Random video game thoughts

[MaxPower]

Finally playing Uncharted 2. Pretty awesome game, love the smart ass comments during game play and the long cut scenes I actually really enjoy. I've heard they annoyed some people.

[Guest]

If this story doesn't effect you, you have no soul.

[KnightWing]

Wow, that's... that's pretty amazing.

[James D.]

That was really, REALLY awesome.

[KnightWing]

I had a similar thing happen when my dad died. It's always cool to find those things that you never knew your loved ones did for you.

[Molly]

Heartwrenching.

[Venneh]

...Yeah, I'm going to go sob a bit now.

[dc20willsave]

I saw that a while back and it made me sob and call my mom then also.

[Guest]

-- From 1up.com

It only took five years, but the debate with Roger Ebert is now over: the highly regarded film critic finally rescinded his assertion that videogames could not be art. In a post on his blog today, Ebert, while still maintaining his personal stance on games, admitted that he was ill-equipped to make such a statement and shouldn't have.

"I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place," he admitted. "I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself."

And while most gamers had long dismissed his comments as trolling from an out of touch old man who was picking on a subject he couldn't (or was to afraid to) understand -- this comes as major victory to many who struggled with the notion that someone they so admired, and someone who in his work had proven to be very open minded, could have held such an irresponsible view on a medium they so love.

What infuriated gamers most, however, was that Ebert made these statements without ever playing games himself. Ebert went on in his blog about how he'd been encouraged to play games by others many times -- he talked about how thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago offered to send a selection of games and a fellow movie critic offered to loan him a PS3 -- but flat out revealed his ongoing stubbornness to give them a chance. "(1) I had no desire to spend 20 to 40 hours (or less) playing a video game. (2) Whether I admired it or not, I was in a lose-lose position, and (3) I was too damned bull-headed."

So Ebert, while never actually having played games, made gross generalizations about them. "My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds," he admitted. "What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art."

Another thing that angered gamers about Ebert's past comments were that he never actually supplied the definition of art that games were supposedly incapable of achieving, which he now also attempted to resolve. "I thought about those works of Art that had moved me most deeply. I found most of them had one thing in common: Through them I was able to learn more about the experiences, thoughts and feelings of other people. My empathy was engaged. I could use such lessons to apply to myself and my relationships with others. They could instruct me about life, love, disease and death, principles and morality, humor and tragedy. They might make my life more deep, full and rewarding." But as he also pointed out, even these requirements weren't accurate, as he couldn't say how music performed those functions.

"I concluded without a definition that satisfied me," he admitted. "I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art. I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature. I don't know if they can be inspired to transcend themselves. Perhaps they can. How can I say? I may be wrong. but if 'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so. I have books to read and movies to see. I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place."

Yes Roger, you were. But thanks for finally owning up to it.

You can read the entire post on Roger Ebert's blog.

[Guest]

Game Informer's website is reporting in their Rumor Mill that Namco vs Capcom, as hinted by the on-stage skit performed by the producers of Street Fighter 4 and Tekken 6, is not only real, but it might be two separate games.

"According to our sources, Capcom will make a Capcom vs. Namco game using the Street Fighter IV engine and Namco Bandai will create Namco vs. Capcom with the Tekken 6 engine. This means that each game will play and look like whichever company is creating it. Think hadoukens, Ultra Combos, and 2.5D presentation on the Capcom side and three dimensional movement, in-depth move lists, and most likely, a playable panda on the Namco side. Ono is rumored to produce the Capcom game, and we're guessing that Harada will handle the Namco end of things."

As always, this is rumor level stuff and should be taken as such. Could we expect an announcement as soon as Comic Con this week? Namco and Capcom did team up once before, making "Namco X (Cross) Capcom". While that game was a strategy RPG, it does show the two companies are more than willing to mish-mash their intellectual properties. Also keep in mind that part of the Capcom and SNK deal of the past was games made by both companies.

[Aaron Robinson]

[KnightWing]

Awesome.

[Guest]

[James D.]

Just a few things I've encountered in Dante's Inferno:

--Cleopatra pulling unbaptized babies with scythes for hands out of her nipples

--Prostitutes with tentacles that shoot out of their vaginas.

--The aforementioned prostitutes entered through a vaginal opening on a wall inside a "tornado of lust"

--Hideous fat guys that barf excrement out at you in the Gluttony circle of Hell

[James D.]

I read *shudder* a GamePro magazine at work today only because they had an exclusive on Alice: Madness Returns, the long-awaited sequel to American McGee's Alice. It looks AWESOME. I cannot fucking wait for this to come out.

[Guest]

I read *shudder* a GamePro magazine at work today only because they had an exclusive on Alice: Madness Returns, the long-awaited sequel to American McGee's Alice. It looks AWESOME. I cannot fucking wait for this to come out.

[James D.]

Apparently, the game will take place between London and Wonderland. The plot revolves around Alice trying to find out who or what really caused the fire that killed her parents. And her mental state is deteriorating rapidly, causing Wonderland to be even worse than the first time.

[JackFetch]

I like the liberal use of duct tape in Dead Rising 2.

[Guest]

Ladies and gentlemen, the "future" of gaming.

[ShaunKL]

Ah the future of gaming, now including free Star Wars Kid with every purchase.

[KnightWing]

The guys on G4's Feedback were talking about something recently:

The idea of a "casual" gamer implies that they are not the type of consumer that can be relied upon to consistently spend money on high-priced software. Also, once a "casual" gamer becomes the type of person who will consistently spend money on those products, they then become "core" gamers.

So, essentially, if game companies keep relying on the "casual" market, they'll only be hurting themselves in the end because they'll be ignoring the people that will actually give them money.

[Guest]

It's an extremely flawed argument.

Core gamers don't need to be marketed to. They're already buying games.

The casual audience are the focus because their business isn't a lock. Turning them into core consumers does that.

[KnightWing]

It's not about marketing, it's about actual support.

The idea was mostly centered on Nintendo, and the way they've been (somewhat) ignoring the hardcore gaming crowd, only releasing two or three core games per year.

You can keep bringing in new consumers, but then you've got to keep them afterward.

[Guest]

It's not about marketing, it's about actual support.

The idea was mostly centered on Nintendo, and the way they've been (somewhat) ignoring the hardcore gaming crowd, only releasing two or three core games per year.

You can keep bringing in new consumers, but then you've got to keep them afterward.

You really don't though, is the point. The core gamers that had nothing but Zelda for a year on the N64 are the same ones that had nothing but Zelda for a year on the Wii.

Even ignoring that a lot of core gamers have multiple systems, Nintendo has such a brand loyalty that they can release thousands of Wii shovelware titles and win everyone back with a new Mario game.

[KnightWing]

Lemme rephrase that:

You've got to keep supporting them. The N64 lost out to the Playstation partially because of its lack of constant software; same with the GameCube.

If they want to stay ahead in sales, they should make more games that appeal to the core.