I'm sitting in the car on the way to the movies this evening when my younger son says to me, "Mom, why do we charge more for millions of dollars?" I love non-sequiturs that wouldn't make sense ever. I ask to what he is referring.

"You know how when you make a little money we charge a little bit and when you make more we charge more?" Yeah, I wasn't getting it either. After teasing some specificity out of my boy, I come to realize he's asking about a Progressive Tax. Ok, fair'nuff. I explain the idea behind it - those with more carry more of the burden because those with less simply can't. I tell him that it's a way of forcing people to help their neighbors because people aren't particularly good about helping their neighbors.

I think we're done. Nope.

"So, your money at the bank, do you get paid for that?" Huh. More specificity, please! Some more discussion and it's obvious he asking me if I earn interest at the bank. Then he wants to know about yearly interest, daily compounded interest and I'm wondering what the heck is going on? I mean, he's 9 - he's in the fourth grade.

"Have you been studying this at school?" I ask.

"No. I've been playing Neopets."

Why exactly aren't games good for kids again?

As I sit here, waiting for my children to awaken (it's 11am!), I consider making New Year's Resolutions. I've never been one for personal much less public traditions, but I've reached the ripe old age of 36 considering changing a few habits may be prudent.

Perhaps blogging more often than every 7-8 weeks ...

Broadening my original topic beyond gaming journalism would help. I can't help but look back upon 2007, It only ended some 11 hours ago for me and I still have a rather large pile of games left on my floor, my couch, my desk and strewn throughout my bedroom, that I'd intended to review before the year vanished into memory. Life continues to intervene and slow the best of intentions but what strikes me is how truly good the games of 2007 were - and I played only a smattering of them.

Read more »

Until this editorial started brewing in this brain of mine, I’d carefully been avoiding public statements about the state of E3 this year. I have many reasons: I’ve not yet completed our coverage; this year was such a departure I am not comfortable making comparisons when I think the changes are still a work in progress; I think that much of what has been said has been said and said and said...

But, as I was doing research to fact check an article by a staff writer I encountered a small preview on a very large site – ok, the largest – that just made me stop. Literally stop.

I wondered. Where was the editor? This may take some explaining.

Read more »

I have a good friend, a game designer of 20 years who often tells the anecdote, “I tell my mother I’m a crack dealer so she’ll understand because it seems so much more understandable and respectable than saying I make games for a living.” In a previous blog entry I stated the following: Computers have always been a part of my life. I've been working with gaming support sites for 7 years; I've been in the Games Press for five. My mom said to me, "now that you're into this, what will we have to talk about?" Apparently, I've mutated beyond human.

There’s a legitimacy issue in games.

If you’re reading this, chances are you’re aware of it even if you’ve never voiced it to yourself. More than once you’ll have had to justify to someone why it’s important to you that you play a video game for your fun; why you’d rather not go outside on a nice sunny day but sit inside and get to the next level; that really, you’ve learned something from playing games as opposed to killing multiple brain cells.

Movies are a legitimate form of entertainment media. Television is a legitimate form of entertainment media. Books have always been a legitimate form of entertainment media.

Comic books are more than 60 years old. They are not.

But wait?! You can make a movie based on a graphic novel (admit it, it’s a big comic book) and it’s a legitimate form of entertainment media. The original media? Still not legitimate.

In the last three weeks I’ve attended four press events/conferences/seminars or had the opportunity to talk to game developers. And something struck me as odd: more than once they were asking creators of other media to approve their game design.

Read more »

There’s nothing like sex to get people talking. Even the ones who “hate” it like it. Everyone reading this, who likes it, raise your hand.

…

That pause was me raising mine. It made it hard to type.

This weekend, I spoke about Community Management at the IMGDC. I wasn’t speaking about managing “sexual” communities; though, if you want to get technical, we are all sexual animals. (I looked for the original citation on this – good luck!)

