Microsoft explains Halo's no-show at E3 game conference [LA Times]

When you take or teach courses called, for example, Game Studies 101; when you hold a degree in "new media studies" (wink, wink); when you publish your research in a journal called Game Studies; or when you actually are a professor of game studies, you end up feeling like you know what games do - and what they should do.

That wouldn't be so bad - it's business-as-usual for academics, in fact - if game studies didn't harbor what amounts to a desperate need to lay claim to ownership of game design as well as theory. It turns out that they don't just want to write articles and grant Ph.D.'s - they want to design our games, too.

Well, Ian Bogost — one of those people Travis is referring to — fired back

A considerable portion of my first book and my other writings object to the very idea that game studies stands alone. You cite a three-year-old prolegomenon by Aarseth, one meant as a provocation (something he's known for), and decide to attribute it to all game scholars. You make a "plea to gamers to turn the tables on Aarseth and other doyens of game studies" (myself included). Many (most?) of us already have done work to turn those very tables. Do you actually read any game studies scholarship?

Oh, snap. I consider myself lucky to be in a field that doesn't really suffer from a 'real world' vs. 'academic' split — we have enough drama amongst ourselves. The debate continues in the comment sections of both pieces, and is worth paging through if you have the time.

Quibus Lusoribus Bono? Who is Game Studies Good For? [Escapist] & A Response to Roger Travis [Ian Bogost] [both via GrandTextAuto]

E3 is not the boon to publishers that it once was, says Penny Arcade's director of business development Robert Khoo, who as the organizer of the PAX fan expo clearly has an interest, to say the least, in how things turn out.

"The reason that E3 imploded in recent years was because the publishers felt that it turned into this sort of pissing contest between them... where they were trying to figure out who could one-up each other," Khoo said. "They all thought to themselves that it just wasn't worth it."

The controversial decision to re-format last year's E3 into a smaller, more toned-down event was what Khoo calls "a self-correcting measure by the members of the ESA," in an effort to address its constituency better.

"I would imagine that that show is still trying to look out for what the publishers want - that's the whole goal of that trade association, which is to deliver the needs and try to figure out what their members actually want."

Neither Khoo nor Penny Arcade are ESA members, so he couldn't speak to whether the association is acting optimally to assure its members' best interests. "The real question is whether a show like E3 is something publishers want," Khoo said. "I guess Activision, Sierra, Blizzard, Vivendi feel that is not the case."

Earlier today we reported that several companies skipping E3 blamed their departure on "business issues," which analyst Michael Pachter pinned on poor timing for the July event, inconvenient to those companies' fiscal calendars and overlapping with times during which they must observe a "quiet period" and avoid communicating with investors.

"That blackout period is definitely interesting," Khoo said. "We don't really deal with that at all, just given the timing of our show, because its smack dab in the middle of the quarter. I'm sure that is a genuine concern, but since the third quarter ends at the end of September, it doesn't affect us at all."

According to Khoo, the years where publishers knew what to expect from E3 appear to be over, and that's hurting the event and potentially the ESA by association. After last year's "transitional period," quite a bit looks still to be up in the air, he said.

"It's in flux, and since publishers have that level of uncertainty, that is an unattractive trait to have going into a fairly large investment not knowing what you're going to get out of it."

Several industry sources expressed the same opinion as analyst Pachter: that Gallagher's lack of involvement in the industry not only results in poor planning and poor communication regarding E3, but may weaken the ESA's power to serve the video game industry in the long run.

When prior president Doug Lowenstein gave his final, impassioned speech at DICE 07, he vented his frustration at developers and publishers who refuse to defend their creative work when it's controversial, saying, "Don't duck and cover when the shit hits the fan."

But that's largely what Gallagher did when the association failed to publicly defend Mass Effect during the infamous Fox News "SeXbox" controversy. In an interview with GameDaily, he promised to "support the thrust of the industry activities and the reaction of the video gaming community," but refrained from taking any public position on behalf of the ESA.

However, plenty of the major publishers, including Capcom, Take-Two and EA, continue to support both E3 and the ESA. "It seems that at least four very large members are on the floor and doing press conferences, and it seems like a fifth unaligned company is doing a large event contiguous to that," said EA's Jeff Brown, VP of corporate communications. "That means that there's going to be no problem getting a crowd into LA for E3 this summer."

