Guns don't kill people, violent games do

Have you ever wanted to stab a man? Maybe you’re not a blade sort of fella; perhaps gunning down a group of helpless pedestrians on your nearest pavement just because you can, just to see quite what this murder lark is all about, before you hurtle your Ferrari, new-car smell still lingering, into the nearest wall/river/yawning chasm, is more your thing.

Probably not, though. Most of us would be horrified at the thought of such monstrous, inhuman behaviour. It just wouldn’t be polite, frankly. But more importantly, because we know there are consequences. That man had a wife and kids. He had dreams, ambitions. He was scared of bees. Similarly, that Ferrari took a group of underpaid Italians weeks to watch the automated machines to make, cog by cog. Wrecking it would be like licking the Mona Lisa clean – tragic, inexplicable and pointless.

That’s real life, though. What about in games?

Games are not real. Regardless of what Jack Thompson (that guy who hates GTA), Barack Obama or the BBFC (those stiffs who slap 18 symbols on our games here in the UK, along with PEGI) might have told you, the guy you just ran over on Liberty City’s grimy ‘street’ isn’t real. He didn’t have thoughts, feelings or a family to go home to. In fact, he’s the same guy who was in the gun shop a minute ago – and I swear he just came back from the dead and is now walking around the park without a care. In short, he was a just a bunch of polygons, duplicated ad nauseam. It doesn’t matter that you just checked your tyre pressure on his legs.

But that’s not how the government, angry mothers and the media seem to see it. Games, to these groups, are sick, depraved filth causing our youth to turn into violent yobs, stabbing everyone they meet for kicks because they saw it in Call of Auto 6: Generic Subtitle.

It is, quite simply, ridiculous. As a society, we’ve gone – in just a few hundred years – from ‘children’ marrying at 10, being industrial slaves by 12 and fighting wars by 16, to a bunch of mollycoddled fatties who might be influenced by the ‘horrific’ scenes in the latest shooter – so terrible that they’ll obviously cause an entire generation to run into the streets and overthrow society one pistol round at a time. By that logic, the 1980s should have seen a sudden uprising of sickening turtle stampings, ghost persecution and Italian u-bend menders eyeing apes suspiciously.  Violent games don’t modify children’s behaviour any more than watching darts makes us all fat beer drinkers.

Games are an arena in which we can live out our wildest fantasies; driving obscene race cars, saving the hot girl and shooting the bad guy. But they are also – and this is something that some people will simply never grasp – consequence-free simulations in which we can let our darkest curiosities play out; stealing a cop car, causing a 10-car pile-up and yes, mowing down every Tom, Dick and Harry in the latest ‘sandbox’ city just because.

After all, better that than on a real street; with real people, with real families. We can’t hide away our healthy desires any easier than we can our slightly psychotic thoughts (“let’s see what happens when I minigun that helicopter”), but we can at least have a place that we can explore both sides of our psyche without causing problems.

After all, parents shouldn’t be letting their children play these games anyway. They’re sick, violent, and they’re all mine. The difference is – I’m over 18. I understand where gaming ends and reality begins. Parents need to understand that they have the responsibility to protect their kids until they are old enough to realise, too – whatever age that is in each case.

Now pass me the pad; I’ve got this sick idea.

The Art of Gaming

Games can’t be art, apparently.

Well, that’s if you believe Mr. Roger Ebert, who argues this very point in a recent blog post;

 “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome... an immersive game without points or rules ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”

Tosh. Ebert would not be the first to assume that he had the medium of games figured out. Think of some of the stereotypical images of ‘gaming’ which many see as typical of games – sweaty teens turning the air blue, red in the face, pulling the trigger until they black out from malnutrition. Unwashed football fans ripping one other’s personal pride to shreds in Fifa 10. Even happy families playing Wii Sports golf, rosier though the image is, are a far cry from achieving anything ‘artistic’ when they play.