Kelly Rued, of Black Love Interactive, wants to make MMOEGs – Massively Multiplayer Online Erotic Games. Letter Soup. Sex games online. She’s very passionate about her subject, no pun intended. It’s an important subject. And while I don’t necessarily agree with the direction she’s taking to get there, I think she’s got the right idea.

Read more »

Two, maybe three E3s ago I wrote an article on a then upcoming title called Stargate SG-1: The Alliance. The game was cancelled shortly thereafter yet even now, years later, it remains our third most popular article. I opened it with the following words:

Sometimes it seems as if it's the flip of a coin as to whether a title based upon a film/TV show will succeed (more often than not, it's actually quality of the game), but science fiction as a whole has generally survived the translation. Perhaps it's the fantastical storylines, the often beautiful backdrops or, it could be that only those that are truly successful get made into games.

For political/budgetary reasons what appeared to be a promising action title wasn’t made. Yet, the continued popularity of the article would seem to indicate that Stargate holds a certain fascination with gamers – or at least with the readers of this site.

Stargate Worlds (SGW) has been in pre-production for two years and recently entered the production phase. As I write this, the first “playables” should have been delivered. A few miles down the road from my apartment the developers at Cheyenne Mountain Entertainment (CME) are stepping through the Gate into what is to be the first translation of a television show into a massively multiplayer game.

Because I live so close to CME, I’ve been privy to the knowledge there was going to be a Stargate MMO long before it was announced to the public. I am, well…I revel in all things Stargate to the point of being a complete nerd. That being said, as much as I look forward to my favorite television universe entering the online realm, I’m wary. I know how difficult it is to translate a movie/book/TV to game and vice versa.

Originally, this article was to be a preview of Stargate Worlds after the Game Developer's Conference. I was holding off because I wanted to place it along with a review of Sony’s Stargate Online: The Trading Card Game and Skyzone Mobile’s title, Stargate SG-1: Entropy. I thought they’d make a nice trilogy for the day. After returning home, pouring over my notes, following up with Cheyenne, playing the other games I realized – I can’t actually preview something I haven’t seen! Ok, that’s a new rule here at GamersInfo.

But, there was also this niggling voice in the back of my head. You see, I’m not “there” yet on the design of the game. I want to be. This is Stargate! And as a gamer and a member of the industry the last thing I want is to see an MMO not meet expectations – every one that doesn’t quite make it hurts the industry as a whole. I grappled with this for a while. A long while.

First, I thought it might be the fanboi issue. But, I do more than write for this site and I’m pretty good about keeping those two parts of me separate. So, I chewed on it; I talked to people who know me and asked if they thought it could be me; I talked to people who know design and (without mentioning the title) asked about the elements that concerned me. Then I chewed some more. What to say?

Read more »

This entry was posted on LiveJournal in my personal blog in November of last year and was the seed that germinated into the column you are now reading.

I'm in a bit of a conundrum. You see, I eventually plan to move this (this being my personal blog) to Ophelea.com. But I kept saying "I'll get it ready" for about 6 months. And there were these thoughts I kept wanting to get out of my head and as I rarely write on paper anymore I was at a loss as to where to place them. (This is not the conundrum, by the way.)

So, now I have this spot here on LiveJournal, with the Robots that cause the reaction, "Are robots really you?" I have no idea why they cause that reaction...

And I think there's maybe 3 people reading it? Assuming I've told that many...

The conclusion being that if I've told them about it they know me and what I do for a living.

This brings me to the conundrum. I just realized, I have two...conundrums, that is. Ok, the first. Do I write this as if there may be an actual stranger reading this? Or do I assume that only people who know me are? Wow, that would be sad. For now, I'll pretend random people have found these ruminations even though they're all of 5 days old.

The second conundrum and the point of the title is this: I manage a website known as GamersInfo.net. It's up there in the corner on the left (at least in this incarnation of the journal). We do game reviews, interviews, blah blah blah. I've been around games, books, movies - entertainment media for 15 years now. No, 17 years. Christ, I'm old.

