The token trans sexual predator in Azure Striker Gunvolt

Inti Creates' Azure Striker Gunvolt contains a negative stereotype of a transgender person that serves no purpose other than a cheap giggle and the degradation of an already marginalized social minority. That's all that really needs to be said.

But maybe you played the game and you didn't see that. And that's fine. I miss this kind of thing all the time, probably because I don't have a personal stake in it. I'm a regular old male dude and I like being a regular old male dude. I want other people to like being regular old female dudes and regular old trans dudes and regular old agender dudes and whatever else they choose to be. I don't care what they want to be. And I even more don't care what anyone wants me to think of them. That's where portrayals like Azure Striker Gunvolt's Zonda overstep their bounds.

This is a pretty basic race/gender theory 101 subject, but let's remember what "tokenism" is. Tokenism is the use of a single contrasting character in an otherwise homogeneous group who, through isolation, becomes representative of their group of origin. Tokens are typically portrayed as bland and insignificant (simply present to fulfill a diversity obligation) or aggressively stereotypical (either as a subconscious perpetuation of stereotypes or to draw attention to the element of diversity). To grossly simplify things, tokenism is a problem because it subverts the perception of minority individuals as individuals. The one black or gay or female character is shown as representative of group, rather than personal, identity.

As with everything in theory, I'm sure there's probably some specific name for the portrayal of a trans person as lusty, sexually predatory, perverse, and ultimately evil. A "Dr. Frankenfurter" maybe, except that Frankenfurter was ultimately sympathetic. Whatever it is, that's strictly where Zonda falls. The only trans character in Azure Striker Gunvolt, Zonda is a sexually threatening, dehumanized embodiment of indulgence, constructed from lurid imagery, rape-tinged dialogue, and sadomasochistic delight in death.

As is typical of Inti Creates and Mega Man in general, each of Gunvolt's villains has a distinctive palette and visual design, from Viper's flaming red mane to Elise's serpentine curves. Zonda, described as "bigender", is distinguished by a giant pink phallus erupting from their crotch. While other characters are identified by animal traits, Zonda flaunts the classical symbol of male sexuality awash in the textbook color of femininity. The portrait is reduced to an in-your-face caricature of intrusive sexuality, aligned with the damaging stereotype that a transgender person is defined solely by their choice of genitalia.

Zonda's dialogue (approved for ages 10 and up by the ESRB) is carefully crafted to disturb, laced with the flagrant prurience and innuendo used to dehumanize trans characters. Upon encountering the player character, they open lasciviously, "Mmm, look at you. You're all boy, aren't you?". The dialogue immediately objectifies the avatar ("look at you") and goes even further to hint a pedophilic angle with the use of "boy". From there we launch into biological sexual fixation - "A plug for every socket, and a socket for every plug" and onto the conflation of physical and sexual aggression, "I should warn you - I'm carnal. I'm a carnivore.". Zonda finishes - and I'm not exaggerating that all I've quoted here is all the character says - with what, in context, is a threat of rape: "right now, you're a dangly little piece of meat. Taking you for a tug is going to be fun.". The relentless association of transgenderism with sexual assault feeds into the underlying societal perception that trans people are a threat to straight males and tolerance is equivalent to a sacrifice of male liberty.

The subsequent death scene makes a mockery of the character and suggests Zonda is ultimately unworthy of life. The character is the only villain not to be directly confronted by the player - they are defeated off-screen and the player arrives just in time to witness them on their knees salaciously begging for the pain of death. Zonda's final words transcend innuendo into prolonged grotesquerie; "So hot... inside me... aaah!" "This pain... exquisite... nngh!!!" "Kill me... just like that... aaahhh...". In case you weren't sure what the game was getting at, the player character adds "that was no cry for help!" and the killer calls Zonda "abomination". In a world where violence against trans people is epidemic to the point of being a daily reality, sexualizing, mocking, and glorifying the demise of a trans character carries disturbing implications with regard to both the victims and perpetrators of this violence.

A subtler subversion of trans acceptance comes in the terminology used to reference the character: "bigender" and the pronouns "xe" and "xem". By invoking what have become standards of the gender discourse - that is, variable gender identities and gender-neutral pronouns - the game juxtaposes genuine political correctness with its relentlessly negative portrayal of Zonda. The overt sexualization and dehumanization of the character through their conduct concurrently devalues these otherwise positive trends, dragging the entire gender conversation into mocking dismissal. For the record, I chose not to use "bigender" and the x-pronouns to refer to Zonda in this piece because the general ignorance inherent in the portrayal makes me skeptical that any terminology from the game is appropriately applied.

Invariably it must be remarked that the developers and localizers of Azure Striker Gunvolt probably didn't "mean anything" by their characterization of their sole transgender character. The concept probably evolved naturally in conceiving an embodiment of Lust (the game has a seven deadly sins motif). They probably didn't approach it any differently from their Pride character who spouts "thee"s and "thou"s and makes for the honorable fool. It must also be remarked that intention does not matter at all. The game propagates negative stereotypes to its audience, whether through ignorance or choice. Transgender people are very real and in choosing to present a transgender character, Inti Creates now owns the stereotype that a trans person is nothing more than a thrusting phallus of deviant sexual predation begging to be beaten to death.

Addendum on the subject of localization: As with most Japanese-developed games, Azure Striker Gunvolt was translated into English by an entity external (8-4 Ltd.) to the original development team. The exact parallel between the English and Japanese scripts remains nebulous; however, the blame almost certainly falls on both parties. The visual design of the character and their use in cut-scenes - half of the problem - would've been defined by Inti Creates. As for 8-4 - even if the dialogue was translated exactly as written in Japanese, they have the responsibility of appropriating that to fit the target culture - leaving in socially irresponsible content is an active choice to create a socially irresponsible game.

Bravely Default: Get off my censorship and trust localizers

This week Bravely Default is finally making its US debut after what seems like months of buildup and fanfare. Frankly I feel like the game's been out for weeks, the way everyone already seems to have made up their mind about whether it's the savior of JRPGs or just another in the line of formulaic boredom. Much to the chagrin of some fans, however, this Western release will be coming in "censored" form. Forget for a minute that every game is translated and localized and modified to fit the culture and linguistics of the country of its release - as a game that garners interest specifically from groups who follow and even treasure Japanese culture, the localization changes to Bravely Default were bound to be noticed. These particular changes involve the modification of some female character outfits to be more conservative and the adjustment of ages of sexualized characters from ~13 to ~18.

On the right are the original costumes from the Japanese version, on the left are their localized counterparts. Not sure if it was one of these characters or another who looked similar who was aged up.

I don't really want to talk about what is or isn't 'appropriate' content for games/media. We could be dealing with a depiction of intercourse, graphic violence, drug use, overt racism, or any other taboo subject. Today it happens to be sexualized teens. I'm not well-read on the formal ethics, psychology, or legality of these depictions in fictional and animated works. There are those that say they're utterly harmless fantasy, others who say they're tantamount to pedophilia. Some maintain they sublimate inconvenient urges, others say they encourage them, and others say they have no relation to attraction to real teens whatsoever. It's not wildly different from the debate on video game violence except that people are a lot less fond of publicly discussing (and particularly defending) a subject that's two inches away from the words "kiddie porn". For most, "it makes me slightly uncomfortable, but I'd rather just ignore it" is enough said. The debate over content is irrelevant to the topic of censorship itself - we can all agree that sexual depictions of <18-year-olds is highly unpopular in mainstream American media. If you desperately need something more concrete than "unpopular in the mainstream", well, the legal age of consent is 16-18 in just about every state and pornographic depictions of individuals under 18 or presented as under 18 are illegal.

