Thing is, I don't really have a solution. Take for instance today's news of the Game Critics' Best of E3 finalists. Check out those categories.

Best Social/Casual/Puzzle Game
Best Online Multiplayer Game
Best Action Game
Best Action/Adventure Game

Heck this year there were even a few that didn't get enough votes to make the cut.

Best Simulation Game, for instance, didn't get enough nominations to make the finalists list, but what would you include in there. Spore? Why not. HAWX, Sure, I suppose. Left 4 Dead? Maybe.

That's the problem, a lot of these categories are very easy to redefine and justify. What if you were making a Best of list for gaming, which categories would you include? Me? I think you need to include one category for each console, because often gamers only own one or two and they want to know which game is best on "their" system. But what about those collection of genres? I find them baffling, but it certainly looks like a lot of people use them. Maybe they just need new names. So what are you waiting for? Get to it.

Sources have confirmed to Wired that all staff members not involved in developing game content will be laid off beginning in June. GameTap's editorial division has been operational for less than a year, and Sanchez said that "while we have been very happy with the work done by our editorial and video teams, we’ve made a decision to focus the business on our biggest strength, which is our game catalog."

"As a result, we will be restructuring the site to focus exclusively on gameplay."

Sanchez's full statement follows the jump:

A year ago we introduced a whole new GameTap to the world – GameTap.com. We added free, ad supported games, download to own games, and moved all of our video to the web site as well. A little later we added the editorial section.

We have had a lot of successes over the last year and the move to the web has been a good one for us. While we have been very happy with the work done by our editorial and video teams, we’ve made a decision to focus the business on our biggest strength, which is our game catalog. As a result, we will be restructuring the site to focus exclusively on gameplay.

What this means to our visitors is that instead of having a separate “READ” and “WATCH” section of the site we will be incorporating written and video content directly into the game pages. Doing this will allow us to improve and expand the gaming library and community aspects of our business.

For us, it’s always about how can we make your on-line gaming experience at GameTap the best out it can be and we think this is the way to do it. Speaking of having the best experience, American McGee’s Grimm is coming along great and will be ready to play this summer.

A change to GameTap.com [GameTap Forums via Game|Life]

I'm on the road again today with my wife, son and two dogs. Trish is driving us back from El Paso, Texas to Denver. I spent a longish weekend visiting my mom and step-dad and since I'm going to be reviewing Wii Fit soon for Kotaku, I decided to bring along my Wii and a copy of the game.

Shortly after setting it up my step-dad wandered into the room to see what was going on. My son was hammering away at the Ski Jump mini game and it wasn't long until he wanted to give it a try. My step-dad, you may recall, is the one who fell asleep watching me play Grand Theft Auto IV. It's an understatement to say that gaming isn't his thing. But after about 15 minutes with the game he went to go get my mom. I think she'd really like this, he said.

Turns out she did. She likes it so much that I left my Wii Fit with them, but only after they promised to buy a Wii once they could locate one. Even more surprising, my wife, someone who doesn't like to talk about games or watch me game, let alone play games, actually stepped onto the Balance Board to give it a try and said she wanted to "check it out" in more depth when we got home. Chills, it gave me chills.

The thing is, I'm still slightly convinced that the Wii Fit is the Brain Age for the Wii. Brain Age was the game that convinced thousands of aging baby boomers, including my mom, to buy the DS only to use it for a week, maybe a month, and then forget the device. I can say with 100 percent authority that my mom hasn't just given up on the DS, she's forgotten she owns it.

The Wii Fit will certainly strike a chord with some aging baby boomers, but I think it will strike a bigger chord for that group one generation younger so worried about their health and physique. But will it really get them into gaming? I don't think so.

When deciding whether they were going to buy a Wii, my mom and step-dad asked me if it came with Wii Sports. Then they asked if they would ever need to buy another game again. I'm thinking this is more about buying an ideal, a concept: That Wii Fit will make them fit, or healthier, than it is about getting them interested in gaming.

As much as I want to believe Nintendo's line, that the Wii in breaking from tradition and cutting a path into the untapped non-gamer, general population, I think what they're really doing is finding ways to attract people to gaming who will rarely stick to it by tapping into the fears of an aging population.

What defines 'maturity'? I think the entertainment industry is somewhat hampered by defining works that include sex or violence or rough language as having 'mature themes': clearly there is an age component ('Should 10 year olds be watching this stuff?'), but it's overly simplistic at best. In my media collections, I have works I consider thematically "mature" in the ratings game sort of way, and the works that are mature in a different way. The ones that play with preconceived notions of the way things are or should be; the ones that deconstruct the traditional, reconstitute it as something new; most importantly, the ones that can be read on a number of levels.

The wonderful thing about the last bit is it tends to be sophisticated and subtle; if you'd like to ignore the historical context, or the barbed, oblique criticism of something it won't lessen your enjoyment of the work on other levels. The first time I read A Dictionary of Maqiao, one of the few novels on the plight of sent down youth during the Cultural Revolution I have managed to stomach, much less enjoy, I realized at the end the author was effectively attacking a century of literary criticism in China. The next time I read it, I came in with a fresh perspective and a whole new take on little bits and pieces of the novel. Heavy stuff, but the average person without any grounding in academic works on the subject could read and enjoy the book.

We sometimes toss games off the "deep" deep end: the trumped up moral dilemma of Bioshock and the ensuing months (and months and months) of discussion, added to excitement over Ayn Rand and Objectivism, was - in the end - overblown, and we quietly put it to bed. Leigh Alexander said something to the effect that we get so excited when a game seems to be trying that we go overboard. Sometimes designers toss their games off the deep end: much as I love Xenosaga, barring the atrocious second installment, by the third game I was left going 'Oh, come on' when yet another heavy-handed Biblical reference popped up. Sure, I was left wondering if Nietzsche's introduction and reception in late 19th century Japan was similar to the one in China, but was that really the point? Yes, there were some good strands of classic themes — questioning belief systems, organized religion, technology — but it got lost amongst Issachar this and Wagner that. Someone on the team clearly knew their Isrealites and classic Germanic operas, at least superficially (shame they weren't a Strauss fan, we could've had a ship called 'the Fledermaus'), but to what end?

The question is: do they need to try so hard? Certainly, the subtle layers and multiple readings I favor in my 'mature' media don't just happen. On the other hand, one of the things that distinguishes most of those works for me is what pleasurable experiences they can be for a range of people. I generally pride myself on having a more or less accessible collection of 'serious media,' and I wish I could put more games in that category. You can have your cake and eat it, too. Why do we find it so hard to strike that perfect balance in games? I'm not suggesting that there aren't games that don't offer rich themes and subtle nuance, but the trend seems to be swinging towards over the top and in your face.

I spent a few weeks padding my way through Jonathan Blow's Braid - it's clever, it's interesting, it's different. On a purely superficial level, the game is a return to simpler times: the plot resembles a fairytale (complete with be-braided princess, though I don't recall storybook heroes wearing suits and ties), the graphics have this lovely dreamlike quality that I associate with high-quality children's books, the game play is something that we're all familiar with (on the surface, that is) - the classic platformer.

Still, after a few hours with the game, my mind was already shuffling off into philosophical territory, seeing parallels with readings I've done on the nature of time and the complication of memory. And I can't say I ever thought I'd come across a game that made me go 'Gee, I wonder what Michel Serres would have to say about all of this'; while being in a much more easily digested package, Braid asks us to rethink time in games and time and memory more general, at least a little. It tweaks game mechanics a bit, rewrites some rules of the platformer genre, and in the process, achieves much more than might have seemed possible from a casual glance at it.

For a storybook setting, it's pretty damn grown up in some respects. I suspect many will write off Braid as nothing more than a rehash of classic platformers, dismiss the ending as a trite twist, criticize it for not being as 'revolutionary' as it probably should be, given the press it's gotten. I tend to think the most influential of works don't set out to be so: they become influential over time. Set out to overturn the cart and create something trailblazing and new, and 95% of the time you're going to fall short of the goal. Still, for a short little game, it can be enjoyed on several levels. It's trying hard, maybe too hard in some cases, and it deserves credit for that; it also deserves credit for functioning on several levels.

