Gamasutra acquired data on the top 13 Xbox Live Games for 2008 from Microsoft Game Studios user research expert Bruce Phillips, which he gathered to explore the problem of why people stop playing games. The data was culled from a selection of 14,000 Xbox Live players, and the list of games are generally those that attract the more hardcore crowd. If that is the case, then why are more than 50% of them stopping playing before earning all of their Gamerscore points?

As far as MGS is concerned, this is a serious issue. Players are quitting the game without striving to explore everything. Another chart in the article tracks games that dole out achievements for simply finishing the single-player game, and the numbers are much higher for most titles, but again that speaks volumes. Players are playing through a game without exploring, or attempting to achieve more. It could be an issue of frustration, boredom, distraction, or just plain laziness.

You can read more on the data by following the link below. What I want to know is, how many of you actually go out of your way to score achievement points?

Xbox Live Gamerscore, Completion Stats Show Major Trends [Gamasutra]

Will hype, demo booths, and the Hero brand be enough to make DJ Hero a smash hit? Perhaps not, if Cowen and Company's projections are accurate. The company recently conducted a survey of online retailers regarding Activision's DJ game, and the results weren't as impressive as Activision may have hoped.

"On DJ Hero, despite some recent positive comments from company management about pre-orders, we remain very cautious about the title's prospects at launch," he noted. "A survey of online retailers indicates a demand profile that is well below what we would have expected to see just a few days before launch for a title that was destined to be a big (or even modest) hit. As a result, we are reducing our estimate for DJ Hero Q4 US unit sales from 1.6 million to 600,000, and we are reducing our first year estimate from 2.5 million to 950,000."

Creutz still believes that DJ Hero will eventually be a huge success, but expects it to do so over the course of several sequels.

These numbers make sense to me. While Guitar Hero and Rock Band have the benefit of recognizable instruments and music, DJ Hero consists of mashups of popular songs performed using a device that not a lot of consumers are familiar with. Just tally up how many times you've seen someone play imaginary guitars or drums or sing into a fake microphone versus how often you see someone air turn-tabling.

Analyst: DJ Hero Pre-Order Activity Weak [Edge]

September's NPD numbers drop next week, and more than one analyst is predicting that the PlayStation 3 will finally come out on top for the first time since its 2006 launch. Wedbush Morgan's Michael Pachter predicts that the PS3 sold 410K units in September compared to 390K for the Wii and 350K for the 360. Furthermore, he thinks the PS3 over 360 trend could continue until at least the end of the year.

"We believe that the recent round of price cuts may benefit the PS3 the most in coming months, given that unit sales last year were only 1.5 million for the September – December 2008 period. The Xbox 360 has outsold the PS3 for the past 13 months, likely due to a higher perceived value proposition (the Xbox 360 "core" model was priced $100 lower than the PS3). We think that the PS3 will outsell the Xbox 360 in September, and may continue to do so for the rest of the year,"

Pachter goes on to predict a 250GB version of the Xbox 360 in 2010 to help combat Sony's increase in market share, and a potential price cut for the Nintendo DS Lite to $99 should the PSP and PSPgo start taking a larger percentage of the handheld market.

Of course Pachter predicts a lot of things. We'll see how accurate he is once the NPD numbers are published next week.

PS3 to Dominate as September Game Sales Expected to See Double Digit Growth [Industry Gamers]

That data says that Xbox 360 owners and Wii owners look to have the biggest crossover. Of the Xbox 360 owning gamers surveyed, 42% also had a Wii. Similarly, of the Wii owners surveyed, 26% had an Xbox 360, compared to 14% of those who had a PlayStation 3.

Don't take that the wrong way. The same ratio of PS3 owners (42% of 'em) also have a Wii. And more than a third of them have a 360. Should be interesting to see how that changes as price drops for all three systems put them closer to the realm of affordability this year.

Beyond the ranking of who likes what and which console is "winning" for second platform in the home, the survey of 20,893 Consumer Panel members has some interesting data within. If you like statistics, you're gonna love it.

MAJORITY OF GAMERS RELY ON WORD OF MOUTH AND HANDS-ON PLAY AT FRIENDS' AND RELATIVES' HOMES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ON VIDEO GAMES [NPD Group]

Speaking to Eurogamer - you really should read the entire story - Vertical Slice director Graham McAllister boils down the process to two things: backtracking through 154 Edge magazine reviews of games, and then analyzing what people say and do while playing the games. The latter, called behavioral or sequential analysis, was used by a marriage counselor who predicted, with 97 percent accuracy, whether a couple would stay together or break up based on the first five minutes of observing them.