I don't know exactly what Japanese standards are, but we wouldn't be having this conversation if they weren't somewhat different from the above. There's no question that they have a higher tolerance for the sexualization of teenage and even prepubescent girls, particularly in animated media. I have no clue how this content is looked upon by the Japanese public, whether it's driven by the consumer base or considered explicit, tasteless excess, fringe, or actually accepted as fine. I just know it is somehow prevalent and manages to make its way over here - whether because of the wholesale appropriation of the video game / anime / manga subcultures, with their every nook and cranny, or truly representative of its predominance in media is again irrelevant.

All we need to agree upon of the setup is that Japanese media companies sometimes create content that many Americans consider completely inappropriate.

The idea that the changes to Bravely Default were "censorship" probably never even occurred to the localization team. I wonder if, in their minds, they weren't thinking, "let's make these characters a little more relatable to Western audiences, put them in an age range where guy's'll feel comfortable crushing on the girls and the male characters won't all look like predatory pervs". Are the localizers overstepping their bounds here? The fact that this team has been accused of "censorship" indicates that there are those who believe these are not the "creators" of the game and therefore they should have zero input; but isn't editorializing a crucial part of localization? Modifying the content of a game so that it maintains the same feel between regions of release? Of course that's going to include editorialization - if you wanted a literal translation you could go to Google Translate (or just jump back to the late '80s). It's up to the localizers' discretion to determine what is and is not appropriate - do you expect Japanese game developers to be any more knowledgeable about American social mores than an American engineer is about Japanese? Every work of art is perceived through a social lens, so even a concept as seemingly concrete as a 13-year-old girl is totally subjective. Is it not a matter of interpretation (correct or incorrect) to say that perhaps Western players think of 18-year-olds the same way Eastern players think of 13-year-olds? Perhaps it's well-known to the localizers that this type of game is more popular with teens in Japan but with adults in the States. I'm not sure - that's their call. In the extremely global video game marketplace, accounting for the cultural makeup of audience lens is a creative decision in and of itself, and one entrusted to localization departments.

It's funny for the subject of localization to become so controversial and even be labeled as censorship, as I'm sure the decision to adjust an age and a costume as in Bravely Default is utterly mundane compared to the rewrites many games have undergone. While it's absolutely crucial that publishers respect the original writers' intentions and not meddle any more than necessary with their work, this all amounts to part of the creative process. Like it or not, game's are very rarely an auteur's medium. Certainly AAA Japanese RPGs are not. They are a product of dozens or hundreds of individuals who each contribute in their own capacity to a final product. Where do we draw the line at what is the "original" vision for a work and what is an unwarranted rewrite? At best it can only be done situationally, but most of the time it probably can't be done at all. Who's to say that the original concept for Bravely Default didn't star naked elderly amputee bear-women before a producer slapped down the idea as wildly untenable? Sure that's a straw-man, but the point is that changes happen at every phase in a product. Just because you liked one stage better than what ultimately replaced it doesn't mean it was "right" or "original".

At the end of the day, the only way any of us are able to play Bravely Default is because Square Enix decided to localize it. How they did that was entirely in their hands 100% of the way, and if you would have preferred that they not localize the game and leave it in Japan with scantily-clad 13-year-olds intact, well, fuck you. The rest of us want as many games to come to as much of the world as possible. Every decision Square made along the way was ultimately made with the intention of selling a product to as many consumers as possible. Was the game implicitly "censored" by "what people like?" Uh, yeah, in the same sense it was "censored" into being a turn-based RPG with gorgeous hand-drawn graphics and orchestal music etc. How you can call that censorship - a company having full creative control over its products and how and where it will market them - I honestly can't imagine.

Dear Nintendo, Fix Virtual Console

Dear Clara,

I'm a longtime fan of yours. I know everyone says that, but I actually mean it. The Legend of Zelda is the greatest video game series running and one of the greatest cultural touchstones of my generation. Metroid is not that impressive a series. Super Mario Bros. is such a genius game that I don't think most truly realize how far ahead of its time it really was. It invented the medium we know today. And for a while you sponsored some truly daring and bombastic endeavors, from EarthBound to the work of Rare to Ogre Battle 64 (which few remember was published by you guys!) to Sin & Punishment.

I know you've been having a hard time recently and everyone is giving you a doubly hard time Monday-morning-quarterbacking these recent business announcements. I know that this "letter-to-Nintendo" format isn't even original and very little solid financial advice is ever received in a friendly letter. But I just wanted to make one wish directly from my heart to yours. This isn't a business suggestion, it's not "what I think would make Nintendo fans happiest" or "what I think would resurrect Nintendo's market share". It's a personal request. It's the #1 thing you could do to set my heart atwitter (TM), to rekindle my love, to make me feel like a child taking those first steps into Link to the Past's Hyrule again.

Fix Virtual Console. But don't just fix it, showcase it. Make it a headline feature. Make everyone talk about it. Make Virtual Console into Main Console. Your greatest advantage as a company are those decades of archives - Nintendo is gaming history. And sometimes the biggest step forward requires a long, thorough survey behind. The medium right now is plowing forward as if the fact that technology is advancing implies the minds using it are too. You know differently. You know there were innovators and geniuses working in the '80s and '90s, and you have the opportunity to remind everyone. The opportunity to remind the world that it's not just a bunch of machines and gadgets that push our medium forward, but human passion and creativity. I think that opportunity lies in Virtual Console.

I don't want to talk about what Virtual Console was or what it has become. I want to talk about what it could be - what I think it truly is and always has been at its core, but is not being used as. Virtual Console is a place where old games can be released as if they were brand new. There is no restriction on which old games these could be or how old they are - they could be classics or complete unknowns, because here's the thing - you're releasing them anew! This is an entirely second chance for these games, an entirely new audience and competitive environment, an entirely new marketing approach - all factors in your control! There's no reason to look at something obscure like StarTropics and say "no one played this the first time around, so they won't be interested in a re-release", because you - Nintendo - have the power to re-market the game, to showcase everything that makes it unique and interesting, and to tell everyone why they need to have played it. Forget that it even came out before - pretend this is it's very first release! Show previews - how about digging up some old Nintendo Power articles? Interview the developers! Give us a demo! Find some contemporary game designers who have been influenced by these old games and get them to talk about why they're important! Come up with special features to highlight different styles, series, or creators - how about Beat-'em-up Month or a category for Games to Play with Friends? If you show us that you love these games, we'll be a lot more inclined to.

What you can't do is drop old games unceremoniously into a bin with nothing more than a few screenshots and a label. What that tells me is that you don't care. And if you don't care, why should I? At best, I might be inclined to look up the game on the Internet, and I'm going to find what people thought of the game back in the day, or, worse, that no one remembers it. And that's not treating old games like they're new. That's not giving them a second chance and allowing the ideas to speak for themselves - that's condemning them to a fate they've already suffered.

Just as important in demonstrating your love of games as treating them like new is bringing back as many as possible. It's not enough to return to Mario and Zelda and Donkey Kong over and over again. I know you love those games - I do too - and I agree that every generation of gamer should be brought up with them the same way every budding music fan should be introduced to Bob Dylan and Fugazi. But Virtual Console should be more than baby's first video game steps. It's not just an introduction - it can be a living, breathing, reanimated organism! We're talking about a celebration of the entire history of the medium. I don't mean to sound too harsh here, but Mario and Zelda simply aren't enough to speak for our entire history. That paints too broad a picture. We need the Double Dragons and the Rocket Knights and the Turricans and the Phantasy Stars (less so the Earthworm Jims) - the more detailed you get, the better. And this isn't just about giving a history lesson. These games were unique in their own right at the time and are to this day, and if you cultivate a love for old games, if you properly present each one with care, every release will be an event. Virtual Console should be a parallel game console with its own library that expands just as does that of the Wii U, the 3DS, and other contemporary platforms.