Occasionally, or more than occasionally, I have thoughts on trends. For example, this year as I review children's games, I notice after a 2-year campaign of complaining vehemently that an E-rated game doesn't at all indicate whether the game is appropriate for a 6-10 year because children of that age vary GREATLY and who knows whether someone of age 7 can even read yet! Games finally say on the back (in eensy weensy little print) "Game requires basic reading ability to be enjoyed fully"

Score!

I should get to the conundrum.

I'm considering an Editor's Thoughts column on the site. We have several editors and they write well as a whole. And more often than not they have valid ideas.

Is this a worthy endeavor?

I haven't been able to write like I've wanted; it's been frustrating because there have been many thoughts swirling around this grey matter I call a brain. I'm preparing for the aforementioned trip to the UK; recovering from the holidays (the activity made me ill); and there was the press event I attended for CDV Games. I like CDV, they're good people. They're primarily a publisher so their games are often hit-or-miss but you can't fault them for not making an honest effort for each of their titles. I like publishers that are good to their developers, honest with them, and still hold to their contracts. More integrity like this in business - not just gaming - would make the world a better place.

It was at the press event in San Francisco that I spoke to two other members of the press about something that had been swirling in my head for a while. EA Games. They're a giant in this industry and have been for some time. I follow them as best I can. They send us an inordinate amount of press releases; of course, they publish an inordinate amount of games. But, they're not particularly forthcoming with product for reviews. Nor are they responsive to requests. (If a publisher reads this, a simple, "I'm sorry, but we can't provide you with that as this time" rather than complete silence goes a long ways towards a positive reputation with the press.)

I run a Tier 2 site. This means that we really don't rate their time. They want "quick and dirty" reviews that are all about the "shinies". I hate shinies; I want to talk about the game. That's ok, I really don't fault EA. It's becoming an (unfortunate) common trend with the larger publishers.

Anyways, I've been noticing that over the past three years or so of acquisitions, re-naming of said acquisitions and launch of product that EA's actual quality of games has steadily decreased to the mediocre. Mediocrity isn't bad in a start-up; it's the kiss of death in a multi-million dollar conglomerate. They pump out sequel after sequel with incremental improvements - or in the case of this year's sports line-up, removal of features - and fewer and fewer new IPs. When they do have a new IP, it's through acquisition and they re-brand the studio immediately.

I think this last part is the problem.

You see, the consumer doesn't often look at brand name, not really. But, if pushed hard enough, there is brand recognition. And EA has forced that. In the past, when they were building their "empire" it worked for them. However, now that the quality of their titles has slowly declined and fewer and fewer new titles are being produced the net effect is that "EA" is a problem. If they hadn't re-branded every single studio to the EA brand then the mediocrity of the titles would be diffuse and spread out over many different labels and EA wouldn't be the recognizable factor. What once was a strength is now a liability.

The writers I was talking to thought it would make a great editorial. I told them they couldn't steal my editorial! But...today I found this: Analyst: EA Brand Tarnished. Convergence is lovely.

And you know what? This isn't new. Vivendi/Universal used to be a powerhouse. But, a succession of poor games that they published (but were smart enough not to brand) was bringing them down. (VUGames had other issues to be sure but this was certainly a problem.) They owned the brand Sierra Games, a studio which they closed two years ago but still had rights to; no more VUG, hello Sierra! Many gamers have very fond memories of Sierra and this will only help them long term.

However I'm not sure EA "gets" it. N'Gai Croal of Newsweek is a respected reporter who I've followed since he joined the publication. He's published a 3-part interview with Larry Probst, CEO of EA and it's like the Giant who can't see the Lilliputians. The man is just out of touch.

I guess all this rambling is because I see this as worrying. Infrogrames bought the Atari name (which hasn't been owned by Atari since 1964) because Atari used to mean something. Now it means half-assed games. VUGames had to change their name. EA needs to wake up.

And yet, shouldn't the answer be to make better games? Stop sacrificing quality for quantity?

