as seen in PC Gamer's review of The DaVinci Code

In the September issue, Kristen Salvatore writes about the adventure game adaptation of the film:

I confess that I'm something of a literature snob, so it isn't easy for me to admit I enjoyed a mainstream book like The Da Vinci Code - I love that it's rooted in factual historical mysteries unlocked with factual historical information.

Except that it isn't. I guess it was wrong to assume that Brown's detractors had actively slagged both the book and the film enough over the past three months to get people to start thinking clearly, pointing out that the basis for most of his novel was either entirely fiction or a pseudo-historical text that had been written simply to support some religious crackpot theory. But factual? Come on, a literature snob would have at least done a little casual research before making a statement like that.

Inside Man: inserting social commentary on video games into film

Spike Lee's Inside Man got a bit of attention in the gaming community earlier this year for a scene that showed a computer generated sequence made to look like a violent video game. I just saw the DVD on the weekend, and I have to admit I'm a bit suprised at the clumsily inserted social commentary. I could understand using the wounds of the World Trade Centre as a point of reflection in 25th Hour, but Inside Man's approach to criticizing violent video games simply felt gratuitous, from multiple viewpoints. It seems that the bigger Lee's budget, the lesser his tact.

Surprise! Vivendi wants Blizzard to make them money.

I see that the rumour mill is once again in full effect saying that Blizzard is going "all MMORPG on the games industry" based on a slide taken out of context from a presentation to some pack of clueless businessmen. Regardless of whether this might actually be true (just look at the amount of backpedaling Gamespot has done!), I find it hard to believe this is coming as a surprise to anyone. There have been talks about Blizzard turning their three franchises into MMORPGs since World of Warcraft was released. What's the big deal? It's not like Blizzard had plans to create anything new...they've been milking their trinity of IP for almost eight years! Even if their new game wasn't an MMORPG, what was it going to be? StarCraft 2?

The real surprise in all this is the lack of any snide commentary from Matt Gallant, who usually goes out of his way to slag off the gaming website community when they parrot frivolous rumours like this.

E3 2006: in which I try to hate the games industry

The gaming mob is fickle.

The novelty of E3 continues to wear thin, for me at least. I'd rather selectively watch coverage on the internet than be stuck in line with a bunch of people who are probably not even supposed to be there. It's become an amusement park. A giant, throbbing, noisy commercial for games that might not even see release, but we're going to get super happy excited about anyway. How much can you really glean from a game's trailer or 5 minute playtest that's been built up after waiting for two hours? The software isn't even complete. Is it to say you've played it first? I'm having a hard time figuring out my former longstanding desire to attend an E3. The gaming mob is fickle.

of course it's not dead you idiots

Without fail, the question "Is PC gaming dead?" is dredged up by self-proclaimed video game industry pundits every fucking year without fail. This time it's Daniel Morris, the former Editor-in-Chief of PC Gamer. And I'm tired.

I'm tired of reading the articles that ramble on about the successful sales of certain titles for whatever platform, while paying little attention to what's really happening in the industry. At least Morris rightly points out that both Valve and Electronic Arts are pushing their download service. With XBox Live and the XBox 360 moving towards more downloadable content and online play, and more multiports of traditionally PC-only titles, we are beginning to see the convergence of platforms. I have stressed this point before. PC gaming will never disappear because console gaming is destined to become PC gaming.

Of course industry mainstays like Nintendo will continue to advance the concepts of gaming, as September's announcement about the Revolution's controller sparked the most passionate debate about the future of gaming I have ever witnessed. They also unexpectedly made their mark with the Nintendo DS, convincing everyone - even pessimists like myself - that they can still innovate while providing accessible entertainment.