I really don't think it would take much to push a little harder and make more games that function on deeper levels that don't overwhelm players with their 'deepness.' I so wanted to love Eternal Sonata, and I wound up being very disappointed because I saw lost opportunities left and right. It would have been possible, I think, to weave aspects of Chopin's life into the main story without resorting to inserting "educational" snips that were reminiscent of low-budget elementary school videos. There were glimmers of what could have been every so often in the game, and that made me all the more unhappy the designers didn't push just a little further.

One of my academic areas of interest is the film scene in Republican China; we have article after article and book after book that dissect films for their political and social significance. My current research is on Hollywood film advertising in 1930s China, and by default I've been exposed to advertising campaigns for domestic films, the ones that scholars have read, re-read, and dissected for their 'deep meaning.' What many of these deep readings ignore is the sheer economic realities of the film industry: directors may have wanted to 'say something' or urge people to action, but companies wanted to make money. It is the benefit of hindsight that allows us to carefully examine and critique these films on an academic level while ignoring the economic realities of the film industry.

What in the hell does Republican era Chinese film advertising have to do with games? Well, when it comes down to it, the film industry (like the game industry) is concerned about making money at the top levels — the goal is not to change society, but to bring in the money. Even films that are seen today as being deep and insightful were sold on the principles of color, sound, and excitement (violence, mystery, sex or whatever), or simply having a big name attached to the project. Sound familiar? People like Blow rail against the current structure of the industry (not without basis) and the focus on cash, but other industries have somehow managed to produce works that stand the test of time as great works while working within the constraints of having to make money — often while working under conditions that simply aren't an issue in the gaming industry (or modern film industry, for that matter).

The excuse that the game industry is 'young' doesn't cut it — people always point to the film industry, as if it was a wasteland of vapid entertainment and no thoughtful criticism prior to the 1940s, which is demonstrably false. The earliest extant Chinese film is a 1922 comedy à la Charlie Chaplin called Romance of the Fruit Peddler, and even 19 year old undergraduates in the year 2008 are entertained by it. On the flip side, it does — and did — say something about the unpleasant realities of Shanghai society in the '20s (all this in 20 minutes, with no color, sound, or cameras that could zoom or even move without being physically hefted. Amazing!). Likewise, Chaplin's iconic character of 'The Tramp' made his first appearance twenty years after the first-ever public screening of a film and was entertaining while offering a reasonably serious social critique (and Chaplin was a serious commercial success). Criticism and thoughtful debate were likewise going on much earlier than we care to admit. If people want to use the film industry timeline as an excuse for why we're not further along, then they better start explaining why the money-quality-depth conundrum was not insurmountable for film makers in the teens, '20s, and '30s (even in locales that were lagging behind Hollywood and Europe from a technological and economic perspective!) — yet is cause for much wailing and gnashing of teeth among gaming circles.

What makes money? What's the guaranteed cash cow? It's the Final Fantasys, the Halos, the 'great stories' of gaming. Really, I'm A-OK with tradition. I think it's pretty cool that the Shuihu zhuan continues to be reinvented, and that includes forms like the Suikoden series; you can't get much more 'traditional' than one of the Four Great Classical Novels. I don't think a renovation of games (or at least some of them) needs to take some radical form; I'm not even convinced a radical form is the best way to making inroads to really changing things. I like our "great stories," the great classic games. There's something to be said for the comfortable, the familiar, the tried and true. There's a reason I go back to my favorite books, my favorite movies, my favorite games. I go back because something about them made me love them, and switching on a console or cracking open a book takes me back to a familiar, much loved space. Making classics - making them well - is nothing to be dismissed, nor is going out on a limb and trying something new, no matter how minor it seems. One of my favorite descriptions (from The God of Small Things) of those 'great stories' applies as well to my favorite games as it does to my favorite books (not surprising, perhaps, given that the great stories tend to pop up in all media):

The Great Stories are the ones that you have heard and want to hear again. The ones you can enter anywhere and inhabit comfortably. They don't deceive you with thrills and trick endings. They don't surprise you with the unforeseen. They are as familiar as the house you live in. Or the smell of your lover's skin. You know how they end, yet you listen as though you don't. In the way that although you know that one day you will die, you live as though you won't. In the Great Stories you know who lives, who dies, who finds love, who doesn't. And yet you want to know again. 
That is their mystery and their magic.

I don't think we're ever in danger of losing the "great games" and their ilk, if for no other reason than they are generally successful and profitable. Square has made a very profitable business, and an excellent reputation, out of precisely that kind of conservative, evolutionary design that produces great games. There's plenty of crap out there that turns into a popular success, but there are plenty of games that have much to recommend them that also have commercial success. I think those great games - the familiar and well loved - are the best places to play with tradition, but the most dangerous places to start: you risk alienating a core audience. Braid is successful in many ways because it starts off on immediately recognizable and understandable territory, but I think it will wind up suffering for that, too.

The fact we have "great stories" — great games, great genres, great tropes — is what makes me think it wouldn't take much to bump stories up a notch. We already have a kind of Maqiao equivalent in games — just as Han Shaogong makes a 'tip of the hat' to those in the know and offers a little something extra for readers who have the background, plenty of games tip their hat to fans of particular games or genres (I can't count the number of times some insignificant detail of a game resonates strongly with memories of other games played, usually leading to a good bit of delight on my part). And usually, that tipping of the hat is subtle enough that players who don't understand the reference won't be hampered by lack of background or interest. I'm not a gigantic Final Fantasy VII fan, but I was really delighted with Crisis Core: stepping back into a familiar world, with familiar characters, and seeing a different take on familiar situations was a pleasant experience. The whole game is an ode to things that came before, but — while I doubt many people who have picked up Crisis Core are totally clueless to FFVII — it was eminently accessible. Would the uninitiated miss a lot of the little moments? Of course. Could they play the game and enjoy it? I think so.

Is it really a huge leap from that sort of careful crafting and structuring to pushing beyond the borders of games to offer a little something extra for those who want it — without detracting from the enjoyment of people who simply want plain old entertainment?

I hope some games never change - I'd hate to see the death of my favorite game mechanics or play styles or even plot points. But I'd also like to see more richness without the pretensions: we shouldn't have to desperately cling to any bit of hope in a game and trump it up. I'm sure the pendulum will sort itself out eventually and we'll find a happy medium between pure entertainment and the overbearing Xenosagas of the world. A game doesn't have to be full of belabored Gnostic or Objectivist overtones to be 'smart' or 'deep,' and aiming for 'smart' or 'deep' doesn't have to mean an end product that isn't any fun. Throwing games off the deep end does us — and them — a disservice, but so does ignoring the subtle potential for just a little bit more.

"Spring breeze in Yangliu" (1975), from Stefan Landsberger's Chinese Propaganda Poster Pages; Eugène Delacroix, George Sand (1838); Redskin ad, Xinwen bao (27 Sept. 1929); Laogong zhi aiqing (1922)

But after reading that King of Fighers XII was completely hand drawn, the answer to updating a 2D isometric game suddenly felt obvious—just draw it out.

Backtracking for a moment, it's in my humble opinion that Diablo III can't go 3D and maintain its trademark click to kill feel. But even giving the benefit of the doubt to Blizzard that they could deal with this issue (maybe by maintaining the same camera angle), it's hard to imagine such tiny characters on screen in 3D without becoming cartoony. Picture the units in Warcraft 3—there's a reason that the chunky style works for this world—the eye can identify small units that have large, cylindrical arms and giant blocky weapons.

But this art style doesn't match that of the Diablo world. Diablo is carnal in that stereotypical RPG way. If a weapon glows, it's with patina. If a monster is ugly, it's not in the PG Crocks "ugly is beautiful" way. It looks like an ugly monster.

With these boundaries in mind, the solution of hand drawing (and sticking with sprites) seems perfect. Without the limitations of polygons—current screen resolutions combined with Blizzard's artistic talent could create a Diablo that we've only seen in our mind's eye, one that is essentially concept art imported directly into the game without the artistically-limiting technical compromises of 3D modeling. (In short, it'd look a lot like Diablo 2 with the gloves off.)

