Christmas Wish List

Christmas is a special time of the year, especially for gamers. Games are so stinking expensive that Christmas is the best time to get them FOR FREE!*

Regular Games ($40-$60)

On the very top of my list is Epic Mickey. Warren Spector is the designer mastermind behind this one. He helped make one of my favorite games, Deus Ex. Because of that, I trust him implicitly. It's an homage to Disney's rich history, and it looks like an inventive one at that.

Next is Rock Band 3. I still play the Rock Band series at least a couple times a week. It's not a game so much as a new way to experience music. I get tired of cranky musicians complaining about it. "It's not real blah blah blah I'm old." It's not replacing music, by golly. I don't really get tired of it. All told, I have 333 songs at my finger tips (I'm too scared to figure out how much money I've actually spent on this series), so I don't really have a good reason to get bored of it.

God of War: Ghost of Sparta is another one. The PSP has been a disappointing system. The only games I've been really interested in, besides the wonderful LocoRoco, are just extensions of existing franchises (Final Fantasy VII, God of War, Metal Gear Solid). The first God of War for PSP was fantastic, and this looks to be just as good. Andrew Dennis and I both view God of War in the same way and come to completely different conclusions about it. Yes, Kratos is juvenile and ridiculous and completely unrelatable. That's why he doesn't like it, and that's why I do.

Nintendo has incredible in-house development. That is why I would argue they sell as many systems as they do. In that category are Kirby's Epic Yarn, and Donkey Kong Country Returns. Nintendo may not be the most interesting development house on the planet, but they make superbly crafted games that are almost always a ton of fun. Their games may not surprise you, but they are SUPER reliable and consistent.

Smaller Games ($10-$20)

Limbo has been getting a lot of attention lately, and it's no wonder. Just look at this screenshot. That's all I need to play a game like this, honestly. Unless the game is just that static image. Then maybe not.

Xbox Indies has been doing really well. There is an overwhelming amount of content published to it weekly. Super Meat Boy is another game that has been receiving a lot of hype. Everything I've read says it meets those expectations.

Fantasy Section

This is the part where money is no object. If I had all the money I wanted, I would throw it away on these items.

Rock Band 3 Pro Guitar. This thing has a button for every fret and every string that would be on a real guitar. That makes for a total of 102 buttons! It's crazy, and will probably do a decent job of teaching you how to play the real guitar. $150.

Then there's the REAL guitar. This Squier Stratocaster is compatible with Rock Band and is somehow able to track which strings you are pressing and strumming. It's pretty crazy. I think it uses magic. You will be playing a real guitar along with a real song. There isn't any different between what you'll be doing in the game and what you would be doing in a real band. This is the final realization of Harmonix' vision for Rock Band. This won't be available until next year, but I thought it was worth mentioning. It'll be like $300 or something. Sheesh.

Microsoft Kinect. I was a huge skeptic of this before it released. To be fair, the demonstrations of it made it look like an interesting piece of technology, but applied to gaming very clumsily. I finally got a chance to play it and it is indeed fun. I'm still not sure if it's much more than a novelty at this point, the developers will decide that. I put it in the fantasy section because of its price: $150. That's only $50 less than a Wii. I don't think it's worth the money yet.

What are you asking for Christmas? GAMING RELATED ITEMS ONLY. I don't want to hear about this awesome pair of socks. Gosh, shut up about it already.

*It's not free for your parents, though.

To My Most Loved Games/I will write them a Haiku/This Title is One

Shadow of the Colossus:

Mountain Monsters wait

Slaying to save my lady

Misguided mission

Braid:

Tim chases girlfriend

Time flows like spilled water

Best ending ever

Portal:

Esoteric Meme

Space flows as mobius strip

The cake is a lie

BioShock:

Unchecked morals make

Superpowers marketplace

Ayn Rand is still wrong

Contribute your own Haikus to your favorite games in the comments section!

Braid and the "Modern" Gamer

*This post contains spoilers about the game Braid, probably the biggest spoiler ever*

Recently, I've been replaying some old games, as you might now (please, please know that about me. It means you're paying attention and you love me). Braid was one of those games. Playing it again reignited my love affair with that masterpiece, and I began to pester my cousin Ed into playing it.

He played it and he loved it, like any reasonable person should. I was so excited for him to get to the end for one of the best twists I've ever seen. I tried to temper my excitement for it. My language tends to become very hyperbolic when I love something, so I'm worried that about overhyping everything.

I was disappointed when he beat the game and totally missed the twist. It's not because Ed isn't an intelligent and insightful man, because he is. Much more so than I, at any rate. It was because he doesn't play games as much as I do.

