Fluff no heat -
June 1, 2001 - Chris Jones
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed
within this column are those of the participants and the
moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the
GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive
material afoot.
Thom Yorke is a pretentious wanker. Discussion? No? Good.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Speaking of E3 (see, I get to say that, because I'm typing this intro over yesterday's intro, which was about E3, so to me it looks like the two are causally related) I've seen some pretty bizarre assessments of what was hot and what wasn't on the show floor, and what had a lot of buzz and what didn't, but Newsweek's latest issue takes the cake: apparently MGS2 generated less interest than Star Wars Galaxies and Medal of Honor: Allied Assault.
Now, I'm not saying they're wrong, necessarily, but when I think of the teeming sprawl of E3 and the booths that generated the most crowds and most discussion, those games aren't what comes to mind. At this point I'm honestly wondering if they should let journalists wander around the halls unescorted - last year Sega got shafted, and this year a lot of the hype was about the exceedingly mediocre XBox debut. Maybe a guided tour by E3 organizers, with random man-on-the-spot interviews, would get across to the talking heads (myself included, perhaps) what really interested people at the show.
Onward.
| Are you saying he's out of my league? |
| I saw the pictures of you guys at E3, and came to a conclusion:
Drew's cute. I can't imagine both of you getting it on.
The moral of the story is, "Don't ever take photos of yourself."
DMJ
|
That's probably a relief, all things considered, but I should point out that Drew complimented my ass on more than one occasion.
Not that I'm proud of the fact, mind you, just thought it needed saying.
| One time fee |
| It's been my belief that the internet gaming should be free(snans the internet access), but I know it didn't start out that way. With many of the first on-line games they charged by the month and some cases by the hour. I thought with Daiblo 2 and PSO we'd got beyond paying for time to play, but now Sega slaps the gaming public with another setback to the free gaming zone and posibily looses a whole mess of their customers. Most console gamers aren't hardcore enough to pay for online time, and some like me can't afford to(besides the fact that I hate paying for a game after I've bought it). If the trend of paying to play online continues many gamers will simpily stop buying those games. It's always been the hardcore gamers who would pay for online time and I don't think this will change anytime soon. Many of us who just play when we can find the time will be left out in the cold by the pay structure and the game companys don't see that. All they seem to see is the money made by Everquest(which conicendentally is made up of hardcore games and users that my play for a month or two and them quit) and it's not a good thing. Sega, Square and the other companys need to understand that pay-to-play games do not make up the general gaming public, but until that happens many of us will be stuck without an RPG to play.
Shadowcat
|
I have to disagree with this - in many ways, I'd argue, this brief flirtation with free online gaming is part of the same Internet dot com boom that's recently turned into a bust. Servers cost money, both to acquire and to keep running, and that money's gotta come out of someone's pocket. Yeah, yeah, developers should price their games to take that into account, but that's pretty difficult with games like Everquest, where people spend hundreds or thousands of hours online all told. Any pricing that adequately reflected that kind of investment would be unfair to the "month or two" group, and probably wouldn't be that appealing to anyone else, either.
I don't think developers should be looking to make a profit from online fees - apart from anything else, a high fee would stop people from playing for even moderate amounts of time, which kills the very community they're trying to create. On the other hand, a couple of cents an hour is pretty reasonable, especially when you consider that, even factoring in the game and the console, it's still cheaper per hour than a movie or a rented video.
And lastly, let's keep three things in mind. One is that online games, for some people, are incredibly addictive: they may not want to pay, but they will, and they'll keep playing as much as they possibly can. Price doesn't matter, when the demand curve is steep enough. Second, even casual gamers will buy pay for play games if what's being offered is good enough. People know what's being offered in PSO, and while some may not find it compelling enough to pay for long term, others will. I know I'll pay for FF XI, if only to give it a try. And last, as I've said before, paying a fee will make people unlikely to stay around for very long in a particular game world, which is also to the developers' advantage, because it leaves them with a new market for the next expansion pak or new online game.
| Decentralized |
| About Genji Breaker's letter yesterday:
The question before the Supreme Court is does the Indianapolis city government have the right to enforce the ordinance? The implications of their decision (should they take the case) have nothing to do with violent games, but rather with rights of local governments to make and enforce laws. In other words, if you value local control, you should hope Indianapolis wins.
Suppose Indianapolis puts the ordinance to a vote, and the majority of the people in that city agree that minors should not have access to violent video games. This is *NOT* censorship - rather it is the city exercising its right to govern itself.