For the first time in several weeks, Take-Two is in agreement with EA on something: "As a member company, Take-Two Interactive supports the Entertainment Software Association, its leadership and its efforts on behalf of the industry," said CEO Ben Feder. "Mike Gallagher has done an outstanding job as president of the ESA and we look forward to participating in the E3 Media and Business Summit this July."

"No plans to drop out, no issue with Mike, no comment," Capcom said, when asked for their thoughts on the usefulness of the ESA and the fate of the event.

Atlus USA is one of the companies declining to participate in this year's E3, but spokesman Aram Jabbari stopped short of placing the blame on the ESA. "The nature of the show changed when they changed it from a consumer show to an invite-only press show," he said. "A lot of things have changed, but our participation doesn't have to do so much with the changes... we just chose not to exhibit this year and we do wish the ESA and all the exhibiting companies the best of luck."

NCsoft said its refusal to attend E3 was related to a timing issue with their internal development schedule and not with any conflicts about E3, but PR manager Mike Crouch declined to comment on potential issues concerning the state of the ESA. "One of the primary functions of the ESA is to manage E3," Crouch said. "And we still believe in E3, and we would have gone this year had the timing worked out for us. In that regard, we don't have anything negative to say about the usefulness of ESA."

"We would have definitely found E3 useful had it fit into our schedule this year. The judgment would be the ESA serves its purpose as far as we're concerned, as far as E3."

That could easily be perceived as a blow to the ESA run show, as the biggest North American publisher sits out the premiere video game exhibition. After moving from the Los Angeles Convention Center to various locations spread out across Santa Monica, it's limping back to its former home. It's unknown if the glitz and grime of its former incarnation will return, but we're thankful that it won't follow the format of E3 2007.

Please note that the statement says "official" E3 activities, leaving the publisher open to hold its own event during or near the show, as publisher Gamecock did last year. Activision obviously has plenty of wares to show, but may feel like the current E3 isn't in its best interests for financial or media attention reasons.

We contacted Activision reps to find out more but were given the same official response.

Activision officially out of E3 [Gaming Nexus]

Mr. Wilson needed to email Kotaku a nice long letter to recount his version of events at Ion Storm and slam my personal life - way to go Mike! Media manipulation at its saddest. It's analogous to a crotch shot of Britney in Hollywood's media circus.

Anyway, I think we're both mature enough to end this flame war. I just wanna see the cool games that gamecock is gonna release.

It's ok guys - no need to continue this worthless fight and commentary. Mike emailed me and apologized for his response.

But developing a game and publishing a game are completely different things. Gamecock is PUBLISHING other developer's games with the money they have from their investors, it's not personal money. Developers, on the other hand, get money from publishers to create their games. They're the guys with the ideas and the blood, sweat and tears putting in the work to make it all happen. Without the developers there are no games.

Without the publishers......the developers become their own publisher.

...and...

Yeah, approval process of bitch ad:

mike: hey, here's the kickass ad the richards group did - i think it's great and we should do it

john: uh, i would never say that to someone "you're my bitch" - that's kinda gay

mike: don't be a pussy! people will get it - it's trashtalking.

john: ok, whatever...

In the same post, Romero also placed part of the blame on Wilson for the laughable "John Romero's About To Make You His Bitch" print ads that ran prior to the release of the ill-fated shooter Daikatana.

Wilson responds in an open letter to Romero, sent to Kotaku, that he will "not allow you to rewrite the history of it all, more to your liking and to my public detriment, and I will in no way take the rap for what you did (or didn't do) with your dream company", going on to defend his character and refute certain claims.

It gets particularly nasty near the end of the letter, when Wilson says to Romero "your unparalleled work ethic and strong character has [...] left only a bloody trail of ex-wives, fatherless kids, and ill advised breast implants strewn across this fair nation." Insert stunned silence here, then continue for the full "Dear John" letter.

Dear John, I'm writing this letter from Moscow, having just read your lovely post about me, which a good friend forwarded me and implored me to reply to. I really never thought I would relive the joy that was Ion Storm, circa 1997, or that the memories of those times still troubled you so 11 years later. Then again, I would guess you live in the memories of your twenties as much as you can, given the reality of your thirties. Glad to know I'm still in your thoughts.