First a little expository dialogue. Braid is a game that plays with the mechanics of time. Speeding, slowing, reversing are all in there. One of the things that makes Braid so great is how the concept of time, and the gameplay mechanic itself, are infused into the story. So at the end *last spoiler alert warning*, when your character is helping the princess escape the villain and get back to her house, you have no choice but to play the entire sequence backward. Everything gets turned completely on its head. Rather than helping the princess into the safety of her home, she finds you looking at her through her bedroom window and tries to escape you. The sequence gets an entirely different meaning when simply played in reverse. If none of this makes sense, just watch this video. (Jump to :25 if you're THAT impatient, sheesh)

The first time I played the game, I was freaking out. Totally flipping the F out. I couldn't believe what was happening. Here I thought I was the hero the whole time, and it turns out I'm the unwitting villain! Chasing after a relationship wasn't endearing, it was obsessive and damaging to her. My character was a stalker.

So why did Ed miss this? He brought up something that I wouldn't have thought of without his perspective. It's because he is used to an older style of gaming. A style where the story and gameplay elements are almost entirely separate. Playing a game was simply a matter of "Play the game, watch the story, play the game, watch the story" over and over until the end. He wasn't looking for meaning in the final time reversal, he was just waiting for it to be over so he could keep playing. He was viewing it as a gameplay element rather than a story element.

I'm a good example of a "modern" gamer, as Ed put it. I'm versed in the styles and techniques of modern independent and art gaming. I was actively looking for meaning in the gameplay itself. So when I saw how things were unfolding as the rewind button was held, it seized me.

I think this points to something very significant about the current state of gaming. Games are getting closer to being art (I would just argue they already are). The same thing happens with film. Someone who has studied film is much more able to pick up on the nuances and techniques the director uses to imbue meaning. Someone who is watching films for the first time might not see these things. It's not that they are unintelligent, just unfamiliar.

Right now, the percentage of games that I would consider "art" is very low. But then, so was film when it started.

Feminism is the idea that female video game characters can kick a lot of ass.

Women and gaming is something I'm very, very interested in. I love to see women in front, in, and behind games. This is quickly becoming much more normal, but the stereotype that videogames are just for boys is going to persist for a long time.

There aren't that many games with female leads, but they run the gamut from acceptable (Faith in Mirror's Edge), to questionable (Lara Croft in Tomb Raider), to downright offensive (Princess Peach).

I just finished playing Mirror's Edge for the third time. I was struck be how well the female half of our race was portrayed. Faith is the game's main character, a "runner". Runners deliver packages in the locked-down dystopian future by running them over rooftops. This is because all other channels of communication are surveilled.

Faith is not a stereotype in any way. She's strong, and strong-willed. She doesn't have enormous breasts. In fact, she's not sexualized in any way. She doesn't even have a love interest. The story of the game is simple. Faith is trying to rescue her sister, who was framed for the murder of a prominent politician. That's it. No being rescued by men, no whining, no unrealistic bodily proportions.

*spoiler alert* The finale of the game has Faith rescuing her sister from a crashing helicopter. It's pretty moving because it's something you rarely see in gaming. No epic world-saving, just a woman rescuing her sister. If the character was male, you wouldn't think anything of it. By simply making the character female, it's pointing out all the expectation women are saddled with before things even begin.

I saw this a couple years ago and it made me furious. An asian reader on Kotaku adjusted the image of Faith (above), to this:

The reasoning given for this "adjustment" was that Western developers tend to define Asian beauty from their own perspective, and not from an Asian one. That argument seems fine for about 2 seconds, and then you wonder why a character has to be designed by ANY standards of beauty. Why does this female character need to be sexualized? Why can't her body simply be the tool she needs to perform her goals effectively? Hanging from ledges might be a little difficult with those huge boobs.

I was livid when I saw this. The developers made a very deliberate effort to downplay physical beauty and avoid inexplicably sexualizing the character (the story never calls for it), and here a fan tries to undo that progress completely. One step forward, two steps back, huh?

The original article that had me so hot and bothered.

VVVVVV is the name of the game.

I'm pretty sure it's actually pronounced "The Letter V Six Times", but that's beside the point. Or is it the point?

I've been replaying a handful of smaller games (Portal, Braid, VVVVVV). They may be small games, but they have BIG IDEAS! There was specifically one challenge in VVVVVV that I promised I wouldn't subject myself to when playing it a second time. Quickly: In VVVVVV, you can only move left or right, and change gravity up or down. The whole game is tied to these simple mechanics.

This part is so insanely difficult. The first time I did it, it took me approximately 550 tries over the course of a half-hour. But the instant retry aspect of it is what keeps it from becoming overwhelmingly frustrating. If you had to wait a few seconds after you died, or had to answer a "Retry?" question, the game would be broken.

The game's creator, Terry Cavanagh, said that he wanted the challenges of the game to stand alone. He wanted the challenges themselves to the the only barrier. No artificial barriers like a finite number of lives. You can make the simplest game incredibly difficult by limiting the number of lives or tries you get. In this way, VVVVVV is only about the obstacles, and nothing else. This kept me completely captivated despite the fact that I died 1200 times by the end of the game. 1200 times!

