a televised sports video game mashup

An American Express commercial featuring tennis player Andy Roddick versus the blocky paddle from Pong has recently been airing more frequently in support of the upcoming Rogers Cup here in Toronto. I figured it was another sign of the commoditization of video games, but I found the Stop Pong URL tagged at the end of the commercial made it a lot more interesting. The game lets you play as Roddick using the simple Pong-style gameplay in either a 2D or 3D mode. For the purpose it serves it's actually a decent looking distraction.

I hate commercials, but I have to give American Express credit for tapping into the trendiest internet meme at the moment. The mashup mixes real life action and a piece of video game history, creating a pretty surreal display. The commercial is also mixing two different sports. However, the "Roddick vs. Pong" game that adds an extended "interactive" element to the commercial is probably the biggest accomplishment, because they could have left it at the commercial itself. Instead, they understand that structuring a passive advertisement around a video game is easily transferrable to the form that inspired it, while lengthening the exposure of their brand.

extreme gamedropping

I have a very complex relationship when it comes to big media and gaming. On one hand, I'm pretty happy when an event like the upcoming release of Sony's PSP makes it onto the morning news, because for a split second it's like they're talking to me. But then I quickly realize that they're only repeating what everyone else is saying, information that the hardcore have known for months. It's like the news is posing for a second as an institution that's in the know. "We've got the finger on the pulse - not up our filthy asses." That would explain why Future Shop changed their front page to reflect the impending "Gaming Revolution" and its $400 price tag. To even consider this as a grounded statement would be ridiculous, but I'm still going to offer up a suggestion: wouldn't it be "1 day until the gaming revolution"?

As such it's with great trepidation that I watch any television show featuring a plot that orbits around something to do with video games or game culture. They almost always get it wrong, and although Law and Order: SVU did a decent job of balancing both sides of the video game violence issue, it was still more or less a puff piece on what is "wrong" with this generation of media saturated youth.

In another random spate of TV watching on Monday I was surprised to see Tony Hawk playing a dead body on CSI: Miami. He was a video game tester for "eXtrem3 Skatepark" or something, but was also moonlighting as a stand in for the development studio's owner who claimed he did all the tricks shown in the game. Hawk was murdered by a fellow tester - after being beaten by his wife who thought his long work hours were actually infidelity - coyly enforcing the belief that video games foster a subculture with violent tendencies. What impressed me was the timeliness of their commentary on how game development studios operate: the game's lead programmer complained that he hadn't been home in 72 hours, while a tester pleaded for a simple glimpse of sunlight. Infused with the bitterness of ea_spouse, a scene showed the receptionist sending flowers with generic notes to the spouses or partners of the staff, attempting to salvage relationships strained by so much time at work.

I find it interesting that video games are becoming more of a setpiece for television shows to base stories on. Their accessibility has embedded them in popular culture, so it's only reasonable to expect this to happen. Though what surprises me is the frequency in which this is happening, as if the writers have nothing else to use to depict the lifestyles of modern youth.

intensity

I'm not much for TV watching. I'd rather sit down with a good movie if I'm going to be in front of a screen, though naturally my favorite type of entertainment is of the interactive variety.

One thing that always gets me into a frothy rage is the way computers and technology are portrayed in TV or in movies. How many hackers do you know have a fancy 3D interface to work with (Swordfish), or complain about deleted or corrupted data due to de-fragging (countless episodes of Law and Order). Video games are another beast entirely, as it is so easy to demonize them when they've been such a hot button issue.

I wasn't surprised, then, when I casually tuned in to Law and Order: Special Victims Unit last night to see them talking about this game called "Intensity", which was supposedly the basis for a crime. A hooker was run over by a car, beaten to death and left for dead. Clearly inspired by Grand Theft Auto III+, the show hoped to tap into the "subculture" surrounding the game (and I use the term loosely - the kids shown in the program weren't exactly credible gamers). Let's also forget for a moment that the graphics were embarrassingly bad (on a PC!), and all you saw during the show was the same sequence repeatedly.

I respect that the show tried to tackle this trendy issue, and I also like how the defense lawyer tried to pin the blame on the developers of the game only to lose because of the defendant's obviously sound mind. References to Columbine as video game violence manifesting itself were made, but ultimately the message I got from the show was that video games are just another form of media, and cannot be blamed for a person's actions. Though as video games are still a very new form of media, opinions on their influence on youth have not been objectively formed yet. You still hear the angry cries of bad parents or blowhard government officials basing their "facts" on inconclusive studies. I appreciate that this show revealed both sides of the argument, and that's a small step in the mainstream acceptance of our hobby.

we are what we remember