Every old game can become a classic. There are so many great games sitting out there on a shelf, completely forgotten - games that I and all your fans haven't played. Use these games. Make them new again. I want to play them - I want to be excited by them - I want to love them. If you show that same passion, your fans will as well.

Sincerely,

Clara

Huge news: Nintendo debuts new console, Wii U!

That's right, you heard it here first - Nintendo, hot on the heels of their success with Wii and 3DS, will be taking the first leap into the next generation with the Wii U on November 18, 2012, exactly one year and three weeks ago today! The Nintendo Wii U will represent a brand new generation of home hardware for Nintendo, sporting 1080p next generation graphics, advanced media center and social networking features, sophisticated online support, and an unprecedented new controller: the Nintendo Wii U GamePad:

The future is yesterday.

The Wii U GamePad features a gigantic 6.2 inch embedded touchscreen and... okay. I'm gonna stop here. You're probably asking yourself, "why is he doing this? Where am I? What does it all mean?" Well, it's come to my attention over the course of every single conversation I have about "next-gen" consoles with casual gamers (namely family and coworkers) that no one actually knows that Wii U exists. Normally it comes up when someone asks "is Nintendo coming out with another console?", "how's Wii doing?", or, most recently, when I mention that I'm playing Super Mario 3D World ("is that on Wii?"). Realize that the "casual gamers" I'm referencing are not, like, my grandma. These are people that own consoles, are considering buying Xbox Ones/PS4s, and in some cases, owned a Wii. HOW IS NINTENDO DOING SUCH A TERRIBLE JOB AT MARKETING THAT THESE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THEY'VE HAD A NEW CONSOLE AVAILABLE FOR A YEAR??? I've had this exact "wtf is a Wii U?" conversation at least five times in the past few months. That is extremely worrisome. It's not like consoles are something that gain publicity and attention the longer they exist, taking a while to build steam like a hot new fashion trend or a band heating up the local scene. They precipitously drop off the map like everything in the electronics world... especially when other new consoles get released. 

So anyway, I figured that Nintendo and their little engine that could are in desperate need of publicity, and as a blog that gets up to seven (!) human readers a day, I figured GNG may be the best and only chance they've got. That's why I decided to publish this press release detailing the debut of their console - now you know it exists, so spread the word! I mean, I don't care if you buy it or anything, I really don't give a shit if they sink or swim. That's their problem and a grave they've been happily digging for years. I'm just tired of people fucking asking me about it. 

Who the HELL is the audience for a console review?

First let me clarify that I have no intention to shit on people who're excited for the PS4, who've been hyping it for weeks and are maybe even lining up for a midnight launch. I get that. People get pumped for the technology, but more importantly, for being on the forefront of the new wave. Getting a console at launch is like seeing a band live or catching a movie in the theater - it's a once-in-a-lifetime experience, a chance to be part of history. You get to say "I was the first" and "I was there". That's certainly been overdone in recent years (what doesn't have a midnight launch these days - it's pretty embarrassing that people are lining up for phones that they replace after just a few months), but console launches are still a deservedly big deal. Whether or not there's reason to be excited for this generation, it's still the first new dedicated home gaming hardware to arrive in seven years (sorry Wii U, but... well, Wii U is the one that should be apologizing to me). It's like, even if the movie is A Good Day to Die Hard, there's still an experience to be had going to see Die Hard in the theater. So the community buzz over PS4 (and to a much lesser extent, Xbox One) doesn't bug me one bit. In fact, it somewhat hearkens back to the days when I was actually excited for Gamecube and Wii.

But is it really necessary for the mainstream gaming media to rape that excitement by "reviewing" the PS4 and every last console, device, operating system, interface update, and portable on the market? Does the word "platform" mean anything to anyone anymore? I understand the point of reviewing something like an iPad SG-1, as the core functionality of the device is going to be essentially identical to every other tablet, as every tablet is essentially identical, as tablets are essentially pointless. For electronic devices like phones, tablets, phonelets (hey, I learned recently that's a real thing and totally not a joke word), MP3 players, USB sticks, watches, and coffee cups that come with a defined, boxed functionality, the devil is in the details. Reviews make sense. They are based around the fact that all of those devices support the same software and functionality, differing only in form factor, performance, and interfaces. Want to use Facebook and play MP3s? Any smartphone can, but a review can tell you which can do so best.

A console is a platform for video game software. It plays only video games specific to it. Therefore, its entire worth is derived by what video games are available for it - none of the details are comparable to the details of other consoles, because - unless you're totally game-agnostic - the platforms support different core functionality. SNES and PS4 do not play the same games, so alllllllllllllllll of the other elements of the two systems are incomparable. PS4 has better online? Sweet, doesn't mean I can buy a PS4 and play Super Mario Kart on PSN. SNES has better load times? Awesome! I still can't pop Assassin's Creed 4 into my SNES to take advantage of those lightning-fast cartridge loads.

When an electronic device is reviewed, it's generally done so that the reviewer can provide a purchasing recommendation. "You need this type of device because you don't have anything else that does what it does", or, more often, "buy this particular device over this other similar one". The former really only appears in rare circumstances like the dire tablet outbreak of 2010, when the iPad arrived and performed a role that many felt personal computers had simply been doing too well. So one would expect the same from a console review. It's just that both of these types of evaluations are absurd to perform on day one of a platform's release. The people that want to be on board with the next generation, who are willing to believe this video game console is new and original and more necessary than the last, are the ones I described in my first paragraph - they're in line already. Those waiting to see if the hardware is truly a full generational leap are going to have to wait for software that fully utilizes it. The type that are trying to make a smart PS4 vs. One decision don't even have One reviews for comparison yet, not to mention won't be able to make an informed decision for, oh, say another two or three years, when these platforms actually have any semblance of software libraries. Anyone remember back to 2004 when PSP was declared to be the indisputable champion of the new handheld war? Yeah. Think about how worthwhile console reviews are after that one.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around what kind of person is SO on the fence about getting a new console that they need someone to tell them "go buy it today". If you're that unsure, sounds like you aren't that desperately in need of new games to play. And in that case, why not wait for the inevitable hardware revision and a more expansive software selection? Being unsure about a platform has to be a definitive "no", right? If there's no game you want to play on it, what about the hardware could possibly change your mind? But here comes the gaming media with a product to sell and a paradigm to perpetuate.

Here's a delightful little snippet of sales propaganda that epitomizes everything I detest about the consumerist mentality of the modern gaming medium. GamesRadar, at the end of their review, surmise that despite the lack of recommendable software, Yes, you should go out and buy a PS4, concluding that: "Even if you don't plan on picking up many PS4 games at launch, the system feels like an affordable and worthwhile investment that will do right by early adopters." Let me translate that: "even if there are no games to play on your PS4 and thus it will simply be an expensive paperweight, you should go buy it because you have money, money which would be better off in Sony's wallet than in yours". I mean, seriously - "investment"? Could they have picked a word more diametric to the reality of a video game console? There is NO REASON to buy a console before it has games worth playing - it doesn't accumulate value, it precipitously degrades. This is a marketplace where yearly redesigns are an absolute expectation, price-cuts are bi- or at worst tri-annual, and resale value is virtually null. Recommending consumers buy a console because it'll probably turn out for the best is like telling them to grab the latest iPhone because you're sure Apple's got some great features rolling out in 2016. Like being an "early adopter" possibly could confer any advantage to a console owner. 

What a shining example of the ongoing obsession with boiling everything down to a score or a yes-or-no answer. I understand that we trust journalists to inform us about subjects that we ourselves have not yet touched or cannot reasonably afford to try. But don't we need to draw a line at some point? Aren't we willing to take some risk, have some faith? Trust our own experience a little bit? Have patience, let things pan out? We've been through a lot of rounds of consoles, and there are really only two choices here. If you reach deep down, all the way into your heart's brain's deepest desires, I think you'll find that you're either ready to make the jump or you're not, and that not only will no reviewer change that readiness, but no reviewer is ready to decide for you between PS4 and Xbox One. 