This is the reason I completed that ridiculous challenge again. I knew that I would never get too angry. But an interesting thing happened. I was able to beat it in about 100 tries this time. This was because I still had the muscle memory I cultivated the first time through. This challenge was so ludicrous that the only way to beat it was to program the movements into your fingers. By the end, I could probably do much of it with my eyes closed. Like playing a musical instrument, it was all about rhythm and timing, and that slowly meshed into my fingers over the course of 550 attempts. It also wasn't quite as thrilling the second time, though. The more insurmountable the task, the greater the euphoria once completed. It wasn't so insurmountable this time.

I urge everybody to play this game. It's fantastically fun, and available on PC and Mac. At least try the demo out!
VVVVVV

Extended Interviews

As much as I wanted to put all the complete interviews in the episode, I just couldn't justify the time it would take. That's what the internet is for! No time slots or requirements, I can do whatever I want!*

Freddy was awesome. He was a super bright guy who loved making stories through games, and had a very good working knowledge of how to put them together with the programs given. I had a great time talking to him; the conversation was hilarious.

When I asked all the kids if they wanted to be interviewed, I thought I got to all of those who raised their hands. I did not. I unintentionally skipped over Erik. A little while later, he caught me going out the door and, with a demanding tone in his voice, said "I thought you were going to interview me!" I apologized and told him that I would interview in him a little bit. This is that interview.

I also got a chance to talk to Nicolas Cage!

And finally, here is the extended interview with Tori. It was really encouraging to see some girls in the class. I got to talk to her about what types of games she enjoys and wants to eventually develop.

I had a really great time talking to the kids about videogames. I feel very optimistic about the future of gaming.

*Well, I can't do ANYTHING... but you know what I mean.

The Monetary Value of Games is UNDER ATTACK!

Over the past few months, I realized something about myself. My fill of a game depends pretty consistently on how many hours I've put into it. In other words, I feel satisfied with a AAA title once I've played about 20 hours of it. That means if the game is 10 hours long, I'll play it twice. If it's 20 hours long, once. More than 20 hours? Usually I won't finish it, as was the case with Grand Theft Auto 4.

Length is a strange issue, especially with gaming. Length can be almost completely unrelated to experience in the game. Some games are padded with monotonous chores and take 50 hours (most RPGs), others are a densely packaged, transcendent 3-hour run (Portal).

Portal is a perfect example of how the experience of a game completely determines its value, both in terms of length and price. When Portal first came out, it was $20, and took about 2-5 hours to complete, depending on your pacing.

The pricing of games is a controversial topic. Most publishers and developers like to think their games are well worth the $60 you pay for a new copy. You'll hear the argument, "Well, considering the amount of entertainment you get in games, $60 is a good value". They're speaking about game length, of course. Do you want to talk about why this argument doesn't make much sense? I do!

Let's say the average, 2-hour movie costs $10 to see. That's $5 per hour. How much would that make a 12-hour game cost? $60?! Right on! You're good at math. Actually, I'm good at math, since I'm not interacting with you at this point. Now you might be thinking "This is dumb, because the value of a movie isn't in its length." Now say that thought out loud to me. Holy carp, you're right! Then why the hell does this argument even exist? The value of a game has nothing whatsoever to do with its length, just like with movies.

Besides, games vary wildly in length, movies don't really. They're mostly between 1.5 and 2.5 hours. Games can be 5, 7, 12, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 50, 60, 80, or 100 hours long. Time is irrelevant anyway, because puzzle games are infinitely long, the same with something like The Sims.

Why am I spending so much time on this point? Because of how fuzzy this whole issue is. What is the value of a game? I guess it depends on the experience. Something like Uncharted 2, I have no problem paying $60 for. It was an amazing experience, one I would gladly pay EVEN MORE for.

Games miss an opportunity movies are built around. There isn't, so far, a good way to experience a game one time for a smaller amount of money. With a movie, you can go see it a single time for $8. This is pretty low risk, so even if the movie turns out to be butt, you don't feel too bad because it didn't cost you THAT much time or money. Games aren't this finite. This is why renting a game isn't a very good solution. You only have so much time with it (a week), and you probably won't complete it in a single night. You really don't have a clear idea of how long it'll take to finish. So you're spending $8-$10 to maybe or maybe not play a full game.

$60 is just too much for a single item. People will pay it, but at the expense of other games. I simply cannot afford to buy all the games that I would like to, so I have to choose the games I want the most. This is why making a game is so risky. People can only buy so many games, so they have to be really selective. This forces gaming companies to play it safe. It's damaging the whole industry!

For me, I think the most reasonable price point is $30 new. I don't have nearly as difficult a time paying $30 for something as I do $60. I would probably end up spending even more on games in absolute terms because I wouldn't struggle with each purchase. Is anybody listening to me?!

The Guilt of Playing videogames

Note: For this post, I'm listening to music, and will insert lyrics of the songs I'm listening to while writing. Lyrics will be in [brackets].

It's something I struggle with on a daily basis. No, it's not ED, it's the guilt associated with playing videogames.