You seem so afraid of control at the national level, and yet you fail to see that if Indianapolis loses this case, the national government gains power and the local government loses power.
You may not like Indianapolis' decision to keep children away from violent games, but it's *their* decision, and they can change it if they want to. But we have a very limited ability to alter national laws, so if the national government says that minors shouldn't have access to violent games, then that's that.
~Israfel~
|
Er, did I ever say I was afraid of control at the national level? This whole letter seems tinged with a particular political argument I don't really want to get into, but in this case I think national control is exactly what's going to save arcades, as the US Supreme Court tells a local government that it's violating the First Amendment by requiring regulation of software. Remember, voluntary ratings and warnings (like movies and video games) are one thing, but when they're required by any government agency, we start getting into censorship territory. Ultimately it's the Supremes who have to decide what this case is really about, but I'd still say this is about playing or not playing games, rather than about state's rights.
| Remember two things |
| Chris,
Two things
1) In the title you wrote for my letter, you labeled what I wrote as
"religious bigotry". In retrospect my rant was juvenile, but it was late, I
was pissed off....
( The more offensive stuff was written with a tongue in cheek)
Anyhow I have nothing but respect for religion, I just find it appalling that
certain groups try to overthrow our basic liberties. I thought the worst of
the stuff was a couple of pokes at the Midwest. My reference to
"televangelists" ( the porn czar stuff was all true, NOT a stereotype,) pales
in comparison in degrees of offensiveness to "guest host Jesus" making sexual
references and such. I realize you were being humorous, and my point is that
I was too despite the perception. I hope nobody took my generalizations such
as "flyover states" seriously, and apologize for any miscommunication. George
Carlin, one of the greatest comics of our time, constantly lambastes religion
and has never been called a bigot. I find being called THAT to be pretty damn
offensive, anyway its all water under the bridge so lets leave it at that :)
2) I highly disagree with saying Tetris could be called the #1 game. I doubt
anyone would rather play Tetris than MGS2, Zelda Cube, FFX, or whatever. I
understand nostalgic recognition for a polished and incredible classic game
such as Crono Trigger (My #1 RPG), but Tetris? I'd say its far too limited in
terms of gameplay, despite being a great, fun game.
-Genji Breaker X, taking it easy
|
Yeah, I recognize that you weren't being totally serious with the religion comments, and neither was I with the "religious bigotry" label. No harm, no foul all around, agreed?
Limitations are often highly underrated, especially when it comes to video games, which are almost always about "more, bigger, louder, faster". And that's fine for video games in general, since the medium's still developing and people are still pushing at the limits of what it's capable of. But sometimes simple is also sublime: go and chess don't require anything more than a board and pieces (and sometimes not even that, if the players are good enough) but as games, they're light years ahead of anything you can play on any computer or console, and they'll likely be played in centuries to come when Nintendo isn't even a footnote in the history books. I daresay that the population as a whole would far rather play simple, unassuming Tetris than any next-gen game you can name, and I doubt that'll change anytime soon either.
| Regularly scheduled public service message |
| Chris:
A few of your replies to yesterday's column touched on missing out on great
games because they didn't fit into a preferred genre (RPG's for those
reading this column). In recent weeks I've noticed a handful of reader's
comment negatively on games such as Tony Hawk and criticize other web sites
that acclaim them. There seems to be a resistance from RPGers against games
that are popular to the masses. I suppose this is nothing new though. I
just see a dismissal, or perhaps reluctance to take the time and money to
try other types of games.
Now, I'm not here to start a revolt against RPG's (I drowned last year with
Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross, FFIX, and am just getting around to finishing
Lunar 2 NOW!). This is an RPG site and if I saw Chris or Drew devote an
entire column to debating SSX I'd be a little bit pissed off. I just don't
want to see truly inventive games get passed by because they're too
mainstream. The irony shouldn't be lost on RPGers who witnessed RPG's get
passed by because they were too niched. Variety is the spice of life, as
they say.
I've played Tony Hawk 2 and it deserves the praise it receives. It's
innovative, polished, deep, and most importantly tremendous fun. It's not
everyone's cup of tea, but that's OK - neither is Zelda to others. I
borrowed a friend's Dreamcast recently to play Soul Calibur. I never play
fighting games. I'm terrible at playing fighting games. I find fighting
games boring. I found Soul Calibur to be absolutely brilliant.