Granted, KoF's process involved starting with a 3D model, turning it to 2D and then filling in the shading gaps by hand. That's how their animations look 3D and 2D at the same time. So if Blizzard mirrored such a production workflow—and there's absolutely no reason to believe they would—we could have plenty of the 3Desque eye candy in a true isometric world, not compromising Diablo mechanics, but bringing an unmistakable level of greater visual depth to the franchise. (UPDATE: Apparently the 3D to 2D conversion was used in Diablo 2, but it seems the hand-finishing elements of KoF were not.)

Sure, this is just one blogger's opinion. But a hand-drawn Diablo III feels like a Diablo limited only by an artist's pen. And the whole imaginary prospect seems very exciting to me.

What if publishers could counteract the Blockbusters/GameFlys of the world by offering digital rentals, and taking the idea a step further, stick it to GameStop resales by offering a simple system in which gamers could trade or sell their games online?

Stepping back to compare the digital movie industry for a moment, Apple recently signed on all the major film studios to rent their releases online. How does such a system work technically? It's easy, if a movie could be purchased and downloaded before, a download that costs a little less and is tagged to expire is really no more difficult. How does such a system work pragmatically? Apple, wanting to support (read: profit) on their media hardware, only takes the most modest chunk off the song/movie's sale price. The rest goes to those who create the content.

Does this not seem like the obvious next step for the gaming industry?

As for building a digital resale marketplace, such a scenario grows far more complicated, but not impossible. Now that gamers are comfortable dealing in points, imagine this simple system: you buy a game for 100 points, sell it for 50 points, and buy a used games for 75. So what's the catch? You can't sell a used game, and you only get sale points credited if someone buys your game.

Is the plan flawed? I'm sure. It took all of ten seconds to think of. But the important idea here is that an all digital model could have publisher-profitable limits on trade that would be made up to consumers by its extreme ease of use.

But most of all, the truly enticing aspect of such a model (for publishers/devs) is that consoles could provide a relatively safe haven for such a rental/trading system to exist. Unlike PCs, the specialized hardware and OS of these closed boxes make potential exploits far less likely at the scale of the average user—and when they do occur—far more manageable to the infrastructure as a whole (because, face it, firmware wars work pretty freaking well).

And while I'd love to have complete freedom with my digital content, I'd gladly make a few sacrifices for one, simple to use system that works from my couch.

It's nationalism, one could argue. After all, Sony and Nintendo are Japanese companies. And last year, American company Microsoft debuted their Xbox 360's IPTV at CES. But the truth is, Sony, at least, doesn't hold out their good announcements for Japan.

Leipzig won for gaming announcements last year, with Sony unveiling the PS3's DVR, PSP multiplayer syncing with the PS3, and all sorts of neat PSP communication/navigation apps.

The real problem with unveiling such electronic consumer products at CES is that companies like Sony aren't prepping the PS3 to be a DVR in America, let alone the PSP (which requires a wireless digital television signal that doesn't exist in our country). For reasons of either infrastructure (or sometimes stupidity?) video game companies are missing huge hardware opportunities at CES (and America).

Why doesn't Nintendo, in their crafted for the general public attitude, unveil WiiFit to a fat nation that's hungry for weight loss schemes (not as a game at E3, but a real consumer product at CES)? Why doesn't Sony roll out PSP GPS for a country that drives more than any other?

Oh, and timing isn't a great argument either, since CES's proximity to no major holiday makes it the perfect venue to announce technologies that are still inches out of reach.

Frankly, it's shortsightedness and limited thinking on both company's parts. Sony may have excited a few with their promising Blu-ray to PSP transfers, and while admittedly a big step in the right directions, such technology is almost an insult when compared to what we're bound to see from the company in the next year: an incredible digital movie store and/or phones that sync with PS3s...let alone whatever crazy peripherals Nintendo is dreaming up.

The truth is, every major player today is attempting to not only succeed in this generation of consoles, but expand the market in the meantime. Nintendo hopes that your grandma plays brain training or casual titles, Sony hopes that high end home theater enthusiast will seek unparalleled media connectivity and Microsoft hopes to wade moderately into each of these respective pots with titles like Buzz and movies that can be downloaded to your TV.

So why miss an opportunity to speak to the non-gamer public who is willing to spend a bundle on things that plug in? America might not have 1seg capability, but we're not exactly cooking our pterodactyl burgers over an open flame, either.

The real world is a pain in the ass. It involves traffic, cleaning gutters and lines at the grocery store. And often gaming is effective because it streamlines the experience of life, like a movie, just giving us the best parts, the frosty tops of cupcakes without the dry bottoms. That's why when I loaded Burnout Paradise and found a large, beautiful world just waiting for my destructive domination, I was let down.

It's ungrateful, I know. A team of hardworking programmers and artists from Criterion have assembled a game that (like the upcoming Midnight Club) allows you to explore an open world GTA-style and start street races almost seamlessly from a traffic light.

But such a world brings its burdens that agitate my lazy bastard side. Such a world requires stopping for gas, finding repair shops and hitting up a drive-thru for a new paint job. And such a world also requires one of my personal pet peeves, maps, to navigate to and during races.

It's not that Burnout Paradise is bad or that the idea is inherently unsuited for the genre, it's just that I don't mind clean menu systems that can bring me to a race quicker than driving there. And I'm not sure that an open world is really making a game like Burnout any better (or something like Tony Hawk or even Jak 3). I don't always mind clean cut levels so much because they allow me to take the good bites first and last. What about you?

You know it almost instantly. Waiting for a game to load, it's always the one who speaks first. You know, the kid. He hasn't hit puberty, and he wants to talk. And then he wants to sing to himself. Oh, and he also, inevitably, sorta sucks at the game. But truth be told, this isn't a bad person—he's not attacking sexuality or making racial slurs—he's just a kid being an annoying kid. Hell, he's probably the coolest 8 to 12-year old his block has ever seen, but I don't hang out with him. In short, neither of us are bad people here, but when I inevitably mute him, that's not doing any real service to me, my team or that energetic young lad who just wants to have fun with his peers.

So I wonder why Xbox LIVE, just as they offer players social and ranked matches and plenty of skill level matching, doesn't offer its various demographics the option to match opponents by age as well. LIVE has the userbase to make the idea feasible. And the chance to meet not just other players but actual friends online would grow dramatically.

Because at the end of the day, Microsoft's software works pretty well. While there will always be issues with lagging and the such, the main complaints I hear are about that small whining group of preteens who can spoil a game for everyone. So why not fix what may be the platform's biggest current problem in a way that's fair to everyone?

Played through the game a far bit with Crecente at this year's E3. The Wii-mote controls were tight, the graphics were great and the game was a helluva good time. With this being the first console game in the Mario series since 2002, SMG has been written up in detail after every public showing — more so recently with the actual game in demo kiosks across America. Yes, the Wii-mote controls are still tight, the graphics are still great and, yes, it's still a helluva good time. Well, once you begin the adventure part. Everything leading up to that is a bit of a drag.

Like others I'm sure, my earliest gaming memories were of Mario jumping on turtles and throwing fire. Mario was doing stuff. So, when I pop in a Mario game, I want to do things, which is probably why I've never been into titles like talk-heavy Super Mario RPG or Paper Mario, regardless how wonderful those games are. Mario as a platformer made a deep impression on me as a kid (and the entire industry). Not so interested in what Mario has to say! Would rather have the little guy jump around, throw fire and hop on turtles. So, SMGis that in space! Sign me up.

And once you get to that part, it's grand. However, as anyone who has played the game can attest, there's about 10~15 of cut scenes and dialogue. Great, so there's a comet passing over the Mushroom Kingdom, Bowser takes Peach to space, some lady named "Rosetta" ("Rosalina" in English) helps Mario, blah, blah. Do. Not. Care. It's two~three minutes of exposition dragged out to a length three or four times that, followed by a separate tutorial that seems overdone. And yes, the cut scenes are pretty, but who plays Mario games for cut scenes? The first ten minutes were unnecessary, dull and not fun. But once you clear that, damn is this game fantastic.

Well sort of...