And if you're going to buy a studio, great - fund them! But allow them an identity of their own. Microsoft has historically left it's studios with their own identity. We in the consumerist press and the hardcore gaming enthusiast may know that it's not quite that simple but the majority of the people who truly matter - the people who BUY games, they look for names like Bungie, Rare, Ensemble (ok, maybe not Ensemble) but it's not Microsoft they're looking for unless it's Flight Sim.

There's a lesson in here to be learned somewhere...

Today "concise" eludes me.

This weekend was Thanksgiving here in the US. For the first time in many years I spent it with family. Some of them I hadn't seen in as long as 10 years. Some as little as 4...The reasons I won't go into but suffice it to say, all twenty of us at one table was a lot. Since I've gotten sick I overload easily and 4 days was enough stimulation to last me until next year.

One of the defining qualities of my life is an inability to belong to a group. It's not that I don't want to - I wouldn't mind finding a "place" of comfort and belonging. I just don't fit in well. Too often I find myself observing. But, I fake it well enough that I tend to enjoy myself more often than not, and most people don't know. It works. But not with my family. Sometimes, I think I sprouted in a garden and someone whom I look like picked me.

Bitching about my family is not what this entry is about.

Early in the first day I noticed that I had to be very careful with my language. This is difficult for me because I've made it a point when speaking to use as broad a vocabulary as possible; I do this so that my meaning is clear and concise. Nothing irks me more than when people try to interpret what I mean based upon their own assumptions. (It's odd, I don't do this with writing when the norm is to use a broader vocabulary when writing.) But, in doing so I found I made several people uncomfortable. I know this for a fact because I was accused of using "$2 words".

Later, I was relating an anecdote that I found amusing about a friend of mine and how we'd argued about genetic determination and recessive/dominant genes and I was shocked he'd never heard of Mendel's Peas. We're 14 years apart in age and I haven't kept up with biology journals for the last 4-5 years so I'd not heard that eye color was no longer based upon a single trait. Because of our age difference, he knew this. I was adamant in my stance. We were both correct based upon what we learned.

The people I was talking to? I lost them at the word genetics.

I'd decided to do some browsing with their computer and couldn't understand why, on a cable modem, it was so damned slow. The next day, I couldn't install Adobe Reader. A little looking and I'd found damaged sectors on the hard drive and noticed that Windows ME had never been updated. So, I started with Service Pack 1 from 2001. When I explained the maintenance I did I saw that glazed look again.

I've been working with computers in general since the Commodore 64. I did homework on a Vic20, an Apple IIc and IIe and one of the first Macs. I did this in the home of the people I was now speaking to. My home business used to be outsource Medical Billing for Physician Offices - done online. I am of an age that had to learn to stop writing everything down before typing it but could be trained to do so. Computers have always been a part of my life. I've been working with gaming support sites for 7 years; I've been in the Games Press for five.

My mom said to me, "now that you're into this, what will we have to talk about?" Apparently, I've mutated beyond human.

This is a lot of set-up for my point.

We spend our days in this virtual world with each other. I was in a home with 20 people. The only other people that spend time in this virtual world were my ex and my own children. That left 16 people who are completely ignorant of the Wii, the PS3, Windows Vista (hell, Windows XP), YouTube, Myspace and all of the other social gathering places we take for granted. They don't know about copyright issues with abandonware - they don't know or care about abandonware. Two of them owned a computer and as I said, I spent time updating Windows ME on one.

75% were partially to completely ignorant.

They didn't have iPods, HDTVs, PS2s - though 3 had cellphones (6 if you count myself, my ex and my kids). I am the only one who blogs. No one other than my immediate family and my sister had heard the term blog. All of them except for me still owned VHS tapes (some had both VHS and DVDC - I simply own no VHS). This includes my ex.

The referred to me as a techhie. I'm not a technophile by any means, just compared to them.

And it leads me to wonder about those of us who live in this virtual world of ours and take everything so damned seriously...

Should we not slow down just a little bit and look at the (very probable) 75% of the population behind us?