"People think you can't predict a game based on quantifiable data," McAllister told Eurogamer. "What we can do is get these estimators. Some people will just have a hard job believing it. We have analysed the statistics to death, thorough and rigorous, and what we're saying is, 'You may not like it, but this is the best model that anyone has come up with to date.'"

In this case, McAllister's analysis is based on just a single minute of gameplay. "What's important about that first minute is that it's the time people play a demo for. That's super critical," he said. "After 30 seconds, we can predict if the game is going to be bad or good, to a certain extent."

The reverse-engineering of the Edge reviews involves the usage of certain words or phrases, matched to scores. "All the high-scoring games talk about certain aspects; all the medium-scoring games talk about certain things; and all the low-scoring games talk about certain things. And there's a very clear mapping between them," McAllister said.

Can You Predict Review Scores? [Eurogamer, via Go Nintendo]

Final Fantasy VIII was light-years ahead of VII both graphically and in terms of complexity, and perhaps that's the reason the game is one of the most underappreciated games in the Final Fantasy line. I must confess, that before reading Jack Patrick Rodgers' write-up, I considered it one of the weakest entries myself, citing IX as the sweet-spot for PlayStation-era roleplaying games. Now I've got an itch to play through the title once again with a keener eye on the underlying themes, thanks to insightful observations like these:

At one point, Squall's party reaches the site of a recent battle, and one of his traveling companions casually drops a bombshell on everyone else: they're all orphans of the previous world war and grew up at the same orphanage, but their memories of their time together have been erased by the Guardian Forces. The childhood friends that Squall can only dimly recall are in fact his new companions for this mission.

It's a terrific, resonant metaphor: the experience of warfare stole their childhood innocence and is slowly turning them into soldiers who have no purpose except the next battle. More than that, it's a commentary on how the responsibilities and pressures of adulthood can cause us to forget who we once were. Anyone who has ever rediscovered a childhood memento and found old memories flooding back can sympathize with characters who are amazed at how much they've forgotten.

It's a fascinating read, highlighting moments such as the Laguna visions, which while at first strange turn out to be the efforts of a son trying to come to terms with his absent father, or Squall's calling out of Seifer as a bully when the other students are trying to remember him fondly upon news of his apparent execution.

It may not do much to change Final Fantasy VIII's low level of regard amongst fans, but "Remembering the Orphan" will definitely have some looking at the game in a completely new light.

Remembering the Orphan: Final Fantasy VIII [PopMatters]

While direct comparisons between trade-in values at Amazon, who recently entered the used game trade-in business, and retailer GameStop might make it look like a close race, EEDAR's Jesse Divnich claims that Amazon doesn't offer the significant value needed to change the overall market. In fact, when GameStop's various trade-in specials are taken into consideration, the world's largest specialty video game retailer provides a great deal more value.

"In scenarios where a consumer either owns the GameStop Edge card and/or trade-ins more than 2 titles that takes advantage of the current GameStop trade-in promotion (trade in 2 games get 10% extra; 4 get 20% extra; 6 get 40% extra), GameStop provides a considerably higher value than Amazon."

During last Friday's midnight launch of Resident Evil 5 at my local GameStop, I actually chatted with several customers about whether or not they would consider trading in their games through the online retailer, and the result was an almost unanimous no, complete with a chuckle and an eye roll from the store manager.

People want instant gratification. On the rare occasions that I've traded in a game, it's generally because I don't have the money right at that moment to pick up something I really want. In those situations, I am not going to be inclined to ship my games away and wait for them to be processed, even if the value were substantially higher. Which apparently it isn't.

Analysis: Amazon No Threat To GameStop [Gamasutra]

Speaking to Gamasutra, OTX analyst Nick Williams suggests that a price drop is in order before God of War III hits retails store shelves, as data indicates a substantial number of potential purchasers who have yet to invest in the newer console.

The launch of God of War III in late 2009/early 2010 will mark a pivotal moment for Sony. But in order to ensure that this game is a hardware sales driver, the cost of the base-level PS3 will need to be in the same ballpark as the Xbox 360 and Wii. According to our latest consumer tracking study, only two in three people who plan to purchase God of War III currently own a PS3."