Perhaps this thought is redundant and doesn't warrant lengthy discussion.
I'll just end on a similar piece of advice to those who read the GIA: Take
a break from RPG's and come up for some air once in a while to try some
different games. It's not the end of the world if you miss a good RPG -
there will be plenty more following. After all, if the casual gamer had
never paused from CoolBoarders 2 to give FFVII a chance we wouldn't be in
this fortunate situation of drowning in great RPG's in the first place.
Concerned Citizen, and RPG player.
|
Well written common sense letters: I gotta print 'em out of principle, but I got nothing to say about 'em. Except for my general agreement and approval.
| Respectful and authoritative disagreement |
| Chris,
I feel that I must respectfully disagree with the statements of and the questions posed by 'Genji Breaker X' regarding the so called "Evvvvvilllllllll". I find Genji's comments to be misleading and inflammatory. While he may have read the ordinance in question his comments are largely out of context or irrelevant to his argument.
His suggestion that games will be sectioned off by a "porno curtain" is true (sec 831-5 (j)) but Genji has cast this in the darkest light possible through his provocative language, and he fails to elaborate of the fact that this is only likely to happen to the most extremely violent games (see sec 831-1 for definitions).
The ordinance asks arcades to behave in a manner roughly synonymous to that of a movie theatre, which must receive consent of a guardian (no matter how tacit) before a minor is allowed to watch a rated 'R' movie. To this end, the ordinance merely sets up stipulations for the separation of violent games and the circumstances in which a minor may watch graphic content (as depicted by said video games) in a public place. An ordinance such as this, is therefore not unprecedented (see the regulations regarding minors and movies) and as such not "clearly unconstitutional" as Genji would like to believe. The crux of the issue is that parents should be able to monitor what there kids do at home (e.g., keep them from watching corrupting televangelists) but may not always know that their kid is playing violent games at the arcade.
Furthermore, pulling the Communications Decency Act into the argument only weakens Genji's point since the issue being addressed is one of public access to violent video games, not government censorship of their private access. That the CDA was struck down as unconstitutional has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not arcade games should receive a warning label (which I doubt constitutes censorship) and restricted access (which is where the real case will lie). In addition, the ordinance stipulates that there might be occasions where violence in video games is justified through "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" (sec 831-1 under 'Harmful to minors') This is hardly a glorified form of porn screening, and I take offense at Genji's misdirection.
Brasidas
PS. Given that "the term Bible Belt refers to states in the Deep South plus Texas where fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity is taken very seriously" and that this ordinance only relates to a specific type of video game, I fail to see how the city of Indianapolis is "a bible belt flyover state [trying] to bam[sic] every form of media."
|
Er, except to my way of thinking (and I don't know what the Supreme Court's said about it) mandatory warning labels do constitute censorship, since the government, be it local, state, or national, is decreeing something as unsafe for general public consumption. I recognize that there may be some legitimate use of this power (the issue of community standards aside) but at the same time, most courts seem very leery of getting involved in this debate, since the line between "that's evil because it incites riot" and "that's evil because it offends the party in power" has historically been very slippery. Keep in mind that the movie rating system is voluntary, that the MPAA is a studio-organized system and that theaters aren't legally bound to restrict R movies, although life gets easier for everyone if they do. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with voluntary ratings of arcade machines, especially if they can get arcade owners to police themselves, but putting Mortal Kombat behind a curtain does stigmatize it, and that's a restraint of trade issue.
Of course, I personally would just as soon seem Mortal Kombat stigmatized, but that's a completely different story.
| Those eyes are just... wrong... |
| The new Xenosaga characters look really beautiful~!
But the faces are somehow familiar... As if i know them long long ago...
... ... ... It's Ricca Doll reincarnated!!!
(Ricca: the Japanese equivalent of Barbi)
- hanna
|
You know, writing this column exposes me to a lot of stuff I'd just as soon not be aware of, like this letter. All that makes it worthwhile is that I can spread the pain to you guys. Enjoy.
Closing Comments:
Drew's in tomorrow, and he'll probably have some cleaning up to do after my voluntary ratings rants, but for an official topic, let's try this: who's your favorite game developer that gets unjustly ignored by the majority? Tell Drew about Quintet, Tri-Ace, Red Company, etc. Better him than me. Later.
-Chris Jones, points out that the column disclaimer is voluntary too. Technically.
|