The opinion piece written by Rathika Suresh for The Australian only mentions gaming at the beginning to lump it together with computer games, educational applications and the Internet. It goes on to argue that computers, and those things he linked to them like gaming, are here to stay; and that they play an "integral and growing role in education, work and communications, and the sooner a child becomes comfortable with this technology, the better."

He says the important thing is that you keep an eye on the content they access using the internet, computers and gaming systems. I whole-heartedly agree. He also points out that according to Early Childhood Australia, parents and caretakers should "guard against exposing children to software applications that use stereotypes relating to gender or culture." Also a good point, at least for young children who are still forming opinions and developing ideas.

The piece wraps up by calling for Australian ICT professionals to develop programs, tools and services that use that technology to expand a child's horizons beyond their personal experiences. I'd like to add game developers to that list. It might not be a big money maker, but it's an important part of being a good corporate citizen. That's why I also get so excited when I see things like the PS3's Folding at Home project or Microsoft's university level indie development programs.

Preschoolers need computer access [The Australian]

Wired's Clive Thompson called me up a few weeks back to talk to me about how I deal with Tristan playing video games. My 5-year-old son, for those of you who don't know, has written game reviews, play tested hardware and jammed with me on Guitar Hero.

I treat video games like I do television and movies, I restrict how much and what kind of games he can play.

As you'd expect, I found that joystick-wielding parents are much better than Hillary Clinton at parsing the nuances in various types of combat games. Brian Crecente, the editor of game blog Kotaku, takes an approach that most gamer parents described to me: They treat games as they would movies. If they're too adult in content for his 5-year-old son, he won't let his child even watch them being played.

"Everybody knows, as an adult, that the world is not always a nice place," Crecente told me. "But I don't want him to know that yet. I want him to have a childhood." So he disallows games with "realistic" combat, like World War II titles, or Resistance: Fall of Man, but permits highly cartoony shooting, like Starfox on the Nintendo DS — since he regards it as essentially as abstract as playing cops and robbers with your fingers as guns.

Thompson's boss Chris Anderson uses the Lego Rule, the same rule that the company uses to make their games.

The Lego Company, it seems, has a policy of not producing toys that replicate 20th century weapons. "You can have swords, and you can have laser guns in space, but no actual 20th century guns," Anderson says. So his four children can play games like Halo, since it contains only futuristic, fantasy war, where you're killing only green- or blue-blooded aliens. The same goes for Roman swordplay titles. "But it clearly walls off Grand Theft Auto."

Thompson said he plans to use a mix of my policy and Anderson's for his own child. What's your take on child rearing and games? Brian Crecente

You Grew Up Playing Shoot'em-Up Games. Why Can't Your Kids? [Wired]

The parents group's request to ban video game ads and only video games isn't about constitutionality, it's about hypocrisy.

Had the editorial board bothered to call up and talk to the National Grassroots Director for the Parents Television Council or read my feature about the issue here on Kotaku they would have probably noticed something far more interesting than the somewhat tangential, and off-base, issue of constitutionality.

In the story Gavin McKiernan tells us that the real issue wasn't about adult content, it was about the fact that those advertisements were for video games not movies.

In fact, Gavin told me he wouldn't try and stop advertising for R-rated movies, the issue was about the medium, not the content. Something, I think, that could have made for a much more interesting discussion in the editorial section of a major newspaper. Brian Crecente

The freedom to say 'no' [Rocky Mountain News]

It appears the news we broke last week of Slamdance removing the Columbine game from their lists of finalists and why has created quite the shitstorm, for lack of a better word.

Ian Bogost reports over on Water Cooler Games growing list of reactions to the decision:

Kelee Santiago pulled Slamdance finalist and future PS3 title flOw from the competition in protest.

To hear that the game had been pulled was deeply discouraging. As a group, our opinions on the quality of the game itself range, but we can all agree on one thing: it deserved to be there.

We also agree that the act of pulling SCMRPG is one we cannot condone. But how best to protest this action? Going to the festival, at which prizes are awarded, only to criticize its organizers seemed unfair at best, and hypocritical at worst. Therefore, we have decided to withdraw flOw from the competition. We agree with Jonathan Blow:

Jonathan Blow, creator of finalist Braid, has also pulled his game from the competition.

The game lacks compassion, and I find the Artist's Statement disingenuous. But despite this, the game does have redeeming value. It does provoke important thoughts, and it does push the boundaries of what games are about. It is composed with more of an eye toward art than most games. Clearly, it belongs at the festival.

So, in protest of game's expulsion, I have dropped Braid out of the competition as well.

Raph Koster has spoken up on the subject.

Dismissing the game "on moral grounds" essentially argues that it is exploitative; yet we do not necessarily consider clearly issue-driven films or books as exploitative. Rather, the sensitivity of the subject seems to be what is pushing the needle here. Can games, which some allege caused Columbine, then comment on Columbine without being regarded as exploitative?

SCMRPG is no great shakes as a game in its own right. It doesn't even try to do something new on that front. Instead, it's incurring controversy based on artwork, content, and most importantly, the medium that it happens to be in. Were its RPG plot excised and written out as a book, would anyone raise an eyebrow? Probably not.

As has Slamdance Game Fest sponsor Greg Costikyan, of Manifesto Games. Costikyan, while continuing to support the fest, has created a permanent place for the game on Manifesto's site.

As gamers, and those who love games, our reponse to this game, and to the criticism of it, should not be to hide, or run away, or hope that it goes away. Instead it should be to say: You do not understand, nor are you attempting to understand. This is not a glamorization of the murderers, nor yet a trivialization of the tragedy; it is a work of serious artistic intent and accomplishment, based on considerable research, that in fact illuminates and reflects the horror of that day. Just as there are novels of the Holocaust, there can be a game of Columbine, and neither need trivialize a tragedy.

Andrew Stern and Michael Mateas, winners of last year's Slamdance Grand Jury Prize, have written an open letter to the festival, asking for the reinstatement of the Super Columbine Massacre RPG.

We give no judgment here about how successfully "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" addresses its topic. However we feel it is extremely important that the game community, including high-profile festivals such as Slamdance, support such experimentation. Games, as a medium, are as fully deserving and appropriate as film and other more established media forms, to deal with such subject matter.

And how can we forget Newsweek's N'Gai Croal.

This is a recipe for the continued infantilizing of a young medium whose potential, for all of the compelling works already released, still remains largely untapped. We haven't played Super Columbine Massacre RPG, but from what we've read, it strikes us as a fairly serious and well-intentioned attempt to grapple with the shootings and suicides through an interactive medium. And while we certainly recognize that many will see SCMRPG as ghoulish, offensive and trivializing of a horrific event, we reject the premise that it is inherently so—any more than Art Spiegelman's "Maus" or Pablo Picasso's "Guernica"—and any attempts to paint Ledonne's game as inherently so should be firmly and loudly repudiated. For those of us who care about the future of videogames, this is a time to stand up and be counted.

If you have any interest in gaming besides the playing of them, you must read all of these links. Seriously. Artistic expression in video games is the most important topic that will likely be faced by developers, perhaps ever. The fact that the game that seems to be bringing this topic to a head happens to be one that many find repugnant is incidental to the bigger issue here.

To be clear: This is not about SCMRPG. This is about whether video games will forever be relegated to the position of mindless entertainment and child's play or whether gaming as an industry can make that final leap into artistry, expression and tackle topics that evoke something more than fun.

This is why I finally decided to become a games journalist. I enjoy writing reviews, but what finally pushed me to make that leap from police reporting to features writing is the chance to be covering a medium at the cusp of becoming something so much greater. Brian Crecente

Update: Jan. 9
Three more finalists have dropped out of the festival. Bringing the the number of finalists no longer in the competition to five, six if you count SCMRPG, or nearly half.

Once Upon a Time withdraws from the finals.

"We are very saddened by the news of Super Columbine Massacre RPG being pulled from the Slamdance Guerilla Gamemakers competition due to loss of financial backing.
Regardless of the merit of SCMRPG being a finalist in the SGG competition, having chosen the game and then only removing it when pressured by outside influences brings the impartiality of the competition as a whole into question. Who is truly judging these games: the Slamdance judges or their financial backers?
We unfortunately feel that we cannot be part of a competition that does not rank artistic expression and free speech as priorities and would therefore like to withdraw our entry of Once Upon A Time from the competition.
We thank you for your support of our game and wish you continued success."