Well, that’s all true. In the same way that much ‘art’ is unfettered nonsense (cross-sections of Sharks, or diamond-encrusted skulls are not art), or many films are less about serious cinematic issues (Harry Brown, Billy Elliot) and more about inane fart jokes and boobs (American Pie, Road Trip), many games are not about serious artistic direction, but simply exist for the purpose of having fun.

This is where Mr.Ebert, I think, is getting confused. Because in the games industry, for every Modern Warfare 2 there is a serious, art-driven title given much less media exposure.

Games can be art despite also serving a purpose. A painting on a canvas is pretty straightforward – some paint, an image and perhaps a subtle dig at society. A film, similarly, can go about creating whatever representations it wants, because all you need to do is watch. A game, as Mr. Ebert quite rightly points out, carries a goal, requires an input. It’s something you can win or lose.

But that doesn’t mean that they can’t be artistic, or that they can’t carry within them a sense of character, of commentary, of inherent beauty. Think about Okami, the criminally-overlooked Zelda-alike which hit PS2 late in its life, and was more recently (excellently...) ported to Wii. The game had a goal; to push through the story, beat enemies and kill bosses. But the execution of that goal, and of individual aims within that game, was nothing short of an artistic masterpiece. At the press of a button, you could call upon a ‘Celestial Brush’, turning the very environment around you into your canvas. Drawing a line across an enemy in ink would do damage, and encircling a dead tree would rejuvenate it, instantly, restoring rich watercolours to its immediate surroundings. Not only did this form a sense of creating art whilst conquering your goals, but the very presentation of each environment was artistic in itself. The graphics were lusciously poured onto a sort of ‘rice paper’ effect, every tree had a hand-drawn look, every enemy seemed to move as if a painting had come to life. Okami is art.

Heavy Rain is another prime example of a different sort of art. Sony’s hard-hitting, gritty ‘interactive movie’ dealt with serious issues, placed the player in difficult moral dilemmas, and did so whilst maintaining an air of mature realism. Its story-telling was at times clunky, the controls could be chaotic, but as a stab at genuine art, serious narrative and exposition, it showed how far gaming has come.

These are perfect examples of games which can be artistic in spite of the need to ‘win’, or to achieve something. But there are a whole host of games which require no such thing. There are games which outright encourage artistic expression and individuality.

You may not have heard of Korg-10 DS. It’s a ‘game’ which allows the player to create music, a sort of virtual synthesiser inside a DS cartridge. Its bleak black and white presentation, low-fi feel and niche appeal didn’t translate into the hottest sales, but it’s a very versatile tool for music creation. This month, a trio of teens took to the stage in Germany to perform a gig using only their Korgs and DSes.

Similarly, Flipnote Studio, the free DSiWare application, is art. It is actually art. The whole ‘game’ involves drawing a series of slides by hand with the stylus and replaying them to create miniature, amateur movies to upload online. Aardman animations, the studio behind Wallace & Gromit and Chicken Run, have already created several superb Flipnote animations to help publicise the ‘game’.

Ever since Mario Paint on SNES, gamers have been encouraged to get creative. Even today, in the likes of Littlebigplanet, Drawn to Life or the upcoming Modnation Racers, games have allowed people to express themselves.

Whether that expression is by games developers, creating environments which carry the creativity and beauty of a modern masterpiece, creating narratives which ask the player serious questions, or it comes from gamers themselves, constructing their own artistic creations, the truth is that gaming has never been closer to art than it is today.

Just look at Wipeout HD. What a masterpiece.

360 = Going Round in Circles

Failure. It’s not a concept that any company wants to have associated with their products. Just look at the furore surrounding Toyota’s recent accelerator-happy death traps on wheels. Turns out, people like it when their cars stop when they tell them to.

Similarly, people like it when their games consoles work. I was very unhappy, as a young ‘un, when I managed to spill strawberry milk into my Gameboy Colour, promptly and unceremoniously killing it. I was equally unhappy when my PS2 decided it preferred to produce disk read errors rather than operate on top of my booming soundsystem’s basslines.

