to do here. The ESRB voluntarily rated the game and clearly marked it as inappropriate for minors. Retailers don't mess around with this stuff, either -- I'm 26, and I've often been carded at Best Buy when buying an M-rated game. Target and Wal-Mart keep their games in locked cases, and I believe both check IDs as a matter of policy. This isn't sufficient?

And, again, the characterization of "blasting people's heads off" is inaccurate. You can shoot people in the head if your aim is good, but heads remain attached. Triviality? Maybe, but when the purpose of the editorial is to sensationalize the content of the game, I think it's necessary to point out the hyperbole.

This poses a dilemma: No defender of free expression, such as a newspaper editorial page, can easily support censorship. And unlike cigarettes, guns, or alcohol, the danger even to minors of possessing debased video games is a murkier science to prove. Ultimately, parents must be the gatekeepers of the media their children consume.

We at least agree here. There is no data -- none -- that games are harmful to minors, much less that games turn them into zombie killing machines, so the Globe doesn't even attempt to cite any. Although they seem to believe otherwise, this does not strengthen their argument.

Still, the GTA-IV experience is particularly insidious. The very features its fans love - high-quality graphics that immerse the player in a convincingly realistic world - raise the stakes. The targets are not space aliens or cartoon characters but police officers, taxi drivers, strippers, and the occasional innocent bystander. The violence, especially toward women, is unusually gratuitous. There is nothing about GTA-IV that can be considered remotely "socially redeeming" - one of the tests the courts use to judge whether material is obscene.

I agree with the basic argument here, but again the specifics are misleading. Part of GTA's power comes from the familiarity of its setting, and its emphasis on verisimilitude. It's one of the many good reasons why the game is rated M. The characterization of Liberty City's inhabitants as "targets," though, shows the lack of understanding of what the game is about. To the extent that anybody in the game could be called a "target," you'd have to be referring to the drug dealers and gangsters whose elimination is often the objective of a mission.

But cab drivers? Strippers? Innocent bystanders? They exist to populate the world. You can harm them, but it is entirely your choice as the player to do that. This is what seems to bother editorial boards so much, and the implications may be worthy of discussion. Why do so many players get their kicks in this game by breaking the law? Unfortunately, answering that question would require a high-minded, academic look at the issues, and you just can't cram one of those into the short space of an editorial. It's easier to call the game "insidious" and pretend that you get points for going on killing sprees.

Furthermore, I'd say that I'm also bothered by some of the depictions of women in the game. It seems to have a preoccupation with women as strippers and prostitutes. The argument that GTA is sexist is a lot stronger than most of what the Globe is trying to say here. But they have to mischaracterize it and pump it up into something it isn't. Again, I haven't played through the whole game, but so far every bit of mandatory violence I've encountered has been between men. Is that more acceptable? I don't know. But it's a more accurate description of the game.

The other familiar obscenity test is whether something violates "community standards," and here the game may already be lost. Every time another rap song or video game pushes the envelope, it becomes the new standard.

"Community standards" is an awfully nebulous term -- but then, this whole article is vague and unhelpful, so why not cap it off this way? I do want to make one humble argument for the community value of video games in general, though. Multiplayer games, especially, provide a social outlet for people of all ages and abilities. They give people a meeting ground, and a chance to engage in both cooperation and competition. They encourage strategizing and decision making. In the case of Grand Theft Auto, almost everything you do involves a trade-off. Yes, you can mug somebody for money, but then the police will come after you. If you want, you can also drive a cab and pick up fares. This is the power and the appeal of video games -- the player gets to choose how to play, albeit within a pre-defined framework.

If we're going to write these pearl-clutching editorials bemoaning the depravity of video games because we think one or two people might be inspired by them to go bonkers, can't we also acknowledge that for millions more they provide a real benefit? With the advent of online play, they're a way for friends to connect across long distances. For people with disabilities, they're a way to feel empowered. For so many of us, they're a wonderful storytelling medium that engage us emotionally, intellectually, and morally.