If their numbers hold true, it could either mean a substantial jump in PlayStation 3 sales towards the end of the year, or less than expected sales of God of War III if too many players still can't scrounge up the cash.

Analyst: 1/3rd Of God Of War III Purchasers Don't Have PS3 Yet [Gamasutra]

Soulcalibur’s Ivy may be the poster child for this annual augmentation – literally. It seems with each passing year, her endowment multiplies, ushering in each passing technological evolution with more ludicrous, top-heavy jiggle than the era before.

But it’d be unfair to pick on Miss Valentine. After all, unrealistic body types in games are nothing new, a conversation-starter as old as Lara Croft. The fact that “sex sells” and the proliferation of exploitive body types is a cultural pandemic, not simply a video game issue, is the easy way to explain it, but the “easy” way is seldom very enlightening, nor does it help us learn about why we play.

What does it all mean, in an interactive medium where realism, immersion and engagement are the primary goals? Are we seeking idealistic images as avatars for ourselves, to complete the fantasy of power that gaming can provide?

Is this a case where the gaming audience has been misjudged through the ages by marketing teams who assume each and every one of us is a vapidly salivating 15-17 year-old male – until their assumptions have unconsciously shaped our taste?

Is This What We Want?

Again, it’s an easy pastime to criticize our society for leaning too heavily on unrealistic stereotypes for male and female bodies. It can actually be an enlightening exercise, when you’re on a packed subway or on a crowded street, to simply take a look around you, and see what human beings really look like. Chances are the handsomest man you see will not be a broad-muscled he-man, nor will the loveliest lady be a leggy siren with burgeoning cleavage.

However, most of the heroes in popular entertainment are still uncommonly beautiful; ugly or even merely common looks are still considered a plot device or a character trait, and with a few exceptions, games generally seem to lag a bit behind film as far as discovering the appeal in the common. Even men with war-torn, unattractive faces, still have heroic bodies, usually.

But that’s because we don’t want games to be common, do we? Picture a fighting game where the characters were simply ordinary, dressed in suitable exercise gear, and not particularly special to look at. That would be true realism, and even with some glorious game mechanics, you’ve got to admit it’d be a bit boring.

It seems we don’t really mean it when we, as gamers, say we want “realism” – what we really want is an appealing fantasy so vivid we can really believe in it. A world where the women are titillating and the men are fierce, rendered with such eye-catching density that we can almost reach out and touch it.

The Flesh Is Weak

At the same time, we as an audience seem to reach a general consensus in rejecting games that seem to be manipulating us with too many crotch-shots. Using overblown flesh visuals and overt, eye-to-brain sexuality is a quick and dirty shortcut to emotional engagement, when we’d rather be drawn in by things like, oh, I don’t know – good characters, perhaps, a compelling backstory, and maybe, just maybe, really solid game mechanics?

We sense when the marketing campaign is trying to buy our attention with a huge neon sign emblazoned with “XXX,” and we resent that. Contrary to outsider belief, gamers comprise a spectrum of age ranges, motivations for play, tastes and preferences – if we’ve been caged into a single demographic in the past, it’s only because that makes it easier for the folks upstairs to sell us things. That’s just business, but games are personal to their audience.

We’re in a state, now, of continually considering what our young medium is and what we can expect to get from it, where we want it to go. We’ve richened in many ways, but are still using shortcuts – long cutscenes in lieu of narrative environments, high-powered explosions in lieu of crafted plot climaxes, and raw, primal flesh in lieu of subtler kinds of power.

We’d like to look at beautiful fantasies we can believe in, but that’s not all we want.

What We’re Fighting For

And there’s no backlash like that of the internet-based gamer audience when it doesn’t get what it wants. So if we’re not all salivating teenage boys, and we resist being bought with cheap sex alone, then why does the stereotype of unrealistic bodies in games persist? Why is Ivy’s exponential bustline such a hot issue to our community?

Maybe the genre has something to do with it. While most video games feature a hot woman at some juncture, fighting games seem to have the highest and most diverse population of them. Fighting games ask you to “choose your fighter,” and while those games generally are made or broken on game mechanics, part of the appeal is that the character images we control may be representations, unconsciously, of ourselves.