The Playstation 2 failed to provide an equivalent to XBox Live over its lifespan, and there is little promise being shown for the Playstation 3. Even Nintendo plans on offering a download service that would give gamers access to their classic titles of yesteryear. The thrust of this argument is that the console manufacturers are thinking about games online, because they all know that's what the market wants. Nintendo launched their WiFi service for the DS this year, and this is likely how they will provide online functionality with the Revolution. Aside from securing big-name publishers, what is Sony's plan for the Playstation 3? I am convinced that the average gamer is going to wake up any second and realize what is happening. Fancy new graphics can only carry a game so far. After playing Dawn of Sorrow I was enraged to the point of blindness that a third dimension had ever been invented.

Be reminded of the 3D engine wars from the late 90s. It's 2005 and Unreal is all but declared the winner. Then what? Does that mean we will begin to see an increase in creativity or a sudden interest in PC games? It does not. It means that PC gaming will continue to do what it has been doing forever, and that is releasing a variety of genre titles of varying quality. Just like every other platform.

Update: It appears the editing gremlins at Next Gen changed the title from "PC Gaming 2005: Not dead yet" to "PC Gaming: 2005" since the time I was first linked to the article and started writing this. Why, I wonder? Perhaps it was the "yet" that rankled a few PC gamers, or maybe the fact that there was no basis in the entire article for a solid argument against this point. A list of successful releases is not a defense!

carnival or bust

I have been invited to the Carnival of Gamers. Twice.

Flattered to be considered part of the "heavy hitters of the gaming blogosphere" that were so noted on the invitation, I still didn't bother responding. What was the point of asking someone to link to one of my old posts? I'm happy to write for myself. I went about my business.

The first ever Carnival of Gamers has come and gone, and left a few people's egos in its wake. Some have been inflated, and others put in check, but I was mostly interested in the flame war sparked by one man's rage against the gaming media machine.

It all started with a post over at Tea Leaves, which cried foul over the news that Gamespy modified the review score for Donkey Konga 2. According to Tea Leaves, this was evidently another strike against the current state of video game writing, though the post was styled as a typical rant common to most blogs and should not have even been dignified with a reply, let alone a post on the Computer Games website. This poorly formulated response to a haphazard collection of links caused an avalanche of commentary, most of them located at Buttonmashing's follow up post. I was a little disturbed watching Computer Games' Matthew Gallant try to defend himself, having no real position since he never bothered to slog through all the links.

While I agree with the spirit of the Carnival, the way in which it was carried out does the entire "gaming blogosphere" a disservice. There was no evident method for selecting the posts. It was even said that the only reason the Tea Leaves post was listed first was because it was submitted first. The Carnival itself is simply a collection of links with a few choice words wrapped around them. If I was someone interested in a particular topic, for example, the lampooning of online game journalism, how would I know where to look? Categories or headers for common blog posts would have done well in this regard. The organizer and proprietor of Buttonmashing also noted that he didn't like some of the posts. So why were they listed? To be fair to those who submitted links? How is it, then, that you can call the Carnival "the best and brightest video game bloggers from around the world!" I don't care if it's sarcasm: this is unfair to the readers that have been lured in from other websites that might actually take this statement, and the following collection of video game writing, seriously.

I think Matthew Gallant's complaint about the lack of editorial control is an excellent one. The Carnival may be providing links to some unknown weblogs, but if it's bad writing (or as we saw, provides a sensationalist negative opinion) it will reflect badly on the organizer, and the Carnival itself. Slashdot Games may have ripped into the Carnival as well, but why dismiss them? Instead of hearing what the commenters had to say, despite its negative slant, it was blocked out as an insult to the whole affair. It's one thing to link to a bunch of articles you enjoyed. If they're read by similar-minded people like the ones on the typical game blogger's links page I doubt you'll get any arguments. But when word gets out, you're likely to draw in those people that don't agree with you. Either learn to put up with criticism, or stop doing this. It's that simple.