We wouldn't ban Grand Theft Auto. But the death and maiming in Liberty City are too close to the real lives of too many children. To package that for profit and entertainment is the real crime.

Well, no, it's not a real crime. It's not even a fake crime, like everything that happens in the game. Grand Theft Auto is a crime story, like The Godfather or untold numbers of paperback books with shiny raised lettering on the cover. Again: Kids probably shouldn't play this game. But violence and sex as a part of popular entertainment goes back as far as entertainment itself. Somehow, we've survived. We've even thrived.

I do imagine the author typing out that last line, leaning back in the chair and cracking his knuckles, and congratulating himself on having finally solved every problem in the world.

Damn it, couldn't resist one sarcastic dig. I was doing so well!

Please do not read this angry rant

Let me say, at the outset, that I had several good reasons for choosing to take home the PlayStation 3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV, rather than the Xbox 360 version. My PS3 is hooked up to a 26" widescreen, while the 360 is connected to a 20", standard-ratio computer monitor. I just got a Dual Shock 3 last weekend and I wanted to give it a whirl. Shockingly, I have more real-life friends with PS3s than 360s, and I wanted to play with them. And since Rockstar sent one of each to the Phoenix, if I took the PS3 version then my friend at the office could take home the 360 one. All things being equal, it would have been silly of me not to take the PS3 copy.

But all things are not equal.

The ludicrous amount of pre-install time was bad enough. I was willing to put up with it because it was a one-time deal. I am less willing to overlook a non-existent multiplayer mode. For two days running, selecting the multiplayer option has resulted in an error message. I am not alone in having this problem. It seems to be the rule, rather than the exception, for PS3 owners. The biggest game of the year, as shipped, is broken in a big way.

This may not be the game's fault, per se. In fact, it probably isn't. I don't know how the multiplayer archiecture is set up for PlayStation 3 games, but my understanding is that it's not centrally constructed as Xbox Live is (please enlighten me in comments, if you know). Whether this outage is Sony's doing, or Gamespy's, or Rockstar's, or whoever's, it's inexcusable. Was the server load a surprise? Didn't they test this? Didn't they plan for it? How does this happen?

This shows, once again, why early reviews are suspect. Currently, the PlayStation 3 version of Grand Theft Auto IV has a Metacritic score of 100. 100! A perfect aggregate score! And a major component of it doesn't work! (Exclamation points!) Not one of those reviewers had to grapple with the real-world experience of trying to play this game on the PlayStation 3. Their reviews do not reflect the game that was shipped.

Maybe once this gets fixed, the quality of the multiplayer will be enough to make us forgive this little episode. Or maybe, in the rush to anoint TEH BEST GAME EVAR, we're giving ourselves permission to overlook crucial things like poor controls, suspect environmental interaction, and non-existent online functions. This game is fun, and the mission structure is devious in the way it keeps you playing much longer than you intended. I just can't believe amid the flurry of breathless previews and reviews, it never came up until people had already spent their money on the game that it didn't so much work.

But hey, it's Grand Theft Auto! Quit being such a contrarian.

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day

Remember the days when you brought a new game home, loaded it into your console, and then immediately started playing? Sure, NES games sometimes needed a little goosing to get them going, but in the 16-bit age we hit a sweet spot where games always worked, and they worked quickly. Even cartridges stacked with 24 huge megs of memory started up instantaneously.

With the advent of CD-ROM, suddenly we were spending half our time waiting for things to load. Wipeout XL advertised Red Bull during the downtime before races. Resident Evil played a silly animation of a door opening each time you tried to access a new area. Ridge Racer even let you play Galaga on its load screen -- which, all things considered, was pretty clever. But in each case, at least you could get started playing almost right away.