Finalist Toblo withdraws from festival.

We cannot condone removing Super Columbine Massacre RPG! from the Slamdance Festival on moral grounds. Along with the developers of Braid and flOw, we are pulling our game from the Slamdance Festival. In the unlikely event that Super Columbine Massacre RPG! is re-admitted to the festival, we would be happy to participate.

Fest finalist Everyday Shooter withdraws

As you may have heard, Peter Baxter, the president of Slamdance, decided to pull Super Columbine Masscare RPG! from the competition.

I do not agree with his decision. His action is part of a the ball and chain that continuously represses the games medium from advancing beyond superficial entertainment. Because the Slamdance games competition now carries the sharp undertones of this sad repression, I am withdrawing Everyday Shooter from the competition.

Grand Text Auto Publishes Letter of Protest from Finalists

We object to this decision and strongly urge the festival organizers to reinstate the game in the festival. It is legitimate for games to take on difficult topics and to challenge conventional ideas about what video games can do. No game should be rejected for moral or other reasons after a panel of judges has found the game to be of artistic merit and worthy of inclusion in the festival. We find it very unlikely that a similar decision would have been made about a jury-selected film, and see this decision as hurting the legitimacy of games as a form of expression, exploration, and experience.

Grumpy Gamer Calls for Finalists to Put Up or Shut Up

Apparently some people in the game industry are pretty upset by this, but my question is: Why haven't the other finalist pulled out in protest?

Seems like it's for one of two reasons:

#1 - They agree the game should have been pulled.
#2 - They don't want to lose the chance of winning the award to stand up for something they believe in.

Lastly, but not leastly, our formerly very own John Brownlee breaks down the argument for both sides and asks for help writing his Wired piece on the subject. Go... help.

It's bleak just to look at those questions: perhaps I'm too cynical, but for me, it's clear that the progression there signifies the complete death of art as a medium of deep personal expression.

I need your help. I'd like you guys to help me brainstorm and bring alternate perspectives to the table. Questions and viewpoints I haven't considered. Maybe you can try to answer some of the questions and give me a better idea on what people besides me think the logical progression is. The intention is that you guys will help me think about this n a wider and more three-dimensional complex, which will hopefully make my story at Wired News richer and better thought through.

What do you guys think? Hit our comments and let us know.

No, I'm not getting Ash, Flynn, Luke and the Mikes to roll up their sleeves and start slapping together consoles, I'm talking about company blogs.

Microsoft has, three of them, that I can think of, but neither S nor N have bothered to date. Well at least not one's run by people we care about.

So here's who we think should be writing a blog of their own for Nintendo and Sony:

Sony
Brian Crecente's pick: David Karraker: The man used to be in charge of PR for a company that made alcohol for god sakes. He's charming, thick-skinned and sharp enough to cut through the bullshit. Did I mention he is a former television reporter who covered the Heidi Fleiss story and, oh yeah, used to speak for Stoli?

Pro: Former TV reporter, did spin-control for the likes of Martha Stewart, access to vast quantities of alcohol.

Con: High enough up on the food chain that one misspoken word could cost Sony a lot of embarrassment. Anything he says will sound like it's the official word from Sony.

Flynn De Marco's pick: My mother always said: If you don't have something nice to say, keep your big yap shut.

Michael Fahey's pick: Have to go with David Karraker, who had the guts to take the Director of Corporate Communications post right before the PS3 launch

Pros: Obviously the guy has balls, and the pedigree to go with them. He's worked with Crystal Dynamics, Sega of America, the 3DO, and Martha Stewart, as well as having reporting experience. The stories he could tell must be priceless.

Cons: Everything he touches turns to shit. The 3DO, the Dreamcast, Martha Stewart, who was arguably shit to begin with. The alcohol company he worked for was sold to foreign interests and everyone was laid off. Not his fault, of course, but I've a feeling Sony is keeping a close eye on him just in case.

Michael McWhertor's choice: Kaz Hirai, president of Sony Computer Entertainment and SCEI COO. He's only 42 years old and one of the most powerful gaming executives in the biz. Sure, Kaz made E3 2006 legendary with his PlayStation keynote, but he's smart, smooth, and pleasantly goofy.

Pro: A strong marketer who has over 10 years of experience with the PlayStation brand in the US and Japan. Probably has some good Kutaragi stories.
Con: RIIIIIIDGE RACERRRRR. Expect massive filtering on anything someone at his level says. His bosses would never "get" blogging.

Luke Plunkett's pick: Phil Harrison, executive vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe.

Pros: Despite Sony's recent run of poor form, has come out with his reputation (PAL PS3 delay handling excepted) as a composed, knowledgeable company spokesman man intact. Is also PlayStation for life, which lends his comments a certain air of legitimacy.

Cons: Phil's a company-line man to the core, so the chances of his blog being an honest, insiders look into Sony are slim-to-none. Which would defeat the point.

Nintendo
Brian Crecente's pick: Reggie "The Terminator" Fils-Amie: The man is all about kicking ass and making games. And now he should be all about blogging too. Out-spoken, charismatic and really tall, Reggie might be running a company, but that doesn't mean he couldn't drop the remote for a second to send in pics of Link in the NOA cafeteria.

Pros: He knows how to charm, gets access to lots of sexy Nintendo inner details and is the man in charge, so he doesn't have to worry about pissing anyone off... well, at least not on this continent.

Cons: He's a president, president's never do their own talking. He's also a busy man. The worst thing he could do is let someone else ghostwrite a blog, because gamers can smell bullshit from a mile away.

Flynn De Marco's pick: Shigeru Miyamoto, the Big Kahuna. Father of Mario and Zelda. The Idea Man.

Pros: His child-like outlook on the world would make for good blogging. I'm sure he'd have lots of fun and whimsical things to say. Plus we might get inside info on new Mario and Zelda games coming up.

Cons: Since his entries would all be in Japanese, we would be forced to endure terrible translations and misinterpreted quotes.

Michael Fahey's pick: Pierre-Paul Tr panier, Marketing Director of Nintendo Canada - 10% of North America

Pros: Slick and polished, able to turn a phrase with ease. A relatively pretty man who has worked for L'Oreal, so he knows how to catch the attention of the female demographic. Also worked for Coca-Cola in the United Kingdom and still manages to have perfect teeth. This means he is magical.

Cons: He's named Pierre-Paul, for one. You can't help but be just a little pretentious when you are named Pierre. Even worse when you have to first names with the same first consonant separated by a hyphen. He's a PR man, so he can't help but spin things. It's in his blood. Possibly too pretty.

Michael McWhertor's Nintendo choice: Bill Trinen. He's the head of localization for NOA and the man you'll see either sitting next to Miyamoto at an English speaking press event or the white guy demoing Nintendogs at a keynote.

Pro: In addition to getting his hands dirty with probably all NCL developed titles, Bill is no stranger to being a good product evangelist. He also probably hears good things from Miyamoto, Sakurai, Iwata, Aonuma and others, things we might not hear in interviews.

Con: Probably very busy. Not very well known (could be a pro, though).

Luke Plunkett's pick: Goro Abe, innovative Nintendo game designer.

Pros: Be nice to get a look at what goes on inside Nintendo. Sometimes they give off the impression they're just this mysterious pearl-white monolith that just magically produces games - we never really see or hear of the creative process that goes into them. Considering the crazy stuff that makes up a Wario Ware game, it'd be awesome to get a little more insight into how they're made.

Cons: Not that I've ever met him, but he comes across as a pretty boring guy, which could lead to a pretty boring blog. Also doesn't speak too much English, which means he probably doesn't write too much English, either.

Merodeando, a spanish gaming site that sorta looks like it's a true blog, was recently uninvited to an Electronic Arts event because they bad-mouthed FIFA, which, I believe, everyone has bad-mouthed.