But those were my fault. The Xbox 360, however, is another matter. The 360 is a better investment in the long term as a doorstop than it is a games console. They simply don’t stop breaking.

This is the part where I’d usually tell you about the mate of my mate’s who’s been through eight 360s in four years (true story). But there’s no need. Because as it turns out, the recent results of a survey of gamers  by No Fuss Reviews.com has resulted in some shocking evidence.

Of the 500,000 surveyed, the number of Wii owners that needed a repair is an impressive ‘less than 1%”. For PS3 players, that number jumps to a worrying 8% (that’s 800 people in every 10,000 consoles – far too many). But the 360? A staggering 42%. That’s almost half of all 360 owners. For ‘3 repairs or more’, the number is still an unbelievable 39%.

39%!? So, over a third of Xbox 360 buyers will need to have their console repaired three times or more? It's not even five years old yet. Compare that to the PS3’s 2% or the Wii’s 0% and the figure seems inexcusable.

These kind of failure rates are simply unfathomably huge. When you consider that the 360 has sold nearly 40 million, it must be considered that a shade over 16 million of those will break. That’s a lot of unhappy customers.

Surely, then, the Xbox 360 is the Toyota of the games industry – except Microsoft haven’t reacted to try and rectify the situation, haven’t apologised and, er, haven’t even fixed it yet, as new 360s still seem to die as easily as the old models did. Great.

Obviously, I’m not having a go at anyone who did buy a 360 – and there are a lot of people out there, more than the PS3 – but you have to wonder whether those customers would have stumped up a bit more cash for Sony’s offering if they knew about the appalling failure rates of Microsoft’s console. It’s a great console because of its wealth of excellent exclusives – Halo, Forza and Gears of War, to name just a few – and its frankly brilliant online service and achievement system. But technically speaking, it’s not a great console. It’s a dreadful, rushed, noisy, ugly beige box prone to random death at any moment, made viable as a purchase only for the efforts of Microsoft and other developers in furnishing the console with a ton of games and features at an affordable price. If the fragile Xbox had to get by with PS3’s early range of games and online services, it would be long dead.

People should not have to put up with it, though. Sony’s system has caught up in most regards, and excels in some others (Hello, Uncharted 2). Microsoft should be made to pay the price for rushing an untested system to market knowing they’d just have to fix them all later.

I love gaming, and that’s why I can’t love Microsoft. Go and make a console that I can actually game on, consistently, and I'll buy it instantly. But I can't accept the inherent faults built into half of all Xboxes, and other gamers shouldn't have to, either.

Let's Get Critical

Games reviewers. Both our best friends and our worst enemies. When they slap a high score on that title we’ve already thrown down a hefty pre-order price for, we’re quick to sing their praises. When they cruelly slam our most anticipated titles with a witheringly low ‘6/10’, or some such figure, the conspiracy theories fly. ‘They’re Xbox fanboys!’, ‘they hate this genre’, ‘they’ve been bribed by Sony/Microsoft/etc.’
Our relationship with reviewers, then, is truly Marmite – which is to say, very love/hate. But is it just our crazed internet personae being baited into knee-jerk reactions online, or is does the system itself need to come under review? I certainly think so.

Games, it has often been argued, are an entertainment media on the up. What was once seen as a childish or nerdy pastime (though the medium still struggles with such labels) is more commonly being seen as a serious form of escapism, culture and very occasionally, art. Titles like the recently-released Heavy Rain (pictured) seek to show a more considered, mature side to gaming.

Not the big guns, big swears, bigger 18-symbol kind of mature, but the kind which focuses on strong narrative and adult dialogue. Games like Brain Training and Wii Fit have taken a stab at gaming maturity in an entirely different, but arguably even more successful way, taking a ‘kiddy’ pastime and allowing adults to utilise it to solve deadly serious adult problems like weight gain and senility.

It is time, now more so than ever, that we treated the medium seriously. Which is to say, critically. We cannot allow games to have an easy ride, especially when the standards of production values, graphics and even writing have never been higher. It’s time we got critical.