I had plenty of time to think about this subject -- indeed, enough time to relive my entire gaming life, Walk Hard-style -- while I was waiting to play Grand Theft Auto IV yesterday. For several excellent reasons, I took home the PlayStation 3 version. I haven't played anything on that system since Devil May Cry 4 in February, so when I turned it on I was informed that a system update was required. This was the big 2.30 firmware update, and all told it took about twenty minutes to download and install (this was almost, but not quite, enough time to read the entirety of Bill Simmons' epic ESPN.com chat).

Once that was done, it was time to play -- just after the mandatory install, that is! This one was not nearly so onerous as that of DMC4, but coming as it did on the heels of the firmware update it felt like a cruel joke. About five minutes later, GTAIV's opening cinematic started to play.

At that moment, my fiancee walked in the door and I had to turn the game off to make dinner.

I know, I know: not a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. I only missed out on half an hour of play time, when I wouldn't have been able to do much anyway. I had the rest of the evening to play. And I know there are several compelling arguments for the usefulness of firmware updates and pre-installs. All of this stuff makes sense to me, intellectually. As a practical matter, what a kick in the balls! This is the price of progress, I suppose.

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.

Reconciling the irreconcilable

The story I've been alluding to for over a week now has been posted at thephoenix.com: "Sex, violence and video games." In it, I look at the merits of a few recent controversies, including the ever-present Grand Theft Auto criticism, the Mass Effect "SeXbox" flap, and, of course, the Resident Evil 5 trailer. I also take the community to task for often acting as their own worst enemies. The crux of the argument is that gamers need to be repping themselves better in the discourse, making a real effort at empathy:

The less-helpful commenters accused [critics themselves] of racism, of creating a racial divide where previously there was none. They decried an assault on Capcom’s right to free speech. But the question wasn’t whether the game’s Japanese developers had intended any racism (cultural ignorance is a commonly invoked defense among gamers), or why nobody had complained before when Resident Evil zombies had been predominantly white. It was whether those claiming free speech in defense of divisive games were willing to extend the same rights to those whom the games offended.

I also made one more attempt at demolishing the "just a game" defense.

To spend the bulk of your time and money on a hobby that can be dismissed with a wave of the hand would require an act of cognitive dissonance. Some games do have the potential to be transformative experiences. Talk to Final Fantasy VII fans about the grief they felt when Sephiroth killed Aeris. Ask a few BioShock players whether they saved or harvested the Little Sisters, and why. Such indelible moments may be rare, but they give game developers something to strive for. And they give gamers hope that the next game we play will also engage us intellectually, emotionally, and morally. I can think of no more belittling way to discuss this medium than to ever call something "just" a game. So let’s scrap that argument.

Think it'll take? Me neither.

When I began this piece, I had intended to lay the hammer down. This was to be the last word on the subject, and the spark that ignited countless fanboy epiphanies around the world. But that's not how it ended up. It is, perhaps, a good place to start, presuming that angry mobs don't do their best to prove my point. I would love to know what people think.

P.S. It's the cover story in this week's print issue, which is exciting. Pick up a copy, if you're local.

P.P.S. Also check out the brief sidebar, "Not-so-great moments in video game controversy." Nothing new or particularly illuminating, but that stuff's always good for a laugh.

Gamestop.com User-Submitted Previews: Grand Theft Auto IV, Part 2

Can you feel it? The murmur of fanboy excitement building to a roar... The Internets alight with world exclusive preview information and the official OXM review (10 out of 10!)... The veins throbbing in Jack Thompson's forehead...

Yes, we are but two weeks away from the release of Grand Theft Auto IV. I already looked at the user-submitted previews for this game once before, but since then a bevy of brilliant new ones has surfed the wave of fan excitement onto the welcoming shores of Gamestop.com. I couldn't resist one more go at it.

(Also, uh, I got halfway through writing the post before I realized I'd already done it once before.)

Gamestop.com user "playerofgames" reminds us, apropos of the Resident Evil 5 controversy, that all games and gamers really are colorblind:

I am hoping for the best. In the previous although i enjoyed them i just felt like a block person running around doing pointless missions. instead of completing the campaign i spent all my time just killing cops and hookers.