I've had my run-ins with Electronic Arts, believe me, lots of run ins, but they've always been very professional with me and with Kotaku as a whole despite our often taking them to task for their missteps. So I was surprised to hear they would be so overtly obnoxious about something like this. But the site actually posted the email and, unless it's a fake, it spells out the fact that they were uninvited to the Command and Conquer 3 event because of their coverage.

A poorly translated snippet:

as you will include/understand, you are many webs of game those that quereis to collaborate with us, and we must prioritize to whom, to ours modest to understand, they treat to us better

with articles of this type at the present time he is not plantable that we have
a collaboration flu da with you, is therefore cancelled
invitation to pasaros by our offices to see C&C3

if it seems to you, we let pass the time, and seeing a little like
the things evolve volvemso to raise material enviaros to us e
invitaros to this class of eventos...

Let's hope that someone gets fired over this because I would hope it has not become EA's policy to try and strong-arm websites into granting them positive coverage.

Besides, iIf EA were to blackball everyone who has ever disagreed with them they would have very empty press events. Brian Crecente

Electronic Arts: si me criticas no te ajunto [Merodeando]

I've been riding the Light Rail from my house in suburbia to downtown Denver since January. And while I play games on either my PSP or DS Lite every day, twice a day, I have yet to run into another person doing the same... until today.

I was minding my own business listening to some music and playing Club House on my DS Lite when a guy sits down across from me on the train. After a few seconds I notice he's staring at me. Then he's staring at me and leaning forward. The seats are so close our knees are almost touching. Finally, apparently oblivious to the fact that I'm doing my best to ignore him and stay cocooned in my music and gaming induced isolation, he starts talking to me.

I can only tell he's talking to me because he's leaned forward so much his mouth is actually in my surprisngly wide peripheral vision. Finally I give up and yank the plugs from my ears.

"Is that a DS Lite?"

"Yes"

"What are you playing?"

"Club House"

"Cool"

I get back to the game.

"Do you have any other games?"

"Yes."

At this point I realize that a bit of stranger gmaeplay is inevitable, so I ask what he has and we decide on Tetris.

He wallops me in the first three games, but then I make a strong come back taking three of the next four games. I hear him mumbling "That's cheating" in the middle of several games.

We end with a friendly, but awkward hand-shake (broken hand and all) and he ambles from the train.

The whole thing felt a little unsavory, forced. It was like a bath house hook-up but instead of man sex there was Tetris. A podmate at work blurted out Tetris Gloryhole after hearing my story, and then laughed so hard his face turned a deep red.

I think I need a shower.

When was it that gaming became something that doesn't just support multiplayer modes, but encourages it? Local WiFi play is great among friends, but I don't want to feel obligated to stop what I'm doing to share some playtime with a total stranger. Don't get me wrong, I love online multiplayer gaming, but we need some etiquette I think. Some rules about how to go about playing a game of pick-up that doesn't involve lots of staring. Brian Crecente

The weekend's rumblings about the possible cancellation or total overhaul of E3 left me feeling very conflicted.

I've been saying for two years now that E3 needs to change. There's just too much going on in too short a period of time for anything but a small percentage of what's shown to rise to the top.

Fan magazines are typically the only ones that can cover the show properly and even they miss out on chunks of it. Smaller sites, including ones like Kotaku, cover maybe half of what's around, if they're lucky.

Mainstream press covers next to nothing.

For instance, for this year's E3 I wrote two daily stories for the Rocky Mountain News, one covering Sony's announcement and another covering Msoft's and Nintendo's. In retrospect, I should have written a daily about Doug Lowenstein's state of the industry as well.

Afterward, I did a largish package for the Rocky Mountain News, which included a set of stories about the top games, some of the controversy of the show and a bit of the color. I also did a big analysis of how the big three did.

But what about Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Namco, or the hundreds of other publishers? They all had news, they all showed good games? Well, newspapers only have so much space and they just didn't make the cut.

So, on the one hand I applaud the ESA's decision, if this is all true, to do something about E3. Most of the people who actually show up to work the show, can't do their jobs because there's just too much to cover.

But then I started reading the rumors of what might happen. Things like E3 becoming one of many events that will take place over the year to promote games or maybe just developers doing their own things.

That's even worse than the current state of affairs. Sure game mags won't have a problem covering these events. First, they'll likely all be in California and second I believe a lot of magazines allow their writers to have trips to such events paid for by the developers.

But newspapers and mainstream magazines will be left out in the cold if this goes through. I know my newspaper, and most newspapers are like this, will never pay for multiple trips to cover the industry. And the Rocky's ethics policy, and again this is the same with most newspapers, won't allow free trips.

The last thing this industry needs right now is a move that will isolate it from mainstream coverage.

My hopes are that if there is a move away from the current E3 state of affairs it will be one to something more akin to a film festival, where the games displayed will have to go through some sort of vetting process to make the list. The end result I hope for is an event that would showcase the best of what gaming will be offering in a venue that is meant to be seen by those who need to see it, not want to.

I have a call into the ESA, hopefully they'll get back to me today. Brian Crecente

Seen under the letter G:

Game Boy: The video game system from Nintendo. Also, Game Boy Advance.

Seen under the letter V:

video game: Two words in all uses.

It's official, people know video games exist, now big things are going to start happening to us.

For those of you who aren't big newspaper geeks, the style book is like the bible of newspapering. Just about every newspaper in the country uses it to figure out how to spell and use odd words, phrases and ideas. This is the first game-related word to make the book.

To bad they didn't define video games, because it looks like people still don't know whether to include computer games under that title. I've seen it used both ways. Brian Crecente

The Gamesblog's Aleks Krotoski makes a case for more British in British games. While I applaud the idea, I think her argument that games are "created for an American market" is fatally flawed.

First, she argues that UK game developers are "behoved to the US distribution machine." If a nation's cultural influence on games (which I think is non-existent, but more on that in a bit) could be measured by the number of titles or consoles sold in one place, than why does anyone care what happens in Japan? Why is Microsoft so desperate to win in a place that accounts for less than a third of game sales?

If the game industry is behoved to any sort of ominous-sounding nationalistic capitalism, it would be Japan. It's Japan that holds the reins and the whip of the game industry. The U.S. is just the hay that feeds the beast.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the United States is holding the game industry under its thumb, then where is all the American culture in video games?

Is it in Lord of the Rings Battle for Middle Earth? How about Table Tennis or maybe Grand Theft Auto? I'd argue there's more British culture in games than there is American. What about first-person shooters and their fascination with World War II or real-time strategy and their loving attention to detail of ancient and modern warfare, almost always set in places other than the United States.

No, the problem isn't that there isn't enough British in British games, it's that there isn't enough culture in any games. Brian Crecente

Is British Culture Missing From British Games [Gamesblog]

There are a few fundamental concepts that really underscore this trend. The ominous feeling once associated with seeing "game over" has diminished, due to save games and other conveniences. Instead of complex puzzle solving, strategic elements are now more like connect the dots. Final bosses have become weaker. All of these, along with a couple other factors, really define the degradation of difficulty in gaming. I've taken a look at these elements and will discuss some specific examples. However, I also realize that change is sometimes vital, so I've also detailed what could be done to lessen the leniency provided by so many different games, without completely reverting back to "old school".

It's an interesting 5-page read worthy of checking out over the weekend.

Are Games Getting Easier? [Twitch Guru]

I don't know why Sony and Nintendo haven't gotten onboard the blogger express. Come on guys, you can spoon feed your own brand of tasty half-lies and boosterisms directly to gamers. Alllllll aboard. Brian Crecente

LetsKillDave

I only read them when I'm writing a game review, and that's to make sure I didn't completely miss something. My habit of never reading instructions comes directly from my college day habits of obtaining almost all of my computer games from pirate sites. Half the time you couldn't get the full program let alone instructions, so I just fell out of the habit. Besides if I could figure out how to play Civilization without instructions I sure as hell don't need them for Halo or Frogger 3D.

So why include instructions at all? With some obvious exceptions, I think the need for instructions simply points to design flaws. It's like having to explain a punch line. If you have to, you're doing something wrong.

Cross-town rival and all-around great guy David Thomas's latest blog post touches on this too, though he seems more against the idea of those useless "Notes" pages in the back of the instructions. Brian Crecente

Read the Manual

With a decision by the FTC looming, you can expect a return to the full-on hysterical coverage of the game by mainstream and industry press alike.