In a mechanics-driven genre, the star of the game is the player’s skill level. Yes, Taki might be beating Astaroth silly for mysterious reasons of ninja vengeance and sword-obsession, but it’s really about you, challenging the machine, or your friend, for control-pad dominance. Whose looks, and whose body movements, best represent you?

Though, is anyone reading this article five-foot-eight and 110 pounds with a 22-inch waist and a triple-E breast size? (And if you are, can I steal your figure?)

Assuming that body types in games represent ideals, and that game bodies are stand-ins for ourselves to some extent, we still haven’t figured out a good reason why we want to look quite this way.

Survival of the Fittest

The idealization of the human form in art is nothing new. When Botticelli painted Venus, or when Michelangelo chiseled David, we can assume they were not, at least on a conscious level, creating depictions of themselves, or even what they wanted to be. And if we think of games as art to the extent that we’re able to use them as vehicles for self-expression, the same holds true for our Soulcalibur lineup.

Venus was an archetype of female beauty, in the humanoid tradition of Greco-Roman gods; David was an archetype of male beauty, both representative of human evolution taken to its highest condition. And our fighting game characters are archetypes of what they represent – fearlessness, aggression, purposefulness, and primal fierceness. It’s even arguable that tapping into adrenaline-fueled aggression when we play video games is a biological replacement for how we as humans felt in an era when we had to fight more overtly for social dominance, physical superiority, the best mate, the food we had to kill to eat.

That’s Darwinism at work – survival of the fittest. And so in a game where you survive on your skills, you want to look like the fittest. Why not go over-the-top and be such an ideal that it wouldn’t be possible for you to exist in the current genetic landscape?

The Unanswered Questions

So even though we’ve generated a theory for why we like to be obscenely perfect women or aggressively idealized men when we play video games where aggression or combat is at the core of the gameplay (and that’s most games, really), there’s still one issue left – how does this affect us, and what does it mean for the future of games?

As a female, I’m not sure whether my perception of other women – or of myself – has been affected by the avatars I see in the games I play every day. I do know that, when I take that quick look around the crowded subway car to see how other women really look, I am always a little bit surprised – but there’s no clear way to blame games for that, when it’s such a pervasive complex in other entertainment media.

I do know that some of my female peers feel that the flesh displays in gaming are degrading to them – even if that primal, aggression-based exposure supports the core tenets of a particular title. And I’ve often wondered how my majority-male peers in the gaming audience feel about how men are portrayed in games, and whether being continually exposed to powerful, armed brawlers on the warpath makes them feel more or less powerful in their “real” lives.

Not to mention the fact that gaming is in steady pursuit of wider-spread cultural legitimacy. And while it’s good that many “casual gamers’” play habits are helping them understand ours better, and that Rock Band has made all kinds of folks quit believing that the console is a mysterious tool of evil for immature people, we’d really like it if people could appreciate our core titles the way that we do, consider the value in the things we find most valuable.

And if, when they take a closer look, all they can see from a distance is that we like tits, there’s going to be a problem.

While I’ve said before it’s not constructive to consider anything “just a game,” a game is still not in and of itself real, and that’s part of the appeal – we can explore fantasies, see and do things that aren’t possible in the real world. And we all, of course, can delineate the difference between fantasy and reality, right?

So, with a good reason or not, are idealized body types harmful or helpful to the identity and maturity of gaming? Next time, would you rather see the debut of a demure, complex Ivy – or one with bigger jugs than ever?

I was pleased that the article provoked thoughtful, in-depth discussion about the treatment of race, gender and other social issues in games, but in debunking a single individual's attack on Grand Theft Auto, my intention was not to provide a blanket pass to games that permit (and arguably, in this case, promote) antisocial behavior. So I was more pleased at the commenters who criticized the virulence of my GTA IV defense than I was at those who agreed with me (though, hey, who doesn’t like to be agreed with?).

One of the ways I rationalized what I’d written is by noting that games are scapegoated and crucified at every turn by people who’ve never even played them, and that this unfair public flogging threatens the medium’s potential for mainstream legitimacy.

Why those who make games don’t defend their own craft vigorously is a question for another time, but my position has been that the least we can do is to return these volleys when they’re aimed our way. If we want to see games truly thrive and grow away from stigma, it’s our responsibility, really.

And that’s why the most irresponsible thing we can ever do as gamers is to speak the phrase, “It’s only a game.”