I don't feel guilty when I watch TV, or screw around on the internet, why do I feel guilty when I play games? They aren't any less productive than the former activities. It's because of society, man! Society tells us that games are bad. It's all the man not wanting us to save princesses or arrange coloured blocks. (No, I'm not British, but you thought I was for a second, didn't you?)

We're constantly being told that games are bad in some way [cocaine make you grind your teeth all night]. Even if the message isn't explicit, there's an implied message there. Even if games aren't completely bad, you're still damaging yourself in some way by playing them.

Honestly, this didn't start until I became a relatively busy person, when I started working on Double Jump [it's a freaky celebration of a natural kind]. Then I felt guilty when I wasn't being productive. But playing videogames actually is productive for the host of a videogame TV show! I can't lose my credibility by not playing many games!

Let's run through my thought processes right now [let's take the boat out/wait until darkness comes].

Dan: I'm going to play some games right now, I have some time to myself, what better way to spend it than stimulating my brain. Tickling my intellect. Engaging my frontal lobe and so on.

Brain: Couldn't you be doing something else? Like watching TV or screwing around on the internet? [we can fight our desires/but when we start making fires/we get ever so hot]

Dan: How is that any more productive? I don't need to be productive 100% of the time, but watching TV definitely isn't more productive than playing games.

Brain: The world doesn't waste a lot of time telling you how TV is bad for you. They stopped bothering with that decades ago. Videogames are the newest thing that's bad for you.

Dan: But videogames aren't actually bad for you. Not in any ways that film isn't also bad for you. Or reading for that matter. Reading (derisively), sitting there on its high horse. You know, if we spent all day reading we'd be fat, just like if we spent all day playing videogames. Nobody talks about that, do they? Not ever.

Brain: Quiet, you. If you screw around on the internet, you can multitask so that it creates the illusion of productivity. You can watch videos, read articles, listen to music, chat with IM all at the same time. [it looks a lot like engine oil and tastes a like being poor and small/and popsicles in summer]

Dan: This is butt, and you know it.

Brain: Perhaps it is, you do use your butt enough.

Dan: Why does every conversation with you end with my butt? [I wish I could speak in one sweep/what you are and what you mean to me].

All of this just shows that someone like me, obsessed with the real value of videogames, can't escape the kind of conditioning that leads to a guilt in the style of Catholic Guilt. I will push though, people, don't worry. And if you're suffering from the same guilt as I am, we shall overcome. Together.

[Eyes are sober, this is the plan/I'm sitting in a car heading Neverland/A fancy man, a fancy man/He's point with fingers that are left on his hand]

My Life With PC Games (or why I don't play PC games anymore)

It's 1992 and I'm 7 years old. My uncle, who is a pastor of a local church is (ironically) showing me Wolfenstein 3D. It's so bloody and awesome. My favorite part is when I kill Hitler, and his body falls like a popped water balloon into a pile of bones, blood and flesh, with an intact Hitler head lying lifeless atop that heap. I've always wanted to kill Hitler that way.

PC gaming was simple back then. Before purchasing a game you had to answer only a few questions. Is your computer reasonably new? Does it run DOS/Windows? That was about all it took to run just about any computer game at the time. Wolfenstein 3D would give you graphs describing your computer's guts to you, but it all seemed pretty meaningless because it never affected your ability to kill Nazis/Hitler.

Installing the game was a simple, yet tedious process. Insert diskette 1, then 2, then 3, then 4. Boom. The game was installed, you typed in WOLF3D into the command prompt, and you sailed into bliss. That was it.

Things really started to change after that. Diskettes were easy to copy, so each time you started up the game you had to answer some cryptic question, usually about the game manual. "What object is on page 129?" Easy, an oil lamp. Annoying? Yes, especially if you lost the manual. But far from ruining your good time.

Windows 95/98 followed a couple years later and PC gaming was done mainly from there instead of DOS. Computers were getting more complex, so were games, and their technical requirements. You needed to worry about having enough RAM, disk space, processing power, and so forth. Installing games was still simple, if frought with problems. I remember feeling relieved if I was able to just install a game without any problems. Then came the initial bootup.

CRAP.

The sound doesn't work. Why not? My sound card is pretty new. Besides, it's a really popular sound card, so it should be supported. I check the manual, nothing of value. I uninstall and reinstall the game, boot it up. Whew, the sound works, good. I guess I'll never figure out what happened. Whatever, it's working now.

Two weeks pass and I'm having a great time with my game. It's working great, no problems since that sound thing.

CRAP.

The game crashed. Why did the game crash? All I got was an incredibly vague error message, and I couldn't even read it before the whole game disappeared leaving nothing but my clueless and windows desktop. Dammit, I hadn't saved in a while. OK, whatever, PC games crash, it's just what they do. They always have, and they always will, Dan, you know that. This isn't a surprise. I won't get too mad, because it only crashed once. I'll just play it again tomorrow.