While I can't imagine Take-Two will suffer more than a slap on the wrist, the bigger picture implications of this decision could be quite frightening. If, for instance, the FTC decides that Take-Two was deceptive they can't help but also lay some major blame on the Electronic Software Ratings Board.

Sure, the reasoning will likely go, Take-Two bent/broke the rules, but why didn't the ratings board catch them? And that would play straight into the hands of Hillary Clinton, who last year called out the ESRB's rating system, saying it was broken.

Coincidentally, as we speak congress, languid in the stifling heat of a Washingtonian summer, is ambling its way through a congressional hearing on video games and ratings.

This, readers, is what you call the makings of a perfect storm. A storm that no amount of wining and dining can stop. Brian Crecente

Richard Castaldo, who was last paralyzed from the chest down after being shot in the arm, chest, back and abdomen by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold during their attack on Columbine High School, emailed me recently about our post on the Super Columbine Massacre RPG.

Castaldo, who hopes to one day work in the gaming industry as a sound designer, is a regular reader of Kotaku and wanted to let me know that he had downloaded the game and played it.

He was kind enough to agree to a short Q&A about his thoughts on the game.

What made you decide to download and play the game?
I saw it through Kotaku actually, and at first it just surprised me that someone would make a game like that. And I know most peoples knee-jerk reactions would probably be that it is horrible and disgusting and stuff like that. But, I just thought I should play it to see what it actually was. I didn't think it was necessarily bad, if i was done the right way, which at least part of it seemed to be.

What did you think of it?
It probably sounds a bit odd for someone like me to say, but I appreciate the fact at least to some degree that something like this was made. I think that at least it gets people talikng about Columbine in a unique perspective, which is probably a good thing. But that being said there are a lot of things that are har to play or watch. And it seems to partially glamorize what happened. It shows a stark-contrast between fantasy and real life in an interesting way.

I like the part in the game where if you go up to the water fountain theres a thing that comes up that explains that the water in denver is a little bit hard because it contains calcium and magnesium but is harmless. Answering the hypothetical question of "Was there something in the water, that caused this?" Clearly not, and the causes for this are not easily apparent.

Did the idea that you were playing as Klebold and Harris upset you?

It's all third person, so your kind of looking down on this thing as all of this horrible stuff is going on. It reminded me of the movie 'Elephant", because it showed a lot of stuff in cutscenes that they were doing that led up to that fateful day. It showed them doing a lot of stuff that supposedly influenced thei actions. TherLike it showed them being bullied, and how much they hated it. But, then the people they actually killed had nothing to do with that.

Do you think it glamorizes what happened at Columbine?

There is a part where after the character's representing the killers in the game die, and then the game shows an extenended real-life montage of what happened that day. And it shows their blood-soaked corpses, and isn't pretty. Which to me deglamorizes what they did. I've heard of some stories where some students try to make folk heroes out of these killers, which is very disgusting to me. I think people who have that mindset and then play this game and see that part it would make it real for them. As opposed to having this sort-of romanticized version that some people have.

But, at the same time there are some dialogue in the game that comes up after you kill the students that refers to you as being "brave boys", which i would hope was supposed to be ironic, because clearly what they did was not brave or heroic in anyway, it was quite the opposite. It has you killing students with absolutley no protection whatsoever. Which is what actually happened. So if the killers (or anyone else for that matter) thought that what they were doing was heroic in any way they were deeply fooling themselves. People ask me all the time, "Did you know them?" And my answer is of course no, i didn't. And, I didn't do a damn thing to either one of them. So, I think the game kinda highlights that. That there was no real rhyme or reason why specific people got killed.

Do you think the fact that it's a game trivializes the attack on the school?
I think that ultimatley a videogame is just another medium for artistic expression. But, you do end up killing literally hundres of representations of high- schoolers. But 'm not sure the ulitimate intention was to trivialize it. It seemed like the purpose was to expose people to what happened in a unique perspective. There are probably a lot of people that would find it and play it out of curiosity. And find out more about Columbine than they usually would have were it not in game form. And in this process learn that what they did was not glamorous in any way. There is a weird part after the school where you die, and then go to hell, which I suppose is appropriate. And it looks like that part kind of does make heroes out of them to some degree, because you're killing demons and such. Which is kind of an odd digreesion. I think its supposed to resemble the fact that they played violent games and such. Which is the primary audience of this game, people that like violent games. Which is why I like this game in a weird way, because if you are going to play games why not learn something important in the process? And in that process I think it might become apparent that what they did was not heroic in any way and shouln't be glamorized. But it is a mixed- message at best.

Does the game's use of low-res, 16-bit-era graphics make it easier to deal with?
That's the weirdest thing about it, that the graphics are so primitive by today's standards, but the subject matter is very serious. You play as these cartoonish little characters doing horrible things but the impact gets sort of lost afterawhile. Untill of course, you actually see what really happened, and it becomes real. Which I suppose was the point in making the game, to make people remember and also that if you were to glamorize this, you don't really understand what happened. I would be so bold as to say that the effect is very post-modern.

I understand you want to get into the video game business, what are you hoping to do?

Well, I know a quite a bit about sound and music. I have recorded and produced some bands, as well as my own stuff at my place And obviously I'm very interested in video games. So. I Have been trying to get an internship within the industry. I have a resume, and experience and all of that. I really enjoy the sound effects in games. And have made my own sound effects and incorporate them into some of my own music. When my old band was recording a demo here, I tweaked one of the guitar effects, and the guitarist said that it, "sounded like a videogame" so I guess that statement turned out to be prophetic.

How can people looking to talk to you about a job reach you?

I have a resume posted online at the blogger.com site.
I believe I could be a good addition to a team, and I'd be willing to start at the bottom.

Here's some meat:

For a game that should be extremely accessible, Katamari leaves even the most experienced gamer occasionally shaking the controller in frustration after they've been backed into a camera blind-spot and can't turn around quickly enough to figure out how to escape.

In terms of gameplay and approaching the industry from a unique perspective, Keita Takahashi can critique all he likes.

But in terms of control schemes, in two games he's consecutively proved he's one of the Revolution's least qualified critics.

You tell him, Aaron! "Naive pure wonderful and silly love" my ass!

The Revolution's Least Qualified Critic [Games First]

Things are really shaping up to make this one of the best or worst E3 in history. I say that with exactly one E3 under my belt, so I speak from experience. :)

Seriously, while Sony and Nintendo have the most to win or gain at this upcoming show, even Microsoft could have some major news hitting. Let's go through the rumors and possibilities.

Nintendo
The Revolution is going to be the big show stopper for Nintendo and while the buzz has been rather favorable, the chief attraction, it seems, is that fancy remote control-looking joystick doohickey. I've seen it described as the next mouse or D-pad, but I've also heard people worry that it will be another Power Glove or lament that it will lead to the dumbing down of games.

This first chance for the world's game journalists to go hands-on with the controller will go a long way in making or breaking its future and where goes the Revolution Controller goes the Revolution.

I think Nintendo will also likely discuss the DS Lite and when it will be hitting the U.S. and Europe, but as much as I am anticipating the portable, I don't expect it to make much of a splash compared to the rest of the week's news.

Sony
With the past few months of hijinks, jitters and double-takes, Sony seems about ready to have a bit of a corporate nervous breakdown. The company that many thought had the strongest hold on the industry is suddenly being looked at very closely by investors and analysts. Just how are they going to both price the PS3 in a way to make it attractive to consumers, but also so that it doesn't make them hemorrhage gallons of cash with each sale?

The Blu-ray technology seems to be at the heart of the problem. Some have said that Sony tying a format war to their next console was not the brightest move. To top it off, recent Playstation Portable news shows that at least the device's multimedia capabilities are not doing nearly as well as Sony had hoped. Much of Hollywood has staggered away from the train wreck that was the UMD movie format. Recent reports have Sony execs going door to door trying to convince studios to return to the format. The ace up Sony's sleeve? They say they're working on a way of allowing UMD movies to be played on a regular TV. The other rumor is that a new PSP might be announced.