We Live At A Flashpoint

It can be said that it’s fair for gamers to be defensive. After all, we’ve got heaps of prejudice to confront. Social, ethical and political warriors seem to feel they can tear down the things we love after only second-hand experience, our generational peers have called us strange for decades, and the myriad brilliant little revelations we’ve discovered through play over the years go completely overlooked in the broader world we belong to.

We’ve also developed a heavily internet-based culture. Many of us have plenty of “real world” gaming pals, and online game services make it easier for us to play with friends we can actually speak to. But a strong central vein of the gaming audience does its group socializing on the boards, blogs and forums that comprise the backbone of our world, and that format means that we’ve got the ability to react immediately - with all the force and venom that anonymity enables. That reactionary, passionate society becomes self-perpetuating.

Those are the largest reasons why our community arguments around games are so passionate. And when someone, rationally or otherwise, criticizes a game’s themes for being too violent, too sexual, racially offensive or gender-biased, we can almost predict the number of comments the discussion will spiral madly into, with a sigh, and a here we go.

We can understand clearly how we came to be so defensive, and to an extent we recognize the necessity of standing up for ourselves. But if we engage in what one Kotaku commenter referred to as “screeching industry apologetics,” we must beg the question: are we really serving games?

Looking in the Mirror

I sometimes enjoy being violent when I play Grand Theft Auto. And sometimes I just enjoy the mission-based gameplay, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find the ragdoll physics of a body crumpling over the hood of my car to be cool, and I suspect many of you would be at least slightly untruthful in that assertion, too.

I used the wrench a lot of the time in BioShock just because I loved the satisfying thud of metal on Splicer flesh, the meticulously crafted clink and thud, the way my victim dropped like deadweight. Someone programmed that in, deliberately, as if just for me.

Sometimes when I’m playing a first-person shooter, I wish the skull splattering would be just a little more grisly. Satisfying.

I was a Little Sister killer, and feel the game experience was more meaningful because I went there.

We can do these things and many more in our games; we can shove, shatter, abuse and denigrate. We can ogle Soulcalibur breast physics, we can get “environmental kills,” pantyshots, a meat hook.

Suppose you didn’t play video games at all, and merely were a person who fantasized for two to three hours each day, or however much time you spend gaming on a daily basis, about wrenching people in the head, about chainsawing half-dressed women, or about mowing people down during a war. Or about that quintessential chestnut: hiring a prostitute only to beat her up and take your money back.

Would you be healthy?

Our Own Little World

Now, be calm. Of course, it’s a great big leap between playing a game and having a really unhealthy conscience. A game is, well, a game, and games are neither reality nor reality-simulators. But as realism becomes a priority in development, as we demand more immersion, more emotional impact, more game worlds we can really believe in, “it’s only a game” will become more and more a flimsy excuse for why we love to do what we do.

We so desperately want “more choice” in games, more freedom, and more insight into how our choices impact the game world – and this is because we want to experiment. Human beings no longer live in an era where they must fight each other for social dominance, survive harsh elements or kill their food, but some lingering relic of that instinct probably persists, and it’s probably that itch that we scratch when we’re playing a violent game.

At least, that has something to do with it. Another part is, I think, we enjoy learning about ourselves based on the actions we take in simulated environments. Of all the things we do in games, very little of it can safely, legally or literally be replicated in reality – we’ll never fly a spaceship, we’ll never save a planet, we’ll never sleep with a blue alien.

And obviously, not all the things we do in games, not nearly, could be construed as reprehensible. Gamers also love their peaceful Azeroth sunsets, their epics of aging mercenaries, their interludes of salvation.

But when we defend attacks on game content with “geez, it’s only a game,” then we’re also relegating those moments of meaning to mere two-dimensional thrills.

The Hard Questions

“It’s only a game” is a phrase that agrees with all of those who ever looked down their noses at the medium, who want to nutshell it as a child’s plaything, who want to promote the kind of prejudice that will keep games from ever achieving widespread respect for everything they are.

When gamers ask whether the imagery of a white man shooting through a vacant-eyed sea of African villagers feels all right to them, we do ourselves a massive disservice when we simply dismiss questions like that, when we attack each other.

Whether or not you like murdering whores in GTA IV, we do ourselves a massive disservice when we fail to use that as a springboard to consider our own, and our community’s attitude toward women.