Ok, I lost some progress but oh well. I don't mind doing fun things more than once.

CRAP.

It crashed again, at the exact same spot. This isn't good. Fortunately I played it safe and saved a bunch of times along the way. I can get right back into it.

CRAP.

Ok, this is a big problem. There's something seriously wrong here, because I just successfully and incidentally did a rigorous scientific test and the results are that when I reach a certain point, the game crashes. Uhhhh....

Another couple years pass. Video cards aren't called that yet. They're called 3D Acceleration cards. Before, the 3D was unaccelerated, which is really stupid. But, at the time, it's all we knew. We didn't know that you could speed up 3D, making everything prior the equivalent of playing Monopoly by yourself. 3D Accelerator cards aren't that difficult to understand, you either have one or you don't. Some games require one, so you get one for $100. There's a handful of different brands, but they're all effectively the same. They accelerate 3D and that's all you need.

Games are on CD now, and they usually require a code written on the CD case to play. Not too bad, but it felt like a big pain at the time. I get my 3D accelerated and wow. It looks good. Smoother or something. It sucks that I had to buy another computer component to get these results but whatever. I'm even having fewer glitches than before. 3D travelling at higher speeds must make it zip past bugs and glitches.

Another couple years go by. Video cards are starting to get complicated, but relatively straightfoward. Crashes are less frequent. Copy protection is getting more sophisticated and tedious. A regular computer is no longer good enough to play most headlining titles.

Another couple years trickle away and I can't for the life of me figure out which video card is the best one. Why in the hell is the 9600XT better than the 9800? How the blast am I supposed to figure this out? And that's just between one brand, and inside one numbering system. Forget about trying to compare video cards between two brands. I visit websites that benchmark the different video cards. They show me fancy color-coded graphs comparing all the different cards. I have next to no idea what I'm looking at. There's over 30 video cards on this graph, and the next graph of all the same cards looks completely different. OK, nevermind, I'll just buy a PS2.

Another few years. Man, Crysis looks fun and the graphics are remarkable. Assuming I only need to replace my video card and nothing else, it'll cost me close to $500 to get JUST a video card that's powerful enough to play this game at full graphical settings. I already tried to buy a video card once and I ended up confused and crying a lot. In reality, I'm going to need to replace every component of my PC. This will cost me closer to $1000 to play Crysis, and most PC games for the next 2, maybe 3 years, at THE LONGEST. This upgrade, by the way, will only affect gaming, as all other functions of my computer worked perfectly speedy with my current system, and will show no noticeable improvement after throwing $1000 at it. Also, when installing Crysis I'm going to have to deal with an anti-piracy system that's so pervasive and insulting that what I'm really doing is renting the game for $50. This is if I so choose to obey the law.

I could do that. Or...

I could just buy an Xbox360 and a PlayStation 3 totalling several hundred dollars less and have access to hundreds of games that I could never play on my PC. They always work, and I actually OWN the game. I don't have to worry about hardware or upgrading. I don't have to deal with copy protection. I can rent one, or buy a used copy. I can sell it. I can let a friend borrow it easily.

It really seems like an obvious choice.

OMGOMGOMGOMG EPISODE 3!!!!!!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

EPISODE 3 IS FINISHED AND UP ON DEMAND! WATCH IT NOW! LIKE RIGHT NOW!!!

www.lcc.edu/tv/ondemand

GO TO THAT WEBSITE NOW!

THEN WATCH IT AND TELL ME HOW AWESOME I AM!!!

How the Future of Games Might Look.

Here's a sneak preview segment from the upcoming episode of Double Jump. It's about, as you'll see, THE FUTURE of gaming!

Now, I wasn't able to put everything in that segment that I would have liked, I'm dealing with modern attention spans here. But, luckily for you, I can expand on the video in this blog. Science has shown that people who read blogs to supplement local TV shows are super smart. The probably even have IQs as high as 150 or something.

When it comes to physical objects in games, as I've said, the current generation of interaction is pretty limited. If you break a crate, it just gets replaced by premade broken pieces. It's not the least bit convincing. It looks weird. But right now, there are many different companies working on simulating materials, rather than just cheat them. Here's a compilation of all the developments that are being made. It'll blow your mind.

Digital Molecular Matter, or DMM, is a relatively new development. It looks awesome, and will make worlds much more interactive. Most gamers have been playing a game and thought "Oh, I'm going to drop this cement block onto this computer monitor." Then when you do it, they just bounce off of each other and you're like "What the hell?! We're living in the future! Why isn't it breaking apart?!"

Animation is also undergoing a new development. Instead of just canned animations, you'll be able to seamlessly combine those with physics-based animation simulation. NaturalMotion has already done this, despite the fact that most games have yet to utilize it.

Everything is going to be procedurally simulated like this. That's what will make it more interactive. You'll be able to push over an old lady in a game, she'll fall over, and look at you, completely shocked. Also she landed on a crate and broke it. Something like that.