Of all the three companies doing their next-gen song and dance at the big show, I think Sony likely has the most to lose. They come into the show as the proud creator of the strongest current generation console in the world; this show will decide where their next-gen console will place them.

Microsoft
Having gotten their next-gen console launch off the ground, sort of, Microsoft is in the enviable position of being able to sit back and watch how their competitors try to catch-up with their head-start. But I doubt that is what they will do.

It's likely that the big M is going to try and do some maneuvering to reinvigerate the Xbox 360 just as the Revolution and PS3 come to the market. One way they will do this will certainly be through those mysterious 15 titles set to hit through the rest of the year. Will there be another Halo type title? Will there be another Halo? It's hard to say, though it sounds like Gears of War is being positioned to lead the charge.

Another big push will likely be the HD-DVD add-on. If Microsoft can really offer this bad boy up for the rumored $100 and it has the suspected HDMI connection built into it, it could become quite a major draw for Msoft's console.

With the next-gen console war fully engaged, you'd think that Microsoft would have their hands full. But what about portable gaming? They're the only company so far to not enter the fray. One rumor has it that the company will unveil a portable gaming device at E306. I'm on the fance about the possibilities, but if it does happen I think it will be a big mistake for a company just starting to get a leg up in the console wars. Everyone knows a one front war is far better than a two front one.

OK, your turn. What do you expect to come out of the big three at E3?

Dan Matthews, one of the owners of the Girls of CS, emailed me shortly after we wrote about his clan dedicated to tearing down sterotypes through gaming and nude pinups. Matthew asked is he could respond to the post and I invited him to write up a full reply for posting on Kotaku.

Today he emailed to say he decided to just post his reply over on Wonderland, where dear Alice had originally unearthed the GoCS site.

I've posted his in-forum reply on the jump, but I want to add that one of the female gamers also emailed to point out that female gamers do exist. I think we all have that figured out, so posing in the nude, while edifying, may not be exactly necessary as proof.

I don't mind that a site like GirlsofCS exists, but I do mind that they try to hide behind the whole "tearing down stereotypes." If you want to have hot gamers post nude on the site, go for it, just don't tell us it's about empowerment.

To anyone interested,

I am one of the owners and founders of both LANFusion and GirlsofCS. I have read some very interesting observations on both this blog, and the other blog listed above. I'm going to take this opportunity to try to give you all insight into why we're doing this and what we hope to accomplish. I probably won't respond again because my time is completely absorbed by running my businesses.

For starters, this website is owned and operated by three of us. We're all guys and our ages are 21, 24 and 25. We don't have a lot of money and there are no corporate backers. Everything we do is done by and paid for by the three of us. We run all of our businesses out of our home.

We started LANFusion in January of 2005 because we were unhappy with the communities and servers that already existed in CS:S. Our servers quickly grew and are some of the most popular CS:S servers in the country. We set out to build a more mature and friendly environment for fellow gamers, a task which has been a constant struggle. One of the things we noticed as our servers grew was that every time a girl came to play, people would give them all sorts of shit. Stereotypes, such as "girls don't play video games unless they're fat ugly losers" and "Girls don't play, it must be a 12 year old boy!!!11!11!" appeared very quickly. We came up with a way that we might be able to reverse the trend.

We figured that community would be the key to reversing the stereotypes. Female gamers aren't real to the people making these statements. I've seen some of these sentiments echoed in the comments on both blogs. We believe that we can alter these stereotypes by showing everyone the reality. They will come to the site, most likely, to for naked girls. That is actually part of the plan. Our goal at that point is to get them to stay because they see that the models are real people. Upon talking to the models, they actually self-alter their perception. All of a sudden it's reality that real girls do play video games. Furthermore, a good number of girls who play these games are hot and aren't idiots. They're people that the member can see themselves being with and being friends with. Reach enough people like this and all of a sudden the perception has been changed.

Along the way, I expect that there will be flaming and disagreement. Those are the people who don't have to participate, and probably won't. I can't change people's views, but I can put a situation in front of them that forces them to unconsciously reconsider those views.

The obvious next conclusion, as many of you have pointed out, is that we will create another stereotype. It will take the form of "all girls who play games are cam whores". There are a number of problems that come along with this statement. The perception that women who post nude are whores is outdated and hypocritical. Men can get nude without any sort of public reaction, but when a woman does it, she's a whore. This is a perception that comes out of a number of different things. We've all been taught our whole lives that our bodies are something to be ashamed of. Women get the worst of this idiocy.

The USA is very primitive when it comes to things like this. In a lot of other countries around the world, nudity is not automatically shunned. We happen to be way behind the curve here in the US. Nudity is only negative when it objectifies the subject, in my opinion. What constitutes objectification is something that is defined on both a societal and personal level. The actual definition of objectify is below (found at http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objectification):

ob jec ti fy - 1. To present or regard as an object: "Because we have objectified animals, we are able to treat them impersonally" (Barry Lopez).

Everyone involved with this project, from the three of us who own the business to the models who are posing, agree that this website is not objectifying the models. We encourage and insist in the contract they sign that the models be an active part of the community. We also screen each model until we are comfortable both that they are part of this because of the idea, not the money they receive, and that they have no problems with having nude images of themselves posted on a website. If the potential model likes the idea, but does not want to be naked for the site, we invite them to be part of the community anyway. If this is objectification, then it is objectification by the user, not the website. As I said above, I cannot force someone to change their opinion, only present them with a situation that forces them to reconsider it.

I invite you all to check out the website once it launches and see what we're about before deciding that what we're doing is a bad thing. We're currently in beta while we upgrade features of the site and get more models. The myspace page is run by one of our main models, Hillary, and is designed to spread the word and find women who are interested in being a part of the site. Once we feel that we've built the community we're trying to create, the site will launch fully.

I hope this has helped clarify what we're doing to all of you. I completely respect your right to disagree with anything that I've written. Only conversation can change the reality of our individual societies and world.

Girl Gamers in the nuddy? [Wonderland]

And for a game to score the unspeakable Valhalla of game-pub validation, the 10, it had better be all things to all people while slicing, dicing, and julienne-ing the fuck out of everything, including that stuff that Zorkian BAR BAR is made out of.

Man, I love dropping obscure references, but going from Valhalla to Zorkian BAR BAR via Ron Popeil left me with a serious inner-ear disorder.

The Ramifications of a '10' [Next Generation]

Business Week points to Spore as EA's possible salvation from franchise glut. But Spore is just the beginning, according to the article:

EA's ambitious goal is to create more such innovative, internally developed games while lessening the company's dependence on professional sports and Hollywood movie franchises.

I couldn't agree more. I know big companies like EA have it in them, they've just gotten too comfortable and complacent. I was talking to a insider at one of the more successful publishers out there recently about this.

We were talking about a post I had written about the need for his company to be more innovative. He said that it wasn't the duty of a developer to make innovative games, their duty is to make games they like.

His argument, I believe, is that like works of art, game creation should come from the heart.

While I see what he's saying, I do think that developers have some responsibility to the industry as a whole and gamers in particular to create things outside their zone of comfort.

I see game development more akin to movie making than painting or sculpting. And as with Hollywood, gaming needs to have a vibrant indie scene to thrive.

Can Electronic Arts [Cathode Tan]

We're not afraid to post dissenting opinions, so be warned that Chick doesn't find Au's point to be particularly salient or elegant. On the other hand, he has some interesting thoughts on the nature of writing previews and getting sucked into the still-hypothetical world of the game designer. How does he know? He once proclaimed Trespasser the second coming of Christ. Here's what Chick has to say about that:

I remember being enamoured of a game called Trespasser many years ago.

Until it came out.

But until then, boy, was I enthusiastic listening to Seamus Blackley and Brady Bell tell me all about what it was going to be like. I could probably cull some excerpts from those previews and we could all enjoy a good laugh. I might even be eligible for some sort of special recognition from Wagner James Au's Preview Ho Awards.

He goes on to offer some advice to gaming journalists on how to write good previews. Definitely worth reading as a sometimes opposing but sometimes complimenting perspective on Au's editorial.

Pure Au [Quarter to Three]

Sony's released a criminally minute amount of