So it may be our responsibility to defend games, to explain them when they’re misjudged, to support our right to the full spectrum of emotion and experience they offer, both delightful and disturbing.

But questions like MTV Multiplayer's Steven Totilo's (our kind guest editor this week), asking, "Are Games Our Fantasies?" ought not to be brushed under the rug.

It must also be our responsibility to uphold a willingness to examine games, to discuss them civilly, to be willing to see what we're saying about ourselves through play. To have answers for the really hard questions: “Do these actions we take in games affect us as people? Does interactivity make it unfair to compare harsh content in games to the same content in movies?”

We want to defend, we want to react, and we want to forgive, because we want to love games and everything about them. And sometimes, we just don’t want to think at all, and we’d rather just play, thank-you-very-much, and that’s fine.

But don’t say “it’s just a game.” For gaming’s most passionate fans, there should never be any “just” about it.

“War has changed.”

That’s one of the main themes of Metal Gear Solid 4, and from the beginning, it forms a major thread that runs through Hideo Kojima’s hallmark marriage of gameplay and narrative.

Even if one were to skip the game’s introductory cinema, it’s evident something has changed from the first moment of gameplay. The silent tranquilizer gun, a fixture of the Metal Gear Solid series, has historically been the key weapon in a game that prefers the player be stealthy rather than confrontational, pragmatic rather than murderous. As the symbolic lynchpin in that approach, it’s usually one of the earliest pieces of equipment the player obtains.

At the beginning of MGS 4, though, as soon as gameplay begins, your first look at your weapons inventory reveals that instead of the seminal, suppressed tranquilizer gun, you start off with a real one.

Though the game takes place across several different locations, it opens in the Middle East, where local rebels are at war with the soldiers of a private military company (PMC). Instead of Snake’s customary subtle insertion into the outliers of a guarded facility, you’re in the thick of war when the game begins. Stealth is much, much harder now, and cutting through enemy soldier lines against the desert backdrop or carrying an assault rifle amid tanks and grenades evokes moments of feeling just as if you’re playing a typical war title.

War has changed for the MGS universe - and the experience of approaching the series has changed for the player.

Within the game, though, the reason for the evolution in war is explained largely in two parts: First is the privatization of war, waged by corporate platoons-for-hire rather than national armies, and second is the proliferation of nanomachine technology.

The nanomachines prevent soldiers from experiencing fear or feeling much pain, and a digital ID system prohibits them from using unapproved weapons or taking inappropriate actions on the battlefield. The overall effect renders these PMCs little more than remote-control humans, without allegiances, loyalty or personal reasons to fight, and their wars are just business.

This new value set for war stands in direct contrast with the one with which we became acquainted in the original Metal Gear Solid, whose theme could be summed up in a single question: “What are you fighting for?”

In fact, the entire MGS 4 continuously recalls the narrative structure, cinematic arrangement and other key elements from the first game, emphasizing the contrast. The series’ past themes of the necessity of war, battlefield values and personal ideals are put to the test along with the gameplay’s core tenet of intelligent non-confrontation.

MGS 4’s antagonist is overtly once again Snake’s twin, Liquid. But the larger conflict is with this corruption of core ideals - the game presents a world where Snake’s core values, and by extension, the franchise’s, no longer mean anything.

Perhaps that’s the reason behind the decision to prematurely age Snake so severely – that state of affairs actually required some reaching outside of previously-known information to explain. But his advanced age emphasizes his status as a relic in this digitized battlefield, creating player empathy for his loss of relevance and highlighting his heroism when he continues to stand and fight against such overwhelming odds.

Snake, of course, directly contradicts the labeling of himself as “hero” – several times throughout the game, when he’s asked why he still goes into battle, he responds simply that he “still has things left to do.” Simple as that.

The question is, could Metal Gear Solid 4 be a larger metaphor for Kojima’s career and the evolution of the game industry, where high-powered, mindless-slaughter FPS titles set in explosive warzones now dominate, and both creativity and individual vision are minimized against the high-risk “arms race” of the video game console war?

In MGS 4, war has become a financially-driven corporate industry, and the “war economy,” in which PMCs wage war for profit, is another key theme. The game world is bereft of all value except the financial – and even that fluctuates regularly depending on the tide of the war. It looks a lot like a depressing interpretation of the game industry, come to think of it.