Other serious forms of entertainment are regularly given a rough ride, panned and pulled apart for every tiny flaw. Whilst I’m not arguing that every film is minced by critics, nor that every game should be, either, it is only by calmly acknowledging a game’s drawbacks can we improve for the future. If games reviewers simply foam at the mouth every time a good game comes along, we’ll never be able to tell what’s truly hot and what’s just hyperbole.Case in point: Grand Theft Auto: IV. The darling of reviewers this generation, garnering a 98/100 average on reviews-aggregate website, Metacritic.

Hold on. 98/100? On average? It doesn’t take a mathematical whiz-kid to work out that 98 on average is an absurdly-inflated score. Similarly, Super Mario Galaxy, Nintendo’s biggest critical success on 97/100 average, is obviously over-scored.
As a regular reader of gaming reviews, it is quite difficult to accept. SMG is possibly Nintendo’s single greatest achievement, potentially besting Super Mario 64 or The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. In my humble opinion, it does. But I still don’t think it deserves a 97/100 average. I don’t think any game does.
Film reviews are more considered. You get the feeling that the critics aren’t simply raving fanboys, rabid hype-junkies or silly company-politics obsessives.

 For example, Avatar, now the most successful film ever, garnered a very impressive 84 on Metacritic.That's a hugely positive review score, and any game developer should feel proud to achieve such a stunning critical reception for their title. Except, that’s not quite the case. For games reviewers have become accustomed to only using the top end of the scale.

 As a result, a 6/10 seems ‘a poor score’ when in reality it’s above-average. Similarly, 9/10s and 10/10s are dished out like Guitar Hero instalments, meaning it’s difficult to distinguish a truly outstanding title from a pretty good game. Now, games reviewers have created a vicious cycle in which only the highest scores will do. Regularly, reviewers point out real flaws in a title whilst going on to award it a 10/10 regardless.

Some publications do things differently, and get a fierce kicking from all corners of the internet as a result. EDGE magazine, for example, recently handed Final Fantasy XIII a 5/10. They argued that the game was technically accomplished but far too linear. Fair complaints, if we take linearity to be a bad thing (but that’s for another day...). A 5/10 is not a bad score, it is average. A game doesn’t need serious flaws to score in the middle of the scale, just be a game which is not particularly outstanding. Many forum-dwellers quickly pointed out that ‘an EDGE 5 is a normal 7 or even 8’.
Sadly, they’re right. Games reviewers and the industry at large needs to realise that high scores should be the exception, not the rule, if gaming as a medium is to truly be respected.

Don’t agree? Good. We need to be more critical.

Pre-OWNED

You. Yes, you. You’re a thief. Well, you’re a gamer, and that means that you probably have some pre-owned titles on your shelf. And according to Sony, that makes you a common crook, unworthy of fully-featured games because you’re too tight to cough up for a sealed copy.

We’ve learned that Sony thinks this way from their recent treatment of Socom: Fireteam Bravo 3 gamers. Apparently, if you buy this PSP game second-hand, you can’t go online unless you stump up $20.

Now, I’m all for measures to stop piracy. Sony have indeed confirmed that illegal downloaders of this title won’t be able to access the online features at all, for any sum of money (other than the price of an actual copy of the game...). This is a good thing.

It is crucial that companies take measures to stamp out piracy, and more importantly, to establish that it is both illegal and damaging to the industry. But should second-hand game owners really be lumped in with the download bandits and punished, too?

Well, no. Despite what the likes of Sony, Microsoft or Activision may tell you, the second hand games industry is actually very beneficial. While it is certainly true that fresh copies are sometimes overlooked for pre-owned games which are $5 cheaper, it is also true that the availability of quick trade-ins fuels the new game market. If all stores stopped accepting trade-ins tomorrow, you could expect to see a huge downturn in new game sales by next week. One of the reasons that downloadable games haven’t yet quite taken off is because you’re stuck with a duff title if you make the wrong choice.