I enjoyed your comments very much, but several of my friends (especially those that were around for those heady time to witness the truth of it up close) did not find it quite so funny, and thought that I should take the time to set a few things straight as publicly as the flame you chose to randomly launch my way.

While I am not at all interested in reliving those days, I will also not allow you to rewrite the history of it all, more to your liking and to my public detriment, and I will in no way take the rap for what you did (or didn't do)with your dream company. So here are just a few reminders to jog your memory.

While my job title (which you gave me) was CEO of your company, I was one of two "junior partners" in a partnership of 6. I made about 1/3 of what the 'big boy partners' (as you liked to call yourselves back then) did and owned less than five percent of your company. I wasn't awarded a 250k signing bonus like you were for signing up to your own startup and I didn't have a personal assistant like you, nor occupy one of the 4 corners of power in the original Ion Storm building. And unlike you, I didn't get to file a federal trademark for my own personal catch phrase," Suck it Down." I remind you of these things only to remind you that there was absolutely nothing done by me or Ion Storm, including the advertisements which bore your name and which you happily posed for, that didn't require your full approval and grand signature.

And while I did think that famous Bitch ad was pretty funny, I'll remind you that you signed that one too, and I'm fairly certain I wasn't holding your hand or using a Jedi mind trick on you when you did it. I'll also remind you that the whole reason for running the teaser ad was that we felt we should be starting to advertise the game since it you said was shipping so soon, for Christmas in 1997. Even though we had nothing but a logo and that signature promise to use for an ad 6 months before you promised Eidos and your partners that Daikatana would be ready to redefine shooters on shelves worldwide.

Our former employee also reminded me that I fought on a daily basis to try to save that company from the poison which you had invited into it (and watched spread like a cancer while you kept your head in the sand), only to find myself ushered out the door, since it was such a buzz kill to hear my incessant complaints about the way things were being run, which were really those of the 80 or so young fresh faced developers we hired in the 10 months I was there. But hey, it was clear that I was the problem there, as you guys really took off the year after I left. Or, more accurately, nearly every one of those 80 hires did.

I do owe you a thank you for that little shove to get me started on Gathering of Developers, a company that I was an actual partner of, and which Take Two 'reigned in' buy buying for 30 million dollars, two years after we opened an office, which resulted in no less than eight million unit selling PC games and over 350 million dollars in revenue for TTWO (my investors) during roughly the same amount of time that it took you and the remaining 'big boy partners' to shit away Eidos' (your investors) 30 million and deliver one of the biggest heaps of dung ever put onto a CD Rom, just before being foreclosed on. Thank god for Warren Spector, who was also made a 'junior partner', and later delivered Eidos Storm's only salvation in the form of Deus Ex.

And please don't be too concerned for the independent developers I work with... just like with GodGames, and like the deal I struck for you with Eidos, Gamecock owns their IP and is branded above the publisher on everything, and has a great royalty rate. Royalty rates are what you make if you actually make a game that is good and sells. Remember Quake one?

I'm also grateful for your concern over my incessant partying, which has somehow led me to be married to the same beautiful woman for 17 years now, while raising two incredible daughters together. You should maybe try the partying, since your unparalleled work ethic and strong character has (just in the time I've known you) left only a bloody trail of ex-wives, fatherless kids, and ill advised breast implants strewn across this fair nation, even before you flew all the way to Romania for your latest wife. If she's not still around, let me know, and I'll see if I can pick another one up for you here in Russia.

Its been great catching up, but I'm off to dinner now with Harry Miller, my best friend and business partner for the past decade (ever had one of those, John?), and our very happy new investor, followed by some crazy partying to keep it real, just for you.

You take care now, and remember just because id, Eidos, and then Midway fired you doesn't mean you're not still awesome!

Suck it down,

Your pal Mike

Happy weekend, everybody!

"We are disappointed that the BBFC has decided to appeal its own Video Appeals Committee's judgment in favor of an 18-plus certificate for Manhunt 2," said Take-Two chairman Strauss Zelnick.