MGS 4 was also promoted with the tagline “No Place To Hide,” frequently punned as “No Place For Hideo.” It’s entirely possible that MGS 4’s themes are an expression of Kojima’s own sentiment that the industry has lost its values, glutted itself on war titles, relegated personal strength and creativity to near-extinction, and become entirely focused on money – leaving “no place for Hideo” after all.

Kojima has actually mentioned numerous times that he’s finished with the franchise, often before making a new Metal Gear game – just as, at the end of every game, Snake attempts to retire from war.

Snake is always drawn back in when he’s needed, though, notably led by people who tend to manipulate and lie to him. Even when he’s aware of this, though, Snake, a mercenary who follows orders because of his own values and not because of allegiance to a larger organization, fulfills his objectives for the sake of finishing things.

Maybe Kojima felt he “still had things to do,” just like the rapidly-declining Snake. MGS 4 wraps up all of the loose ends in the series’ plot; whatever Snake has left to do, he’ll finish it at last. And maybe this time Kojima is truly finished, too.

We know that, as we speak, the FTC is thoroughly investigating the possible takeover of Take-Two by Electronic Arts, to be sure that there are no antitrust issues. The FTC first made one request for information, and then a second one, indicating they're analyzing the deal very closely.

EA cut a deal with the FTC by which it consented to a 15-day extension on the investigation period, making it 45 days, and in return the publisher agreed it wouldn't move to acquire Take-Two until the investigation was closed or until the 45 days expired.

Newsweek's Level Up legal affairs columnist, former FTC lawyer Justin Blankenship, wrote a new piece trying to pin down exactly what issues the FTC might be looking at. Though the specifics are not public record and not likely to be sussed out easily, Blankenship learned a few details - like where the FTC's greatest area of concern likely is, and whether Take-Two is risking a legal injunction to stonewall EA:

For one thing, a second request from the FTC is a fairly rare occurrence and often demands a mountain of information from the companies involved - in fact, Take-Two has resisted answering the request on the grounds that it's just too much unnecessary stuff and would cost them too much time and money.

But Blankenship's details suggest there might be more to that story:

The gist of it appears to be that Take-Two had an agreement with the FTC to search for responsive documents in the files of certain individuals. But after hiring a new law firm, Take-Two has apparently reneged on that initial agreement, and has on several occasions narrowed the scope of the search that it is willing to perform even further.

Although the target of an FTC investigation has some grounds to object to a second request on the basis that it's unduly burdensome, the Horwitz affidavit tells the story of a corporation that's gone beyond making good faith objections based on scope. Take-Two appears to be simply stonewalling.

It's certainly a viable speculation that Take-Two is simply buying time in order to hold off EA after negotiations have fallen apart. The Federal Court has already demanded to know why Take-Two hasn't ponied up the info - and if they continue to withhold, the FTC could seek a preliminary injunction in Federal Court, which could delay the acquisition until the FTC gets what it wants - but not permanently.

It actually doesn't make a lot of sense for Take-Two to do that, as Blankenship's article explains:

You would think that as the unwilling target of EA, it would be in Take Two's best interests to hand everything over to the FTC as soon as possible with every incriminating quote already highlighted, complete with its own commissioned economic study about how EA would destroy competition in sports videogames, all wrapped up with a pretty red bow.

As all of the commenters here at Kotaku who've been following this story have speculated:

Not surprisingly, the FTC's investigation appears to be focused on "competing titles for simulated sports games, including basketball, football, hockey, and baseball."

Specifically, said Blankenship, with Take-Two holding the Major League Baseball exclusive while EA's got Madden, consolidating the basketball and hockey overlap just might choke the competition out of the sports game genre.

The Law and the Short of It: Level Up Legal Affairs Columnist Justin Blankenship Returns to the Scene of Electronic Arts' Bid For Take-Two [Level Up]

"Despite a multitude of challenges, virtual worlds present a unique marketing opportunity to target a highly sought demographic, and virtual worlds should be part of a company's marketing portfolio," according to Harvey Cohen, President of Strategy Analytics.

Hear that? You might as well sign up now. Go ahead and IM Caliban Karas on SL if you need to know where to pick up your furry avatar.