Reading material: Sega v. Accolade

On the left: Sega. On the right: Accolade. Hedgehog Court - it's just like Kangaroo Court, but you go insane.

Continuing the "feature" of me "featuring" other content, I recommend checking out this very interesting court case on the subject of software licensing, copyright, and trademarks. Back in the early '90s, Sega tried to stop any cartridges lacking the expensive Sega license from running on their hardware, but a handful of enterprising young developers at Accolade found the practice to be a little too much like extortion and decided to code a workaround that let their games run without approval. Their defense was that reverse engineering a piece of software to decipher how it works was not inherently a breach of copyright. When Sega took steps to lock out and legally entrap Accolade, the rebellious developers struck back with some clever software and legal tactics of their own. You'll have to read the rest here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade

The suit is over twenty years old and it's been a decade since Sega has made a console or Accolade even existed, but it established a software copyright case law precedent still referenced today. It's also interesting to read the ridiculously shady shit Sega tried to get away with. Also, I've seen a lot of hilarious court case names in my day, but the therein cited "Anti-Monopoly, Inc. vs. General Mills Fun Group" definitely ranks highly.

Indies on Handhelds: A nice interview w/ Brjann Sigurgeirsson

Here's a recent NintendoLife interview with Brjann Sigurgeirsson, co-founder of Image and Form, Swedish development team behind the acclaimed SteamWorld Dig for 3DS eShop. I've yet to play Dig (it's on the list), but that's not really what the interview is about - Sigurgeirsson talks about being an indie working in the current handheld climate. He makes some excellent points about the mobile marketplace (I particularly like what he has to say about the iOS App Store) and has some charming (if not terribly original) remarks about discovering one's work is an unexpected hit. It's nice to see an indie developer who strikes a balance between humility and confidence rather than being a quippy know-it-all. Reading between the lines, Sigurgeirsson seems to be saying that Dig has yet to become a financial success, but it's interesting how confident he is in the 3DS as a platform and in Nintendo's relationship with independent developers. I realize the interviewer probably didn't want to put him on the spot, but I kinda wanted to hear which particular indie games he was so hotly anticipating. I'll also be interested to see how much of a tail Dig (and the SteamWorld franchise as a whole) ends up having.

He does talk about SteamWorld Dig for the first two minutes, so if you haven't played that, you might want to skip ahead. But the majority of the interview isn't specific to the game. 

Be a dear and give interviewers NintendoLife a hit rather than watching the embed below.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2013/10/interview_image_and_form_ceo_brjann_sigurgeirsson_talks_steamworld_dig_and_working_on_the_eshop

Indie developers of America: Something to be ashamed of.

edit, later in the day: I renamed this post because it doesn't seem appropriate to single out Fish - I only chose him because he's the one that spurred this reverie (with the Fez 2 news). As discussed in the post, everyone on that panel is equally culpable for their ignorance and inability to either name a modern Japanese game or acknowledge that they haven't played many.

So I haven't followed anything related to Phil Fish or his Fez sequel, as I've yet to get around to playing the first game, but I noticed that he's been stirring up quite a bit of drama over the past week. I was surprised and a bit curious, as all I knew of Fez was that it had been well-received and relatively successful. Soon I learned that Fish is not exactly popular, and found my way to the video below. It's hard to watch, but seriously, tough it out - you'll learn just how hard you can cringe.

Like it or not, you've gotta admit: Fish has a point.

Wait a minute, no he doesn't.

What bothers me isn't so much that Phil Fish, Fat McMillen, and Baldy McGoo think that Japanese games suck. They're entitled to their own dumbass opinions that they can feel free to shit all over Tweeter, the Internet, and their personal friends and family. It's not even that Fish (and the rest of the panel, bursting into laughter) were flat-out rude to a respectful stranger with a genuine question. It's that this panel is meant to be representative of indie developers (implicitly "of America"), and it should be an honor both to sit on it and to have young lads such as this questioner seek their opinion. Being placed on such a pedestal is inherently validating. To use such a platform to spout conceited ignorance paints the entire indie community as conceited and ignorant, making me personally feel ashamed to support or associate with it. These are the people that represent us?

It takes it to the next level that they addressed this opinion about Japanese games to a Japanese game developer. It's nice to know that the indie devs of America feel comfortable lumping all Japanese games into one category - I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I likewise told them their games suck because they're all boring assembly line military shooters and open-world minigame-fests? In failing to contextualize their absolute stereotypes, they as near as explicitly said: "your game sucks, because you are Japanese, and all Japanese games suck" - which tells me that not only are these dipshits ignorant, they're radically elitist. You can't be one of them, because you are held back by invisible hands to which they are not subject. 

One would imagine an indie developer would have at least the courtesy to acknowledge the difference between mainstream and indie Japanese games, yet these guys come out swinging with Skyward Sword as their only example. Sorry - can we stop the conversation right there? You've just evidenced your ignorance - why not be honest and admit that your perspective on Japanese gaming is severely limited? The way-too-late catch-all "don't blog about this, there are exceptions" doesn't count - mentioning Street Fighter IV doesn't exactly give me confidence in the breadth of your knowledge. I'm not saying everyone needs to know about Japanese games, or even that these guys should - one man can only play so many games, and I couldn't care less which he chooses. The line into retard-ignorance is crossed when they start passing judgment on a culture of which they've chosen to be ignorant. Listening to Baldy condescendingly hand out a lesson about tutorials makes me feel like I'm listening to Christian missionaries in the 17th century trying to educate "savages"; "we don't know about your ways, so they are Wrong".

I'm not even going to get into how arbitrary these guys' accusations of Japanese games are (whining about interfaces? aren't indie developers supposed to be actualizing the artistic aspect of the medium, not the menu aspect?), but I can't end the conversation without pointing out that Fish's Fez is aesthetically a 100% clone of Cave Story, a Japanese indie game eight years older than his own. That he so shamelessly plagiarized his work doesn't terribly surprise me (sorry, it's rampant in the industry), but that he then had the audacity to indict the culture from which he stole as "behind the times" is shocking beyond the point of comedy. 

I was going to check out Fez at some point, just out of my general personal obligation to support indie games, but at this point I'd burn in hell sooner than put a dime into Fish's purse. Someone with so little respect for the medium and his position in it doesn't deserve to be sustained by it. While I certainly don't think a creator's mantra should have any effect on the perception of their work, it very well has an effect on my willingness to pay them for it (that is to say, Fez isn't necessarily a bad game because Fish is a tard, but it is now a game I won't pay to play).

There's a bit of a happy ending to the story: Fish canceled Fez 2 and quit the industry because of the Internet Bitchslap handed to him over this and some other "vitriolic" (i.e. "idiotic") comments he's made in the last few weeks. And no, the industry doesn't "need" people like Fish who "speak their minds", as many shitbrains like Cliff Gearzinski have declared in his defense in the wake of the Fez 2 meltdown. The industry needs people who play games (you'd be surprised how few developers do) and are willing to admit that they don't know everything. The entire reason the mainstream industry (both in the US and Japan) is so backwards is that it's led by imbeciles like Cliffy B, Blow, and Fish - morons with their heads jammed so far up their own assholes that they don't realize anyone else is out there making games. 