"We believe the VAC decision was correct and do not understand the BBFC's decision to expend further public resources to censor a game that contains content well within the bounds established by the BBFC's 18-plus ratings certification."

See? The news is always more interesting if you apply the vast power of the human imagination to it. Otherwise this would have just been a giant "Duh!" of a story, but now we have a gripping tale of tragedy for the ages. Were it a movie it would end with the sound of quiet tears as the camera slowly zooms in on a pile of forgotten pizza boxes.

Take-Two disappointed with BBFC decision [GamesIndustry.biz]

GameRankings editor Lee Alessi writes today on his GameSpot blog, "No, I didn't get rid of their data 'on purpose'. I honestly have no clue how it disappeared and before anyone asks—-no, I didn't delete the site. I am no Tech but I will take a guess and say there will have to be a restored backup to get close to 10,000 in reviews and 60,000 in other articles back on GR."

Yes, GameRankings did indeed drop GameSpot reviews, but looks like it found them, plans to put them back in their spot, restore balance to all important percentages and (hopefully) defuse any further potential drama.

We've contacted CNET and GameSpot reps to get an official statement on the matter. Regardless, it sounds very much like this is not news.

Before people jump to conclusions/ make assumptions [GameSpot]

There are a couple of themes from all of this, both the personal accounts that have wound up in our inbox and the wider discussion as a whole: this is nothing new and the ramifications are a little further reaching than a single reviewer, game company, or site.

I've been musing on all of this, mostly because reviews are part of an academic's life - epic flame wars have been fought on the pages of academic journals in every field, frequently over a scathing review or editorial. Feelings get hurt, professional relationships get strained - but money is almost never a concern. Your average PhD may make shit for a salary, but the upside is that professional integrity is rarely compromised in an attempt to hold on to the all mighty dollar.

It's amazing to me that some companies find this an acceptable course of action in some situations, and even more amazing that some bosses go along with this. Is losing credibility and mountains of bad press really worth those advertising dollars? But Kevin Gifford's Gamasutra editorial points to the very way video games are reviewed as part of the problem:

But many outlets have failed to stir up any reader interest in the text behind the review, or the overall atmosphere of the mag or website they're exploring — instead, readers increasingly care exclusively about the score, so they can praise and/or whine about it online. Entire game-media outlets have been, and are defined by, the numerals they publish...instead of, you know, how fun they are to read.

The Internet has largely made the job title "critic" redundant. The problem is that no one at most game mags and websites got the memo. Until they do — until they realize that it's their content that defines them, and not their scores — they'll have to be content with being abused by publishers and their readership for the rest of their existences.

I don't expect that game reviews are going to start looking like something out of The New York Review of Books - but getting away from the numbers would probably help on a number of levels. That's not to say that all of us - or even most - are somehow in some company's back pocket. Write anything, be it critical or glowing, and someone, somewhere will accuse you of horrid biases, even if you're simply speaking your mind and not acting as a surreptitious corporate mouthpiece. Our inbox attests to that. It would seem that game reviewers (and journalists at large) are frequently in between a rock and a hard place, and something needs to give.

It'll be interesting to see what the long term fallout from all of this is. It just makes me glad I've never aspired to a high powered career of game reviewing for a big site. I'll take my chances in the shark-infested waters of the Journal of Asian Studies and Modern China, thank you.

I'll tell you what's grossly irresponsible—the game's graphics! Monstrous!

The Canada.com report writes that the while Australian Family Association deems the game "toxic" and Christine Daviault of Montreal's Concordia University calls it "corrosive", the folks at Champagne for the Ladies say it's all in good fun. Although the game is marketed as adhering to a distasteful representation of the high school social hierarchy, letting players "lie, bitch, [and] flirt" to get ahead, the creators say it's "tongue-in-cheek" fun.

Sounds pretty dull to me, but folks will get worked up over anything! I'll start paying attention when I can curb-stomp the head cheerleader. Until then... next!

Videogame teaches teen girls to slither up social ladder [Canada.com via GamePolitics]

Poor Jeff. Lay off him already, Giraffe haters! If you love Space Giraffe, though, show Minter some love. Maybe a nice fruit basket or hand knit yak hair sweater would cheer him up.

stage one [Jeff Minter's LiveJournal via 1UP]