Study: One Billion Virtual World Users in Next 10 Years [GameDaily]

... Gartner's analysis isn't nearly as dire as its headline. Gartner notes that throughout the process lessons have been learned, many of the attempts were relatively low-cost experiments, and there's still plenty of opportunity. "Businesses have learned some hard lessons," Steve Prentice, vice president and fellow at Gartner, said in a statement. "They need to realise that virtual worlds mark the transition from web pages to web places and a successful virtual presence starts with people, not physics. Realistic graphics and physical behaviour count for little unless the presence is valued by and engaging to a large audience."

The end of the report also has a reasonably sunny prediction: "By 2012, Gartner estimates that 70 per cent of organisations will have established their own private virtual worlds and predicts that these internal worlds will have greater success due to lower expectations, clearer objectives and better constraints." That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.

90% of Corporate Virtual World Efforts Fail in 18 Months (Chalk It Up to Experimentation?) [Virtual Worlds News]

If anti-gold farming initiatives were effective, gold prices should go up as the cost of business increases for gold farmers. (NOTE: This assumes that demand is fairly constant. If game companies could actually convince their players not to buy gold, than prices would drop with a glut of gold on the market and no one to buy it. I've not been able to get volume data from any gold sellers, but my sense is that their customers are not going away.)

The Gold Farming War - Who's winning? [PlayNoEvil]

Whether it's dominating with LIVE (but charging for a service that proved unreliable last holiday season), selling 18 million consoles (but with unacceptably high failure rates) or building an incredible platform with XBLA (but accessing retro-seeking consumers more than family casual gamers)—Edge argues that Microsoft is on shaky ground when, with just a few tweaks, it could step to a more stable position. Sure, it's an article with more questions than answers, but it's worth a read for the Xbox 360 fanboy and Xbox 360 hater alike.

FEATURE: Is Xbox 360 Past Its Peak? [NextGeneration]

It certainly wouldn't be the first game to ship sans features shown at trade events or in early screens, as the author points to numerous peer titles that are guilty of the same thing. These include big names like Halo 2, Xenogears and Half-Life 2, among others.

While this may read like a nitpicking analysis, it actually turns out to be a well-written insight in the realities of game development, written from a developer's perspective. For those wondering what an alternate reality version of Mass Effect might have been, given more time in the incubator, look here.

How to Tell a Hard Landing, with Mass Effect [Magical Wasteland]

The downside is coming in the form of a glut of games for the Wii and DS. Nintendo will try to maintain quality, but I worry that we'll see far too many crappy games for the Wii and DS. I'd like to see publishers take risks on the DS and Wii, as they can afford to try new things at lower costs. However, publishers tend to follow rather than innovate ....

Publishers should not publish the same game across platforms, but should optimize versions for the hardware specs and demographic of the platform. Publishers ought to make unusual and unique content for a range of demographics, including the hardcore. A bigger market is waiting for publishers to make games that will entertain and amaze all sectors — hardcore, mainstream, kids, tweens, everybody.

My poor globetrotting DS is looking a little neglected these days, but I really hope we don't see a glut of crappy titles for the DS - I've got more than enough of those lurking around for my equally-as-dusty PS2.

Analyze This: Are Game Publishers Late To The (Wii and DS) Game? [Gamasutra]

Ebert is an incredibly intelligent man—a movie scholar and a master of the English language. And as a Chicago-born movie fan, my feelings on art were spoon nipple-fed from his teet. But while his responses are well-thought and even better written, knowing his arguments just leads me to disagree with him more.

So just as Ebert took the time to respond to Barker, I would like to take the time to respond to Ebert.

Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.

Ebert: A reviewer is a reader, a viewer or a player with an opinion about what he or she has viewed, read or played. Whether that opinion is valid is up to his audience, books, games and all forms of created experience are about themselves; the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example.

Ebert: [Barker] is right again about me. I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

Say you were to move a picture in that room—then the art may change and, at some lowly level, you may be an artist, too. But in games, that picture cannot be moved unless programmed to move. The interaction with such rules is not the creation of art, but the exploration of art—as if studying a painting in a different light—the art is not changed, just the perspective of the viewer.

Ebert: If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?

But the real issue at hand—the true divide in this discussion—is the lack of experience that Ebert has had with the medium. Games in their various incarnations represent a much wider gamut than film, but Ebert, like many, hasn't played enough games to believe it (or for us to offer concrete examples that will mean a thing).

But hey, our contact is on the side of this page. We'll be happy to shoot him some recommendations.

Art brings joy - but a joystick? [rogerebert]
Roger Ebert Strikes Back [kotaku]