This Independence Day, take a moment to remember what we're really celebrating...

with a few of gaming's most relatable native American leads.

hm I could keep going with this but the two second Google search I just did so thoroughly soured me on the subject of race (as usual) that my enthusiasm is deader than the indigenous peoples of North America. I dunno. Serious time for a second: my single (though improbably verbose) thought on minority* representation in media is that generally the number of minority creators is proportional to the number of (worthwhile) minority portrayals. In this case, if there are natives out there making games, they're probably utilizing interesting native characters. Japanese men, on the other hand, are writing about... whatever it is that Japanese men write about. Bear with me for a second because I realize there's some middle ground - but do you even want a bunch of 30-year-old middle-class white men at Bethesda trying to write "genuine" stories about growing up as a destitute full-blood lesbian on the rez? "Yes" is apparently the answer, because despite the widespread knowledge that the game industry is largely composed of white and Asian men, under-representation of women and racial minorities is a persistent complaint (I think mostly among people who don't actually touch games). So we get shoehorned characters that end up being written just as poorly as one would expect. The only people who can be held accountable for failing to bring forth compelling minority characters are minority writers. Who largely don't exist. 

So we have what I can only understand as an entitlement scenario, where the end product is being held to a uniformity standard determined by a (theoretical) audience and found wanting. Which is, sigh, not how an artistic medium works. It's like claiming there's something wrong with Impressionism because they never painted enough comedy cats. Yes, it's true, the historical body of work is 'incomplete' in that sense, and therefore may not appeal to everyone. Then again, there's no reason it needs to appeal to everyone. Just like there's no reason everyone needs to like video games. It isn't a shortcoming of the medium, it's a misalignment between expectation and reality. And if someone does want to love games but feels like they're being held back by a lack of relatable characters... doesn't that make it their duty to go out and create some decent portrayals in line with their thinking? Or at the very least aren't they deprived of the right to complain? It's not like there's some invisible market force stopping them from grabbing a game engine and distributing their work on one of the myriad indie platforms available.

Punk was largely stereotyped as "angry white boy" music, but that didn't stop Bad Brains

None of this is meant to excuse bland stereotyping and historical rationalization of atrocity, which is a different conversation altogether. That shit is just bad writing, and the fact that 95% of game writers suck at writing shows up far more flagrantly in other places. Usually the entire story. But when it comes to the landscape of the contemporary marketplace, there's no room for complaint about unbalanced or unfair representation. The process of creating and distributing a game has now been so far simplified (at least to equivalency with learning to write/play/record music) that there's no excuse to believe you aren't getting what you "deserve" - if it doesn't exist, it's your job to create it.

*note: I realize women are not a minority, but I didn't feel like typing "female/minority" a thousand times, so use your brain to discern that they are included in the commentary

Vitriolic E3 rant #427: Everything still sucks except Mega Man in Smash

The only thing that confuses me is that people are like really happy with Sony and think they're doing a fantastic job. 50% of voters in GameFAQs' daily poll said Sony's conference was "amazing". I won't lie, they're certainly upstaging Microsoft, but I haven't seen a single enticing thing about the PS4 either. I can't even tell how it's different from PS3. That's basically how they're "winning". They stand there and do nothing while MS completely implodes. And they still have a shitty uncomfortable controller with analog sticks in the wrong place. There's no arguing that it's top-notch PR work, but once I get a computer box in my house and plugged into my TV, I'm no longer actively comparing it to the other options on the market - I need to know what it does. It's funny how informed gamers think they are when they can't manage to process information outside of this fallacious "us vs. them" framework. Yes Sony looks a lot better than Microsoft... but take Microsoft out of the picture, then try to tell me what Sony is selling. It's not a fucking war! You don't have to buy any of them! Or you can buy all three! Can we stop acting like "better" == "good"? It's all derived from this must-buy consumerist/addict mentality that defines the "core" (dumb) gamer.

Sony nutshelled: a bland blue background, but at least it isn't Xbox One

I guess dumb-gamers are probably excited over the likes of Final Fantasy XV and Kingdom Hearts 3, but I have some pretty incisive questions about those. Like, when was the last FF game anyone liked? While opinions vary on XII, X was the last classic worth mentioning outside of the "which Final Fantasy doesn't suck" framework - and that came out over a decade ago. Same question for Kingdom Hearts. Since the first one - again, over a decade ago - the series has been treading water. And then there's the exciting thing where a bunch of the indie games I had just assumed were current gen are actually being shuffled to PS4, like Transistor (successor to Bastion) and Klei's Don't Starve. There's no hardware justification driving this, it's completely a marketing ploy. Luckily, they're all coming to PC too, so there's no apparent reason to get a PS4. And don't even get me started on how much I don't care about Elder Scrolls Online. Read lore books in real-time with your friends! "Online" sounds like a good excuse to make a much smaller game than Skyrim or Oblivion and then bank on iterative content delivery. And again, it's not like there's any point crediting it to PS4 - we all know it'll be on PC too.

As for the much-lampooned Xbox One Doritos Dew promotion, free giveaways with junk food have been part of the fabric of consumerism since 1993, so it feels silly to act disgusted. For instance, a quick Google search reveals a Fast Five PlayStation 3 giveaway from 2011. On the other hand, it's weird to see Microsoft advertising this kind of schlocky promotion at the biggest gaming conference of the year (instead of with a TV commercial). Normally such contests are meant to move Gushers or Coke Soda en masse by tying a lottery factor to an expensive and popular reward... this time it seems that MS is acknowledging that cheese-flavored snack chips have a stronger market position with gamers than their hardware, and thus they need to leverage junk food addiction to drive console enthusiasm.

Microsoft nutshelled: now with chips and tiny

Looking at things from an honest, game-oriented, non-competitive perspective, I have to say that Nintendo was the only one of the three to deliver a successful presentation. Maybe they aren't turning the most heads (being that Wii U is old hat), but they're the only company that has news, and any offering of a unique experience. Wii U is the only next-gen console that used E3 to increase the odds I'll buy it. If you were already sold on PS4 or had already damned One, their respective press conferences must've seemed thrilling, adding fuel to the fire of your pre-existing bias. But to a prospective customer who hasn't committed to buying a next gen console at all, they all have ground to gain, more than "we aren't destroying video games as you know it". Nintendo is the only company directly addressing their shortcomings: they need software. And they're showing software. Software that I want to buy. A new co-op Mario that lets us play as the long-dormant SMB2 lineup. Fucking Mega Man in Smash (come on, who wasn't pumping their fist when the Wily's Castle music kicked in - that's the kind of moment that makes me love games). Not a bunch of cross-platform already-on-PC junk. I don't want to sound too optimistic here: Wii U is still a long way from closing the gap. But it's making positive progress. By the same token, PS4 went from "couldn't care less" to "yeah I should get a PS3" and Xbox One went from "laughing stock" to "laughing stock with a few new jokes". Unless you feel morally obligated to buy one of these devices, there's no way to say that Nintendo didn't "win".

Nintendo nutshelled: you can't beat a surprise appearance by one of gaming's greatest heroes

I can't think of a less exciting time to be a gamer. Maybe it's because I'm 24 and I just don't have that youthful exuberance anymore, but I'm gonna be honest with you guys: I've always been a bit of a downer. I [would like to believe I] stopped being a naive fanboy around age 17, which didn't stop me from getting a kick from many E3s following. I had optimism. 2013 does not inspire a lot of it. Except I guess that if gaming goes back to a low-budget niche thing, that'll be pretty much exactly everything I could ever dream of. So in that sense maybe I am excited.

It's the Imperial Age of consoles, and the gamer is a worthless commodity

Sorry, I had to get in just one more post about Xbox One this week. This is maybe kinda slightly a rehash of my EA post a few weeks ago. Apologies all around.

Needless to say, the gamer-community reaction to the One has been overwhelmingly negative. It has in turn been called "the worst conference since Nintendo's Vitality Sensor", a "travesty", "a clear win for Sony", and "gay. just plain gay". And I made up all of those quotes! Seriously, just pop by GamesRadar, Joystiq, or Kotaku for a few minutes: not just the comment threads, but even the published articles carry outright condemnation. What it all comes down to is outrage over a simple fact:

You, the gamer, do not matter anymore.