Maybe I'm just a reverse racist and I'm choosing to look at issues of color where none exist, but, uh... did he mean to type "black" person right there? I really want to know. Maybe "block person" is a really term I never heard before right now.

"BIOCOMMANDO" is also skipping gleefully through a post-racial utopia:

Okay Rockstar has been making crappy GTA games lately! GTA3 was amazing, VICE CITY was the best game ever! Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories had no point first of all they were the same as there originals just with different stories and main characters, but that is an obvious one! San Andreas was the lamest game ever; I wanted another quality game not a 50 cent style stupid gangsta rap game. That totally ruined it for me, it went from high class mob to low end petty thug style to appeal to today’s modern teenage pop culture and its stupid yo yo gangsta rap phase! Now they want to make a new game with this balding old out-of-shape eastern European guy with the strongest accent! HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO RELATE WITH THAT?

Most of the new comments are more sophisticated than that. In fact, they're suspiciously highbrow. "a customer" writes:

The best thing about the new GTA is how it actually has literary themes. Of Mice and Men comes to mind. I foresee the best GTA plot yet. And not to mention, everything else.

In the previous post, Johnson commented that some of these might the product of marketers trying to drum up viral support for the game. I wonder if the above commenter was trying to preemptively block any Thompson-esque criticism of GTAIV. Also, I have to say, of all the books that come to mind when I look at this game, Of Mice and Men ranks somewhere beside Don Quixote and In Search of Lost Time.

Speaking of Proust, if you thought he digressed much, check out this comment from "metallink666":

saints row was a fun game but it never captures theth magc of gta in interesting characters awesome story (i sure hope this one has custumization new clothes tats new haistyles i loved that from gta san andreas) the coolest part is how liberty city is modeled after the atual nw york and finally we get decenttargettina gameinformer said i would be similar to crackdown so killing pedestrians will bemore fun. when i found out gta4 was coming out same day as the ps3 version that moment i became anti-playstation killzone 2 it might not even be good he first game suckd and im nota stealthactionfan so mgs s out for e too uncharted is good but with its short length and low replay value make it a rent and ratchet and clank on the easy side so a good game for kids all the ps3 has going for it is basically resistance and haze may be good and i've had problems with shooter controls on the playstation in the past so you see why im against the ps3.

He, uh, he was talking about Grand Theft Auto IV at one point, right?

One last lit note. I submit that you will not find a better use of analogy anywhere* than in this comment by "Gta 4ever":

one gta4 is not gta3 in hd. no, this time liberty city is a exact recreation of new york well the famous parts. saints row sucks compared to gta, its like having kratos(gta) fight a telytuby(saintsrow).

Why, that would be no fight at all! But Kratos against all four Teletubbies -- now you might have something.

"YNSR Smith, K." is more levelheaded than most:

honestly, i dont have a positive or negative thing to say about the game since it didnt come out. all i know is that i preordered my copy and im patiently waiting for april 29th to roll around.

Let me address you directly for a moment, YNSR Smith, K. I appreciate your honesty here. It's probably the smartest thing you could do, reserving judgment on the game until you've played it. But do you have any idea how hard you're making my job right now? Come on, at least tell me that Saints Row sux tha coq or something.

To cap it off, this installment's winner for best fanboy meltdown goes to "Evolution":

Man Rockstar are a bunch of sell outs how can they sell Grand Theft Auto 4 (the biggest title to grace a sony playstation ever) to the X-Box system? the Playstation 3 is a much more powerful machine for gaming its like the Alienware of console video games and they are more then likely going to make 1 version of the game and they will be forced to make the graphics 360 friendly. GOD i hate the 360.

I've heard about rock stars selling out before, but this is ridiculous!

Yes, I'm willing to go out on a joke that weak.

*Anywhere on Gamestop.com, I mean.