Take away the trade-in schemes and you add a sense of caution and slight uncertainty to every gamer’s next purchase. All but the most established franchises would see sales drops, and this would only further stifle an industry not exactly renowned for breeding innovation in recent years. After all, why buy an interesting new IP when you won’t be able to trade it in if you don’t like it?

Single player games would be hindered, too. There’s less incentive to buy a six-twelve hour offline adventure if you can’t trade it in when you’re finished. Slapping some wonky online multiplayer onto every title is not exactly the brave new world I want to embrace either, and will only serve to undermine the single-player experience if developers are forced to divert their attention.

All in all, the second-hand games industry was created out of necessity. It is there to help cash-strapped gamers fund new purchases. It’s there to give niche franchises a chance to gain momentum (after all, you might try a quirky-looking game on impulse if it’s only $10, and you might buy the full-priced sequel as a result). It’s there because we need it to be. No-one is suggesting that the second-hand book market, or the pre-owned car market, is akin to piracy. They’d be laughed out of the country.

It’s time, then, that the games industry treated the second-hand market with a little respect and realised that it does more good than harm for gamers and developers alike. Sony’s ruthless strategy of charging pre-owned buyers for online access is simply greedy and unfair.

Pre-owned buyers are legitimate purchasers, too, and if games companies want to pursue anyone, it should be the greedy stores which perpetuate the second-hand market, making miniscule offers to gamers and slapping second-hand titles on shelves at huge mark-ups. After all, games companies do own the rights to their titles, and if they stipulated that titles require a small percentage of sell-on money if they are re-sold, the stores would have little choice but to stock them and pay the compensation. After all, if Sony required ‘sell-on contracts’ with stores before allowing them to stock Gran Turismo 5, what choice would they have? This would be the fairest compromise for all.

Fairer than shutting out and victimising second-hand buyers, that’s for sure.

When The Music Stops

Plastic-axe shredders are a fickle bunch, it seems. No sooner than the Guitar Hero franchise exploded into multi-billion dollar sales, churning out titles quicker than Nintendo re-releases portables had the rhythm action genre suddenly died, like an exploding star that fell in on itself.

Harmonix this week announced that Viacom, one of their complex-legal-license-partners for Rock Band, had asked for a refund ofa bit of bonus money they’d handed them. $200 million, if you want the precise figure. The reason? Flat-lining music game sales that had seen RB’s revenues plummet.

This is obviously a problem, not least for the company being asked to repay almost a quarter of a billion dollars that were bonuses – not loans or agreed finance – but for the games industry as a whole. The games economy is too reactionary, throwing money at anything that looks popular then quickly cutting off the cash supply when players have lost interest.

Case in point: ‘casual’ Wii titles. There are literally hundreds of the things. Baby Shopper Party, Family Potato Farmer, Dress My Kitty and such drivel. Not even I'm sure if those are real or I just made them up. It's gotten that bad. So bad, in fact, that last month, Best Buy, a large American department store, announced they’d no longer stock ‘casual’ or ‘mini-game’ titles. The market, it’s clear, has become oversaturated.The games economy simply isn’t set up to take the kind of hits that result from these sudden changes of plans. Activision blew, it’s rumoured, over $100 million on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Luckily, the game shifted ten million copies a second, roughly, but imagine if it hadn’t. Imagine if the games-playing populace had already moved on to the ‘next big thing’? Only a couple of years ago, Halo was the shooter of choice. Stretching back a couple of decades, the likes of Doom and Quake were the top trigger-happy titles.

Times change fast, and every shift only hurts the industry when the big guns and the little guys bet on their game making big bucks and lose. Activision will undoubtedly give Modern Warfare 3 an even bigger budget, and it may well pay off, but if gamers have moved on by 2011, they’ll be in big trouble.

 It looks highly doubtful that Final Fantasy XIII, out next month, will recover the multi-multi-million dollar development costs from the four years it took to make, what with the slightly cold reception it's received from its initial reviews.