This presentation was not intended to please you. You are no longer the audience for console manufacturers, or even most (mega) software developers. They are not targeting the 10% demographic who finish their games, or the 5% who utilize backwards compatibility. Why would they? Any veteran of Business 101 (and let's remember that I failed Business 101) could tell you that a company aims to please the majority demographic. A 5% increase in sales is nothing to scoff at, but if it comes at the cost of a successful launch with the other 95%, it's not worth it. It sucks, but the game market is no longer home to gamers. You are a tiny minority.

Beyond all the used game and backward compatibility talk, the underlying criticism of Microsoft's platform is that they seem to be completely skipping over games. They are showing zero new games to headline their console (wonder why all the publicity stills are just images of the box sitting on a pedestal?) and seem to care more about TV and Skype functionality. Because they do care more about those things, because Jeff Public Daniels spends a whole lot more time watching footballs and Two and a Half CSIs than he does playing Halo 8. And hardcorers are saying "but I don't, and neither do my friends!" But the very fact that you play Halo 8 has already put you in Microsoft's pocket, and you're only a tiny piece of the market anyway. They don't even care whether they lose you. Try to open up your perspective a bit and watch the presentation from the eyes of someone who has never owned a console before. All that TV shit suddenly looks a lot more appealing.

The Wii was perhaps not the first, but certainly the most prominent harbinger of the transitioning mentality. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth generations, we all talked about "console wars". Which company could grab the biggest slice of the gamer pie? Wii came around and showed that this was a paltry squabble; the real competition was not to grab the most gamers, but to convert the most non-gamers. The existing "hardcore" population became a given, and the war transformed into a campaign of conquest.

It's kinda like how Britain and France spent most of their existence up til the 17th century biting at each other's dicks, and then all of a sudden realized "hey - there's the rest of the world out there. Let's try to take over the biggest chunk of that", and hence, colonialism, imperialism, etc. They (for the most part - Napoleon being an obvious exception) no longer tried to conquer the rest of Europe, instead setting their sights on Africa, Asia, and America. That is the turn that video games have taken. Console giants Sony and Microsoft are England and France, and we, the gamers, are the English and French, depending on which box we have in our TV cabinets. And as our overlords turn their attention to colonizing the rest of the population, we've become jealous that no one is fighting over us anymore. Of course, to continue the analogy a little further, a few years down the line, the rest of the world got tired of European rule and kicked those bastards to the curb. Which equates to the looming death-of-consoles at the hands of even casualer gaming on social networks, tablets, and phones - devices not tied to proprietary software.

The British Empire. Note that at NO point did Britain ever conquer France (or vice-versa) - just as MS and Sony have no interest in conquering each other's hardcore fanbase

Let me leave you with the worldwide console sales of the last 30 years, by hardware generation. Notice that I split PS2 sales at 2006, as it was a legitimate 7th generation competitor. I'd include handhelds, but it's very difficult to track numbers on gaming usage of smartphones and tablets, so it'd make a misleading comparison with DS, GBA, etc.

3rd gen: NES (62) + SMS (10) = 73 mil

4th gen: SNES (49) + Genesis (42) + Turbo (10) = 101 mil

5th gen: N64 (32) + PSX (102) + Saturn (9) = 143 mil

6th gen: PS2 (106) + GCN (21) + Xbox (24) + Dreamcast (10) = 161 mil

7th gen: PS2 (49) + PS3 (77) + Wii (100) + 360 (77) = 303 mil

Look at that massive jump from 6th to 7th. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo aren't battling over that 300 million. They know that if they play their cards right, they can turn it into 600 million, and the way to do that isn't infighting over the 15 million loyalists who care about backwards compatibility.

That being said, it [Xbox One] looks to be a complete travesty

I'm not going to reiterate news coverage for no one to read, but One is everything that has been feared by the gaming public in the last few months and years. All I can say is that unless Microsoft does a complete 180 and contradicts what they've said today and yesterday, they have officially lost me as a customer. The only real reason I have to buy a console is convenience and exclusives. As One will not play my 360 games, will not allow me to play used games, and will not allow me to have shitty Comcast internet, it has completely lost its convenience advantage over PS4 or PC. And since exclusives are a three-way game, I'm not that bothered by what I'll be missing. I'm not so sure 360 really beat out PS3 in that department; it just remained competitive enough that I didn't feel the need to get a PlayStation. And Nintendo tends to have the best exclusives anyway - especially if they get Platinum in their pocket, as a successful Bayonetta 2 might permit.

"Xbox One" is a pretty good name for a console

Sometimes I'm truly baffled by the insane reactivity of the insular, narrow-minded gaming community, as I was yesterday after Microsoft's Xbox One presentation. I'm not interested in speculating on the prospects of One's future or whether I'll buy one, I just want to talk about the name. What is a product name supposed to convey? The raison d'etre of the product, or more specifically, the reason you should buy it. Microsoft is trying to sell a box (for the third time around) that is supposed to be the sole multi-functional device sitting in your TV cabinet. It is supposed to be the one box that does it all. Which "Xbox One" pretty succinctly conveys. When I heard the name, before I even read on, I immediately knew what their marketing focus was going to be.

As for the "but it's not the first Xbox!", who cares? Is there seriously a concern that your grandma is going to accidentally buy you an original Xbox when you ask her for a One at Christmas? Was the Xbox 360 frequently mistaken for the 360th Xbox? The Nintendo 64 the 64th machine from Nintendo? Let's not forget that Sony is the only manufacturer to have latched onto the iterative numerical scheme, which seems dumber each and every time they reuse it. What am I supposed to derive from the name "PlayStation 4"? It's not even clear that it's the newest one.

Think in advertising terms for just one fucking second. "PlayStation" is a place to play games. "Wii", setting aside the silly spelling and urine jokes, is intended to bring people together around games. "Super NES" is a souped-up Nintendo entertainment system. These names are concise, identifiable, and communicate purpose. I know what they are with zero explanation. "Wii U", despite its awkward sound and failure to achieve its promise, indicates a move toward universality (similar to "One"). It should've been called the "Nintendo U", but Nintendo mistakenly overestimated the strength of the "Wii" brand (which was is fact more an albatross than a boon).

On the flipside, "Dreamcast" sounds like a fishing rod. "Gamecube" describes the shape of the physical device, which is good for identifiability, but fails to clarify a market position - what made it different from Nintendo 64. "Wonderswan" probably knocks it out of the park for weirdest and most nonsensical - then again, it wasn't really destined for English-speaking markets. "Turbo-Graphx 16" is too direct and hard to spell. It sounds more like a graphics chip or processor.

Ah yes, the Dreamcast

I could do more one-sentence reviews of console names if there's a lot of demand for that, but suffice to say that some are good and others are bad. If you have Asperger's or other diseases that make it hard to perceive the world from a generalized social standpoint, you may have trouble identifying which are which. Just wanted to get in a quick jab at the mentally unbalanced. But you're probably an idiot in one way or another if you made a forum post or comment about what a "terrible" name "Xbox One" is.

If you don't think a console is worth buying, don't buy it?

While Yangtze and his perpetual naysaying are essentially anathema to the optimistic approach I try to maintain on this blog, he seems perceptive, well-versed in the medium, and generally spot-on about the mainstream gaming industry/culture. To that end, I couldn't possibly better voice my disdain for the pending step "forward" the console market is about to take than to point you to his post on the subject:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/10300-We-Really-Really-Dont-Need-New-Consoles

If you think the consumer ambivalence to adopt a new generation was specific to Nintendo's Wii U and their casual market, I think you're severely underestimating just how casual most console-owners are. I can't say I've heard from ANYONE that they are looking forward to the oncoming plunge... I can only hope gamers are willing to take a stand and talk with their dollars rather than their forum handles, as I called for in my post about EA. There are thousands of games already out there that you haven't played - don't act like you can't go on with your gaming hobby without the latest and greatest box. I'm ready to skip the next console generation, take a break from upgrading my PC, and enjoy a relaxing ten years immersed in everything I've missed from the SNES, Genesis, and PSX libraries. Hopefully I won't have to, but also hopefully I'll win the lottery tomorrow.