The referrer log gazing on the Carnival's wrap up post was amusing. Calling it a great success based on some heavy linkage is hardly a comprehensive measurement. Of particular note are the links on Kotaku and Instapundit. Did they even read all the posts in the Carnival? I really doubt it, because they probably would have had more to say. Outsiders are lured into this realm expecting greatness, or at least a level of quality reflective of the linking website.

What's so bad about writing and nobody reading it, anyway? This is a classic symptom of blogger narcissism. I've been happily writing about games on this site since 2003, and whether I get visitors or not makes no difference on how I do things. Half the time commenters were trying to sell me vicadin or horse pills anyway. I write what I want, when I want, and I'm not trying to apply myself to some unwritten agenda that game blogging must be seen to be validated. Besides, once your gaming weblog gets attention, then what? Are you going to use it as a portfolio to get a job somewhere else? At a gaming website? At a gaming magazine? Railing against established media isn't exactly the best way to network with future employers.

I blame Penny Arcade for this obsession with internet fame. I have nothing against the guys, but the cult of personality that has sprung up around them is absolutely mind-boggling. They can say a bad thing about a game and influence thousands of people. Tycho can praise a game using his verbal gymnastics and people will be lining up at EB the next day. These are just the opinions of two guys, but that doesn't matter. Disagree with the mob and you've got a flame war on your hands. And isn't that what's happening here?

There's nothing special about game blogs, yet the Carnival's supporters seem to think so. Some of the posts at the Carnival were actually well- written, even if they weren't talking about something I was particularly excited about. Part of the problem is that sentiments are simply echoed throughout these sites' collective blogrolls. What's the point of reading at all if I'm not going to get a difference in opinion, or a new viewpoint on an old subject? What makes this different from weblogging in general?

Frankly, I'm a little embarrassed for those on both sides of this perceived battle. Making light of the negative comments from Slashdot Games is one thing, but when your own comments section erupts into the same type of defensive, ranty posts found there it undermines the purpose of the discussion in the first place. Furthermore, making a point of lambasting a professional game writer as if he were responsible for the mess that is games journalism seems kind of shortsighted. It's usually wise to assume that the mainstream media understands very little about weblogging. So is outright hostility how new readers should be introduced to this subculture of game writers? I wouldn't be surprised if visitors directed to the Carnival from elsewhere saw these immature displays and opted to never return again.

I have never made any claims to expertise or credibility. It's safer that way, and I'm a lot happier doing my own thing than trying to champion some cause that I don't believe is necessary. There's just something about self-aggrandizing self-publishing that smacks of inexperience. I'd hardly call Kotaku the pinnacle of game blogging. Do you enjoy sifting through advertisements to get to your information? Yet for some reason the underlying theme here is bringing attention to the gamebloggers, these unsung heroes of game journalism that might one day rise up against the firmly established gaming media empire. But for what? Ad revenue? Respect? A piece of virtual infamy? There's no way attention would be this important if something wasn't wanted in return.

The next Carnival is this week. Here's hoping the host exercises a bit more editorial control, before the Carnival is buried under the unfortunate stigma of its predecessor.

fools like us

platform agnosticism: in defense of PC gaming

I picked up the May issue of Computer Games magazine last week. I switched to this publication after dumping PC Gamer last year. Having been through five issues the content feels more refined, and there was a hell of a reduction in ads - but there's something missing. It's still focused on previews and reviews. I love Tom Chick's column, and the in-depth study of games and game culture that usually takes place in the last few pages of the magazine. But why aren't these cover stories instead of the trumpeting of typical exclusives? These exploratory articles are reserved for the back, which in most game magazines is where the cheat codes or letters pages go. Is it so unfashionable to take gaming seriously? Computer Games' recent turn to fumbling, awkward attempts at humour seems to point in this direction.

Computer Games have also changed their format in the last couple of issues. The addition of the "Online" section last month was created to address the growing community of online-only gamers trying to juggle multiple subscriptions. In May's issue I flipped through this section and came across something entirely shocking: console game reviews. In a computer gaming magazine! What in the fuck was going on here?