The games industry, then, needs to calm down and get better at predicting the tastes of tomorrow rather than aping the top titles of yesterday. Brain Training clones soon saw that market stagnate, and the landslide of shooters we’ll see over the next two years may see the same thing happen to the FPS genre – MAG, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, MW3, New Call of Duty Spinoff, Killzone 3, Spec-Ops: The Line.The list goes on and on. If racing, or action titles (like Uncharted 2 and Assasin’s Creed II) become more popular, for example, all those FPS developers will just be shooting themselves in the foot.

As with the fall in popularity that rhythm action games have suffered, no doubt due to the sheer volume of plastic-banding titles released recently (GH:Metallica, GH: Greatest Hits, GH: World Tour, GH:5,GH: Van Halen, Band Hero, Rock Band: The Beatles...), if the gunfire ceases, it sure won’t be pretty. Games developers need to learn the Guitar Hero lesson before it’s too late.

Why Nintendo's Next Console isn't DS2

Rumours. You have to love ‘em. From Rockstar’s gentle teasing in GTA game manuals to the dark-room-dwelling crackpots who spew spurious nonsense because they know someone who knew a guy who passed Microsoft's headquarters once, the games industry is built as much on rumours as it is on actual announcements.

Which is why the recent 'New Nintendo Platform' leak is such big news. Yes, it may well be a load of tosh perpetrated by bored geeks, but - as is so often the case in an industry brimming with speculation and quieted whispers - we might just be on to something here.

DS2 is most people's first guess. It's not a bad one either. The original handheld released in 2005, making this its fifth year, and the thing's already seen three iterations - four if you count the DSi on steroids that is the XL. In normal videogame tradition, this means that the game is nearly up for the creaky old handheld, especially if the rumblings of a Sony PSP2 are to be believed. Nintendo don't want to kill DS sales, which are still absurdly strong, but they don't want to be left behind, either. And then there’s Apple’s iPhone and iPad.

Falling by the technological wayside is really the main issue. Nintendo aren't going for graphical clout this generation, as we all know. But a DS would surely be shamed by a PSP2, especially if the latter throws in a touch screen and motion sensors for good measure. And the iPhone is already cutting sharply into Nintendo’s target demographic.

But Nintendo will release a Wii HD instead, except with a catchier title. Why? Well, the Wii is in a similar predicament. Increasingly ignored by third-party devs at a time when HDTV adoption is skyrocketing, the little white box is starting to show its age. Nintendo won't want to stilt Wii sales but they won't want Microsoft's Xbox 360 or Sony's resurgent PS3 to steal its thunder, either. In fact, when Xbox 360 gets its controller-free camera, Natal, and PS3 gets Wiimote-alikes this year in the form of its new ‘Arc’ controllers, the Wii will face its sternest test yet.

Going HD would go some way to drawing the three systems onto a level playing field once Wii loses its greatest advantage - its novel controller. Iwata recently hinted that HD alone wouldn't be enough for the Wii's successor, which is why there'll almost certainly be more to it than that. An HD Wii, with Motion Plus built into controllers and another new way to play - be it a Natal-esque camera, or some crazy new idea? It'd maintain Nintendo's advantage at a critical time, stop Microsoft or Sony from making Wii feel outdated, and draw third parties back to the console.

As for the DS? Well, that's simple. DS2 is already here - it's called DSi. Nintendo's newest dual-screen has four times the memory of the DS, for example, and twice the processing power. Nintendo have even promised DSi-enhanced and DSi-exclusive titles at some point down the line. The recent announced of Pokemon 5, the next true sequel to Diamond/Pearl, could fit the bill perfectly. With the hidden technical improvements of the DSi, there's simply no need for a new DS altogether when so many people are walking around with a more powerful DS in their pockets already.

Imagine this at this year’s E3: new, exclusive DSi titles announced to seamlessly transition the DS to a new generation without stifling DS sales - whilst remaining fully backwards compatible - and a Wii HD to keep the home console fighting in the face of fresh competition. This very much could be where Nintendo goes from here.

But for now, keep it quiet. I might just be a babbling crackpot, you know.

-- Alex Evans, February 6^th 2010