Other console generations have come at times when the marketplace was starting to dry up with ideas, or run into technological hurdles to accomplish those they had. The SNES was starting to burst at the seams with ideas like Star Fox, N64 and PSX looked for tricks like pre-rendered backgrounds to establish the detail their processors couldn't obtain, and the PS2/Xbox/GCN generation started to grind to a halt for more holistic reasons - the desire for a sophisticated online marketplace, social networking, blah-blah-blah. Maybe in ten years (or maybe after E3) this opinion will seem archaic and trite, but I can't see what the next gen is promising that we don't already have. The technology hasn't run its course - we see prettier graphics, better physics, more refined design every year. This generation started light-years before its full potential could be reached, and we're now going to make a jump after traveling a few miles? The last leap was a good one, so this time around, however ill-justified the new consoles are, there will be many blind leapers. That's a nice short-sighted opinion for Sony and Microsoft to take. But if the blind break their legs this time, will they be able to jump again?

Enough about EA you bandwagon morons

Look, I ain't no EA advocate. I'm not here to tell you that they're the greatest game company ever, or that they're even good. I only own a few of their games (Dead Space, SSX, Shank 2). But they sure as hell aren't the "worst company" of 2012, or whatever award they just won. I'm not honestly sure what someone's personal experience with them could be that they have such a strong opinion. Idiots just need some abstract entity to demonify, and EA happens to be the flavor of the month. These are the same sheeple (ooooh yeah I went there) who would've been burning witches at the stake four hundred years ago. What's funny (or sad I suppose) is how oblivious this paints the consumer world: the masses responsible for voting EA to the top of this poll honestly don't understand the difference between "releasing bad video games" (EA) and "genetically and legally eliminating natural-grown crops" (Monsanto). And these are the same masses responsible for voting for political officials!

First, let's establish that it's virtually impossible for a video game publisher to be the worst company in the world. Unless they're skinning endangered tigers to print their manuals and rebranding the waste products as ground beef, there's not a lot they can do to actively hurt the world. You could argue that one publisher could negatively affect the trends of the game industry (by such practices as EA's DRM push), but you're still failing to identify them as harmful. If the consumers are buying it, the trends fall on their shoulders, because games, as a luxury, can be easily boycotted. You don't need them to live, so stop buying the ones that you think hurt the medium. Moreover, "negatively affect[ing] the trends of the game industry" is quaint in how low it ranks as damage to society. Two years ago, BP blew up the Gulf of Mexico. They destroyed the ecosystem of the largest gulf in the world, killing wildlife by the score, polluting hundreds of thousands of square miles of saltwater and coastline, rendering a gorgeous natural resource uninhabitable. Now weigh that against "SimCity had a really buggy launch". Hrm.

Are these tragedies of the same caliber? You decide!

Okay, this was a Consumerist poll, so maybe "worst company" should be understood as "worst-liked company", not "worst-for-the-world". Again, I'm confused how EA could even be nominated. Video games are still a luxury product, that hasn't changed since last paragraph. Which means that continuing sales translates pretty easily into positive opinion. If EA was so hated, how could they sell games? Do they trick you every single time? "I had no choice but to buy Madden 13!"? They've been around for decades - these EA haters should be wise to their practices by this point and avoid their games. And hey - maybe the proclaimed anti-EA crowd is avoiding their games, and the sales are coming from those who aren't 'in' on the hate. Kids or oblivious grandparents or something. In that case, what the hell do you, a non-EA gamer, care about their practices? A truly bad company would need to affect not only their own consumers, but the marketplace, or society at large. I'm pretty sure that the single step of not buying EA games should save you from their influence. And, again, even if EA does have some affect on trends, that means their product is selling well enough to be a market-driver, which means your hate should be directed at EA consumers, not the company itself.

But fuck it. Forget all that logic. Let's just talk about games for a second. Let's look at which video games EA actually publishes, because worst overall company implies worst video game company, meaning they surely must put out a lot of bad games. About ten years ago when all the EA hate got going, they really did put out a lot of dreck like Catwoman. So let's look at what they're up to these days. According to MobyGames, here are all new EA-published titles from 2012 (excluding DLC), and their respective Meta-scores. This is critical consensus, not one man's opinion.

FIFA Soccer 13  90 

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning  81 

Madden 13  83 

Mass Effect 3  93 

Medal of Honor: Warfighter  55 

Need for Speed: Most Wanted  85 

Shank 2  77 

SSX  82 

Syndicate  75 

UEFA Euro 2012  69 

Warp  79 

Do you even need me to parse that data? Only two of those scores fall into what Metacritic calls "Mixed or Average Reviews". Seven are "Generally Favorable Reviews", and FIFA and Mass Effect 3 are "Universal Acclaim". The average score for EA in 2012 is 79, or "Generally Favorable"; of the eleven games they released, zero were "bad" and Mass Effect 3 even won the majority of game-of-the-year awards. Clearly the work of the worst company ever! Even if you, like me, think critics are largely bullshit, and games like Mass Effect are trash, you have to admit that EA is catering to their customer pretty well, which is exactly what a business is supposed to do. I mean, think about how many game companies didn't release Mass Effect 3 last year. Now realize that EA did. Then try to explain again how they have a bad 2012 library.

A lot of the EA hate probably stems from the fact that EA is synonymous with sports franchises, and a certain breed of game nerd passionately hates sports. Because someone threw a football at their head in gym class and broke their glasses, I guess. So the best way they can think of to get back at sports is to proselytize hatred of EA, the company that has polluted their precious gaming medium with athletics. I don't get that, but I do know many a gamer who feels personally violated by the very idea of Madden, let alone anyone who would buy it. 

It makes me SO ANGRY that other people like things that I don't!!!

The other practice that draws a lot of ire is DRM. DRM is a type of copy-protection that requires a game to connect to an Internet server to verify that it is a valid copy. It often comes with stipulations, like that the game can only be installed on five different machines (meaning that after five installs, the game disc becomes useless and you have to buy a new one if you get a new computer). All game sales (all software sales really) translate to a license purchase, and DRM is seen as a manufactured limitation on that license, essentially transforming every purchase into a rental. The practice is pretty despicable, and the vague claim that it combats piracy dubious at best. Nonetheless, EA is little more than a scapegoat here. Attempts to limit end-user license rights have been rampant since the days of CD-keys, and the console market is (to this date) free of this scummy tendency. DRM has been around for a while, and it's no secret - when the customer buys a game, he accepts the restrictions it imposes. Blaming EA for DRM is like blaming George W. Bush for war - they are far from innocent in the affair, but eliminating them would do nothing to eliminate the problem.

And, hell, let's not even get into which game companies are worse (cough Capcom cough). It's Capcom. They are the worst video game mega-company (plenty of publishers have NEVER released a good game, but that's a much smaller scale than this conversation). Their good:bad ratio is like 1:10, they nickel-and-dime with DLC and re-releases (Ultimate Mega Super Arcade Street Super Arcade Fighter IV HD Remix), and they squander their most beloved series (Mega Man, Resident Evil). So if we wanted to talk about worst game companies, that's the first place I would look. But while the scope remains on worst overall companies, luxury and entertainment purveyors shouldn't even be in the room. That they do receive so much attention only evidences the bane of vocal minorities and materialistic, self-righteous consumer delusion. EA-haters may not necessarily be more ignorant or oblivious than EA-consumers, but they seem to experience far more cognitive dissonance. I'd take a casual who plays nothing but Battlefield 3 and FIFA 13 more seriously than I would a "hardcore" gamer who bought Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space while spewing profanities at EA from the other side of their mouth.