Gamestop.com User-Submitted Previews: Grand Theft Auto IV

A new trailer for Grand Theft Auto IV has excitement at a fever pitch. The game is due to be released on April 29, but that hasn't stopped our friends at Gamestop.com from sharing their opinions on the final product. As always, spelling mistakes and grammatical errors are not a result of transcription.

"Beastmaster" has taken a scientific approach to analyzing the game:

After perfusely scouring the internet for information and specs I have come to the conclusion that this installment of the GTA Series is shapping up to be the best yet. Rockstar is stepping away from the more aspect they used in San Andreas and are going more toward realism. Many of my friends are constantly saying that I am overly hyped about GTA 4, but I just reserved my copy today and wont they regret those words on release day.

They won't regret those words because they'll be too busy asking nicely if they can play. And you'll let them. We've all been there.

"Gummi" counsels his fellow gamers to be a bit more circumspect:

Alright.... look ! GTA 4 is going to be a game to look forward to in april, but only ONE of the great games coming out in "08" People say GTA 4 is GOING 2 Be THE BEST GAME EVER !
How can it when GOW 2 comes out later this year ? GTA 4's graphics don't even look like what they should for a next -Gen game, the Guns they put in the Game seems like the same ones they put in every GTA, an the Quote on Quote "Best GAME Ever dosen't even have a online Mode where you can share the excitement with your friends ? Halo 3, one of the best games ever ! COD4,one of the best games ever ! GOW, one of the best games ever ! GTA 4 still needs to prove a lot more before it Ranks in as BEST GAME EVER!!!!!

How can one sequel I've never played be the best game ever when another sequel I've never played might come out at a later time? GTAIV needs to prove a lot more before anybody but the most ardent fanboy believes it's better than Resident Evil 9, which comes out in 2019.

"Jordan" laments Rockstar's betrayal of the little guy:

I think this is going to be a good game to play but whats sucks is that the people who own PS2 don't get the chance to play it and they get screwed.

And how come Sega Saturn owners are getting screwed? Where's the Atari Jaguar version? Multi-platform, my eye.

"Black JaCu" seems a little confused about something:

I always love reading what people have to say. But I think who ever comments about these games are really gay. I just felt like i had to say something. SO who ever is going to coment on this game or any game saying this is the best ever or finaly or yes its comming your all realy gay.

If everybody who comments on the game is gay, and Black JaCu is commenting on the game, doesn't it follow that Black JaCu is himself gay? Or will he invoke the Larry Craig defense ("I have a wide commenting stance")? Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

"xbox 360 guy" deserves plaudits for effortlessly blending incoherence with bald-faced lies:

this game is going to be so cool because the graphics and i played the game. it feels like your in the game it so cool you can do so much now you should get this game i like it because sound and missions the xbox 360 is the best to get grandtheft auto iv for that system i already played the playstation 3 for iv and it sucked. get iv for the 360 the = end

To recap: It's cool because graphics, and he likes it because sound and missions. And even if you take it at face value that he did play the game before this comment was posted last November, his username kind of gives the game away.

Of the numerous comments proclaiming GTAIV the best game ever made, none quite reach the grandiloquent heights of the one by "colbog":

this is the reason why you have a system, this game is why you came to life, this game is the best, trow all your games to garbage, and forget about the world this is time to brake up with your girlfrien guys, the graghics and game experince is 5000 stars, ?????? yea really.

After posting this, colbog ascended to heaven on a winged steed.

The = end.

Winter games preview 2008

Putting together a seasonal games preview is always a dicey proposition. You don't have much to go on for release dates besides what Gamestop tells you -- and quite often their guess is as good as anybody's. With that said, I'm fairly certain that some of the games in my 2008 winter preview will be released on schedule, such as Burnout Paradise and Devil May Cry 4. Grand Theft Auto IV? Not so much. That's due for another catastrophic delay or two.

And if the Tom Clancy game that caps off this feature makes it out by April 1, I will eat my hat. You hear me? My hat.