Check out the next episode of Double Jump which airs Monday, August 16th, at 8PM!

Anonymity in Gaming

Here is an interesting article related to anonymity in gaming. It's a reaction to the controversial RealID that Blizzard (developer of World of Warcraft) tried to implement on its community forums.

I tend to think that anonymity on the internet isn't usually used for good. Sure, people can use the veil to express themselves more honestly, but most of the time it's used for trolling. But those arguments aside, it brings up something about the community itself that I find interesting.

The argument in the article is by presenting your real name, you're opening yourself up for harassment. I had this conversation with a friend of mine. The conclusion we came to was "Why would you want to be involved in a community where this is even an issue?"

If you're afraid of being harassed for things that are true about yourself, such as being a woman, why would anybody want to be a part of a community like that?

There is a lot of social pressure that keeps us from being total assholes to each other. This is something I don't mind. Even if its not totally genuine, it makes life easier. Social pressure keeps people from being totally self-serving jerks.

I guess the thought of participating in this type of community really makes me question the value of that community. I'm sure most people are perfectly nice and good-natured, and that the handful of trolls make everybody else look bad. But wouldn't the loss of anonymity help deter trolls from getting out of hand? Maybe not. Maybe trolls are going to find ways of hiding their identity in order to keep trolling.

I, personally, think it would help people be more conscientious of one another if there might be real-world consequences for their actions.

The Frustration of Being Me

I think I should make a movie out of the title of this post's title. Nah,actually, I have a good life. I'm listening to Iron Maiden while writing this blog post at work. That is pretty rad.

But let's get serious for a moment, shall we? *serious face* There we go.

When I talked about E3, it was just one part of many of why it's frustrating to make so many grandiose exclamations about the potential of games, and then see the industry treat us like a bunch of post-pubescent teenagers.

It's hard for people to see what I'm talking about when all they see about games are things like Grand Theft Auto 4. It's a good game, but people aren't seeing the story or the writing. They're just seeing the beating up of prostitutes and the stealing of their money.

And then what is the (second?) most successful entertainment endeavor of all time (in terms of revenue)? Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. Admittedly a good game. But what about the title of the game? It probably couldn't get more vague or less interesting. It's like those old NES games: Golf. I've never played Golf, but it might have been a really good game back then. Is this how we're going to look at Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2? It might as well be called "Guy Shoots Gun at Bad Guys". Seeing a screenshot or short video of CoD:MW2 (ughhh) wouldn't be enough to tell people how this is any different than any other gun-shooting game.

But this is what people are seeing. Meanwhile, I'm on my soapbox going "No really, games can be artful experiences! You gotta believe me people! Please! ...I have a right to be here officer! Don't arrest me for telling the truth! It's the truth, dammit!" Then I get put in prison, and then a bunch of nerdy rock stars and celebrities write songs and make commercials about my wrongful imprisonment. You follow?

The problem is, the only way to get people to understand how games can be all of this is by actually playing the game. Playing a game is quite a commitment, in terms of time and money, one that skeptics like Roger Ebert aren't willing to invest. So even with an amazing game like Shadow of the Colossus, the only way to demonstrate it properly to people is to have them just play the whole thing. They aren't going to do this. So all they know is what they see on the news. What they see on the news isn't flattering.

The industry isn't really helping itself break out of this stereotype. The games that get the biggest ad campaigns and buzz are stuff like Gears of War or Call of Duty. So the industry itself is just playing it safe, and in the meantime, people are getting tired of seeing guys shooting guns at bad guys/aliens. And then we have guys like this that are in charge of the world's largest game publisher. This guy doesn't even like games!

Why the heck else would Roger Ebert make such ridiculous statements about games? He admits that he's never really even played a game, so do you think he reads tons of game blogs and magazines? Hell no! He gets his information about games the same places everybody else does. This is lame. Like, super lame.

I know that lately a lot of people have said some really compelling things about games, and this is very encouraging. But for now, it's very frustrating to seem like I'm talking about invisible, imaginary games that are beautiful and artful.

I'm very optimistic, and I truly believe that games will eventually gain the title of "art". But it'll take a long time. Games depend on technology so much more than other mediums. 20 years after the very beginning of film, technology for cinema had reached the point where creating art out of the medium was easy. But if you look at games, not much progress was made between the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. We're finally getting to the steep part of the exponential technology curve, and it's exciting.

But for right now, the news and the industry itself are making me look kind of silly. I think I'm also very impatient and getting a little ahead of myself, so I could stand to cool off a little...

Further reading/viewing:

Gaming Can Make a Better World by Jane McGonigal

When Games Invade Real Life by Jesse Schell

Quitting your job with a videogame.

An Ubisoft developer named William David decided to quit his job. Rather than writing a typical letter or resignation, or just putting in his two weeks notice, he made a game. The result is very moving.

Why Videogames Matter

Tom Bissell looks at games in a very similar way I do. Here's an NPR book review of his new book Extra Lives: Why Videogames Matter

These ideas are what I want to represent in my show.