DLC... with Achievements! A brief duologue

Random email convo.

Yourself: I finished Sleeping Dogs last week and I'm taking a look at the DLC. Not that I desperately need more of the game, but it did have a stellar combat system that I never mind time into. It has an obscene number of tiny two-mission DLC packs, it's so stupid. There are so many that there isn't even a single collected-for-a-discount package. So I decided to check out reviews to see if any were particularly good or bad, since I'll probably get one or two (they're only $3 a pop). 

I found it inconceivably amusing that a major criticism one reviewer leveled at a certain pack was "it doesn't have achievements". So achievements now have monetary value? That's... literally everything that's wrong with the state of gaming today.

Golem: That got me thinking. I dunno why, but I'm looking forward to New Super Luigi U. If you haven't heard, Nintendo's developing a whole new campaign for NSMBU: same world map, all new levels. Part of it is probably that it's an exciting and forward-thinking idea (...in terms of what Nintendo normally does), but there's also some excitement just for new Mario levels. It sucks when you buy a whole new game that feels the same as the one from four years ago, but DLC is, well, not a whole new game. I'm just crossing my fingers that New Super Luigi U isn't $60 or something crazy.

It won't have any achievements.

Yourself: It seems like what DLC was once envisioned to be. Versus selling Fire Emblem maps for $3 a piece. A replacement for iterative sequels, rather than a micro-transaction marketplace.

Wii U doesn't have any kind of Achievement/Trophy system, right? I know some developers just build that stuff into their game (e.g. Bit.Trip Runner and Shank 2) and some have their own proprietary achievements (the ridiculous Ubisoft Uplay system). What may blow the minds of America at large is that Shank 2 actually ties unlockables to its Achievements. Unlockables? WHAT DOES THAT WORD MEAN? You mean like that new costume you can "unlock" for Ryu for $2.99?

Is violence necessary to every game? Destructoid says yes.

I posit that the writer of said declaration has an IQ less than 100 and/or is at least somewhat autistic.

What a smashingly adult way to start an argument!

Let me try this again. Destructoid published a piece called "David Cage is Wrong: Violence Is Essential". Based on the title alone (forget who David Cage is for a second), I immediately conclude that both the author of the article and the editor of the site are patently retarded. Wait... gay? Is that a more mature personal attack? Okay. They're fairies.

I don't give a shit who David Cage is. I don't really know, except that I just Wikipedia'd, but it doesn't matter. I've never cared for industry talking heads; if you can't say your ideas in a game (or if I can't figure out what games you ever made), you aren't succeeding as a developer. See Peter Molyneux or Warren Spector. Miyamoto too, just so you don't think I'm being racis'. People who cite lofty ideas despite being totally disconnected from the current state of the medium - and likely far past their prime (I'm certainly not saying Miyamoto isn't like, one of the most important figures in gaming history, just that I don't really give a shit what he has to say in an interview in 2013). Anyway, Cage was at some conference that I also don't give a shit about, making some speech about violence being unnecessary to the gaming medium and how there are more stories to tell beyond that. Destructoid writer Allistair Pinsof objected.

Violence in games has been a major media talking point in the last few months (even more so than it's been for the past two decades) due to outrage over violence in reality. Certain factions are pointing their guns at guns, others are pointing their guns at video games. I'm not gonna "go there" on this blog, because I don't like politics or the need to have an opinion on everything. However, the discussion typically provokes a (violently!) defensive reaction from gamers about how something something something I don't care. I'm as (violently!) opposed to censorship as the next man, but that doesn't mean I have to like gaming's obsession with murder. But it's important not to blur this line: my dissatisfaction with death-obsession in games is purely from an artistic standpoint. Nothing I say on the subject is motivated by political stances or real-world consequences.

ChexQuest was banned in over thirty-two countries for its brutally realistic portrayal of cereal-on-blob violence

I don't know why I even have to say it (I don't), but violence is not essential to making an effective game.  I like plenty of violent games and think they can be both excellent and emotionally/cognitively evocative (Dishonored). I just don't think that every game has to be violent. Mr. Pinsof makes an argument to the contrary, revolving around the notion that games derive their purpose (among artistic media) from immersion, and that immersion is enhanced to its maximum potential by violence. What I've just done I call dividing. Now allow me to conquer.

It's nice that games are immersive. Truly, genuinely nice. It's one of the nicest things about them. Pinsir's unstated definition of immersion seems to incorporate interactivity, so, okay, I'll give 'em that. And I'll even agree that games do it best (to date), although I don't think it necessarily makes them an evolution of film/literature any more so than football is an evolution of theatre. Here's what gets me. Immersion is a tool, not an end. It's a technique that can be executed to various degrees in order to convey a story. That story may be in the hands of the player or it may unfold around them; it may be dictated or emergent. But the story (or the thematic content, or the idea, if you will) is what drives the presentation and the interactivity. You don't play a game to be immersed in something stupid or that you don't like. That is to say, a successfully believable and fully interactive game can still be a complete failure if it's hollow at the core.

As for the second claim, that violence enhances immersion to a degree unreachable through any other means? That's just plain yikes. I guess maybe if you define reality by whether or not you can shoot things (Pinsof's introduction actually does imply that he uses this definition), fine. You're absurdly removed from any productive discussion of the issue if that's the stance you're going to take. It's utterly subjective. What if I define my reality by whether or not I can fuck everything? Or whether I can make it into a sandwich? There are just no bounds on this. Without jumping to the completely ridiculous conclusion that violence is the most engaging action possible, I don't even know how you can start down the road of believing it's "essential" to games. I don't have a definition or scale or test of immersion factor, nor does Pinsof present one in his article, so the argument basically swirls away down the drain at this point.

Splatterhouse, according to Destructoid, achieves a level of immersion unavailable to such paltry works as Portal and The Longest Journey

Expounding on the connection between violence and immersion, Pinsof occasionally stumbles through the same galaxy as a good idea, but immediately uses his conclusion to prove his argument. He claims that pressure, tension, and threats enhance immersion, and this can be exceptionally true (see horror games like Amnesia). He then jumps straight on through to associate these things inseparably with violence. Again I feel like I'm countering a child here because this is such a shallow and short-sighted argument. What about threats like time? Making a wrong decision? Destroying a relationship? The threat of insignificance and obscurity? The false equivalence of threat==violence simply speaks of an individual who hasn't put even the slightest amount of thought into what makes a game work - or, very likely, someone who hasn't played very many games.

The closest thing he has to an interesting point, which he never leaps on, is that the potential for violence can unequivocally contribute to interactivity. A game that lets you do anything is more immersive, right? Actually, I'm not buying that one either. Not even for a dollar. Control without limitations is liberating, but can easily destroy the fragile suspension of disbelief that allows us to enter a game world. Mario shouldn't be allowed to pick up a machine gun. I don't believe he would. If he did (or could), I'd quickly lose my investment in whichever game I was playing. To experience a work, we have to allow it to be created, and in creation inherently develop rules. In the previous sentence inherently develops a grossly unnatural grammatical formulation.

You know what was always my least favorite part of essays? Conclusions. The funniest part of the aftermath on Destructoid itself (where few-to-no readers came to Pinsof's defense) was that Pinsy claimed "duh guys it's just an opinion piece!" Someone's never heard of a thesis.

Oh, and I didn't provide a link to the article because honestly, it's too stupid for you to waste your time. The writing is vapid and there's no attempt whatsoever to provide an analytic argument. So, in short, the same as every other article published by the mainstream gaming press.