Also, he's from Michigan and went to MSU, so that's cool. I'm from Michigan and I went to MSU, too. Awesome!

I had to close my office door because this made me cry

iPad Gaming

As soon as I saw the iPad introduced, I knew it was something to be excited about. I saw the future of computer interaction. Specifically, it is a very unique machine for gaming.

Granted, it doesn't suit all games. Like the iPhone, you can't play high-precision action games like Mega Man. But it changes the way you're interacting with a game, just like it changes how you interact with applications.

The iPad has an interesting emotional impact. It's not, like, weepy or anything. But there's something that feels very different about holding your application in your hand and interacting with it. The way you hold and touch the iPad is what makes it so unique. It's like you're holding the internet in your hand. It's fascinating.

It's the same for gaming. Interacting with games through the iPad is feels very... direct, I guess is the best word. You hold it like a book, and you directly manipulate what's going on. It's incredibly natural. It removes the controller as a layer between you and the game. This is why it's the future of computing.

With the iPad, there is no proxy between you and your application or game. You're not having your interaction translated through a device like a mouse or controller. Now, obviously a mouse or controller is preferred for certain types of activities, but you won't find those very often on the iPad.

The iPad is a very compelling gaming device. The iPhone proved that multitouch is a fantastic way to game, but the size of the screen really limited what you could do. So far, though, most of the best games on the iPad are just ports of iPhone games. So you get the impression that the iPad is what the developers wanted to be making games for in the first place. So when people say "It's just a big iPod Touch" my response is "I know! That's what makes it so cool!" Making a bigger multitouch screen fundamentally changes how the device operates. I still think developers are getting used to the device and the possibilities a larger screen offer for gaming. So for right now, the future is more exciting than the present for the iPad as a gaming platform.

Second Episode! Hoo, yeah, come on baby!

Second episode now OnDemand!

This episode is a lot closer to what I had envisioned for the show. The writing is snappier and more entertaining. I think the show will get better with each episode. I hope everyone enjoys it. My goal is to be the Carl Sagan of videogames, in that I want to be really good at getting people to feel about games the way I do. I'm kind of obsessed with Cosmos right now. Maybe I'll do a parody of it on the show! The ideas just never stop here on Double Jump!

Just click here and find "Double Jump" in the dropdown menu above the video player.

Topics include: HEAVY RAIN "REVIEW"! ATMOSPHERE IN GAMES! GAMES FOR GIRLS/WOMEN ROUNDTABLE! AND INTERVIEW WITH PETER T about 3D!

The Embarrassment of E3

As time goes on, I get more and more obsessed with the idea that games can be used to create very significant and meaningful experiences for people. E3 tries to undo everything I'm trying to tell people, and I'm getting tired of it.

Nintendo was the clear "winner" of this year's E3. Granted, the Nintendo 3DS is pretty cool, but there's a different problem here. The problem is Nintendo "won" E3 by announcing a TON of sequels to long established franchises. If that's what it takes to be the winner in this industry, I'm officially embarrassed.

This isn't even counting the numerous other things that are wrong with E3. In the article I mentioned previously, David Wong said that the gaming industry treats gamers like they're hormonal 17-year-olds. This has never been more true than at E3. Two words: Booth Babes.

*Image withheld to deny any sort of satisfaction*

It's bad enough at car shows, but it's 10 times worse at E3.

Aside from the awful things E3 does for the image of gamers like me, it just showed that the industry is clinging onto gimmicks. Motion control, in my opinion, hasn't been used in a very compelling way yet. Project Natal (now called Kinect) seemed promising when it was announced. It was a new technology that went about motion capture in a different way than the Wii. But after this E3, Microsoft only showed gimmicky games that have been piled on the Wii the past few years. The only difference was that these had better graphics. The same goes for PlayStation Move, which is even more like the Wii than Kinect. So in the end, all three companies are now just doing the same thing as each other, and attempts at innovation have fallen short.

E3 saw very few new franchises announced, which is the only exciting thing happening in the industry at this point. No new intellectual property makes Dan bored.

New episode Monday (June 21)! Check out this sneak peek!

First episode now live!

The first episode is now love On Demand. You can find it here:

http://www.lcc.edu/tv/ondemand/

Just select Double Jump from the shows and you're good to watch MICHIGAN'S ONLY VIDEOGAME TV SHOW! It'll change your life, I guarantee*

The second episode is just about finished, and will be up in the next week.

-Dan Hartley

*not a guarantee

Mission Statement

Here's a really good article from Cracked.com, it'll give you an idea of what I'm fighting against.

At its most absurdly ambitious, Double Jump aims to change the way people think about videogames.

Like movies before them, games are in a transition phase, especially lately. Technology has made it possible to express a lot more than before. I know that the vast majority of games can't really be considered "art", whatever that even means. But there are some.

Shadow of the Colossus completely changed the way I look at games. I was so affected by that game that I was trembling during the last portion of it. I've never had a movie or TV show do that to me. SotC is a perfect example of how games are different than anything else.

This is the minority, I absolutely understand this.

David Wong's article brings up a really good argument, that gamers are partly to blame for the state of gaming today. As gamers, we have a lot of built-in expectations for games, and get upset when a game doesn't conform to them. We have to get rid of, or change, our expectations if we want gaming to move forward. That's what I want Double Jump to do, on however small a scale as it could.

I love videogames, and not just because they're fun. Shadow of the Colossus gave me a glimpse of what the future of games could be, and it single-handedly brought me back into gaming after a years-long hiatus. I'm really serious about this, as you can tell. If you haven't played this game, if they rerelease it for PS3, that would be a perfect chance to experience it. I could write a book on why I love that game.

Double Jump is a fun show to make (hopefully that makes it fun to watch). But I take gaming as a medium very seriously and I really want to use the show to explore gaming in a way most other shows don't. This blog is a chance for the discussion to expand beyond the show. I hope a lot of people watch the show and relate to its mission, then come to the blog to contribute to the conversation. With how I look at games, I can't be alone.

More Double Jump Info

If you want to get in contact with me, Dan Hartley, I will provide some very necessary information below:

Twitter:

LCCTVDoubleJump - the official Double Jump twitter

AnonymousDonor - My personal twitter account

I'm just getting these twitter accounts started so bear with me while I learn your strange ways of communicating.

Email:

DoubleJumpTV@gmail.com - Have any cool ideas that we could do on the show? Let me know!

Website:

http://edge/tv/shows/doublejump/index.aspx

That is the official Double Jump LCC-TV page. From there you'll soon be able to watch the show on demand instead of moving your whole schedule around to watch it on Comcast. Also any other awesome videos from LCC-TV.

Are these games on drugs or something?

Now, I don't endorse the use of drugs, I need to be absolutely clear. That being said...

Have you seen Rez?

Holy wow. Was that game on drugs or something?

Actually it's based on the work of Russion painter Wassily Kandinsky. His paintings were trying to express the idea that music has color and shape. This was how he claimed to experience music, so he probably had a form of synesthesia. Synesthesia is where the senses are cross-wired in the brain. So what happens is a person could "see" music or "taste" color.

Rez is the fullest realization of that idea. On a side note, some psychedelic drugs have been known to cause temporary synesthesia. So... you know.

So is this game on drugs? Um...kinda?

You've seen Katamari Damacy, I'm sure.

This game was the result of a thesis project at the Namco Digital Hollywood Game Laboratory.

So is this game on drugs? Um, sorry, no.

The creator was Keita Takahashi, and what he really wants to do is design playground equipment. Which makes sense considering:

What is the what? What the heck is that? Answer: Noby Noby Boy. Again, designed by Keita Takahashi.

"That doesn't even look like a game!" you say. "That would be correct," I say. It's not really a game, it's more of a virtual playground. It's for those times when you're at a real playground and wishing, intensely, that you could stretch yourself into a giant technicolor worm and swallow passers-by.

So is this game on drugs? Uh, YES! (not based on any factual evidence, but I mean just look at it) Actually, it's from Japan, so they probably think it's really generic and boring or something.

I know there are many more out there, so what say you?

Double Jump Info!

OMG OMG

Double Jump Info time!

We will be debuting the show on May 24th. Check out www.lcc.edu/tv for more updates.

If you want a sneak peak, LCC-TVs Facebook page has a little preview of the first episode. Click Here for that. Be sure to become of fan of that page for the most bleeding edge updates.

Also, here's a little promo of the show. I've been told that it's very "Dan Hartley". Meaning my "acting" in the promo isn't much of a stretch for me.

STAY TUNED!

Things all games should have

As my inaugural post on this, the Double Jump Blog, I will share things I believe all videogames should have (feel free to contribute to this list in the comments section):

1. The ability to change difficulty at any point in the game.

I hate it when I choose a difficulty that starts out fine, but by the end of the game it's so difficult that I start hating it. I don't want to hate a game by the time I finish it.

2. Chapter Selection

CDs and DVDs can do this, why not videogames? If someone wants to jump to the end and ruin it for themselves that's their problem. This also stems from the fact that capturing footage for the show is much easier when I can jump to any point in it.

3. Limited tutorials, or skippable ones

Playing a game multiple times makes the tutorials a total drag.

4. Skippable cutscenes

This just goes without saying...

5. New Game Plus

Having the ability to start a game over with all your gear and abilities intact is a good way to get you to play the game again right away. Sometimes I want to start a game over again, but the idea of having to start from zero is a little off-putting. Being able to blast away the weakest enemies with the biggest guns is always welcome (just please scale up the difficulty to keep it from becoming boring).

--------------------------------------

Now what do you guys think? I want this blog to be a forum for discussion since it's a lot easier than doing that with a pre-recorded TV show.

COMMENCE!