Precise, Complete, Succinct

• 5Jul 12

  Video game as a sculpture of reflection

  Video game makers should be proud of themselves. Theirs is a revolution in the sharing of the human condition. Not like painting or music or literature or film, not an exposition. Not a scenery only viewed by its audience at most through a personal lens. Theirs is a mirror. And like so many delightful distorting mirrors of carnival, the reflection is always telling not only of the mirror but also the viewer. No, distorting mirror scarcely does it justice. Video game is a sculpture of reflection.

  Rather, video game has the potential to be so much more, but we have paid too much attention to the games themselves. We are asking game makers to paint the Mona Lisa with 16 colors. Dual Shock 3 has many more buttons than the red-white controller of Famicom, but it's still just a controller. We need more Wii, more Kinect, more Move. We need what's after those devices. We need to constantly invent new ways for the player to interact with his game until every feasible way a game designer can envision becomes possible. Then video gaming will become mainstream, even beyond mainstream because it offers what no other medium is capable.

  Perhaps then the perception of games as toys or fodder for the violent and lascivious will change; perhaps that never mattered. In every medium, there is consumption of violence and sex. The unique nature of video game naturally makes it even more susceptible because it does them so very well. Just as Marilyn Manson does not devalue music and literature is no worse off for Fanny Hill, game makers and players alike need not feel ashamed of appealing to the masses. In fact, I have never been prouder to call myself a gamer.

  I thank Gamespot and the ACMI Game Masters for giving me this new confidence.

  • Posted Jul 5, 2012 2:43 am GMT
  • Category: Opinion
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 9Dec 11

  Note to self: I am still way too nooby when it comes to business.

  I made a serious mistake when considering the relationship between BF3 and MW3. I got caught up in the online hype and completely missed an alternate explanation for BF3.

  Observations:

  BF3's stated goal is to take away some of MW's market share - true but also a misdirection of its main purpose.

  Game sales on consoles exceeded those on PC by a factor of 24 in Nov 2011 - I seriously underestimated the disparity between the markets.

  BF3 has numerous features that make it better on PC than on consoles - I wondered about the incongruity of this fact in context of EA's stated goals for BF3 and the reality of the gaming market, but I thought DICE (more importantly and dangerously) EA was going back to BF's PC roots.

  There are two camps in the BF franchise: the console-dominant Bad Company franchise and the PC-centric BF2 fans who never fully accepted BC - I didn't even consider BC as a factor when considering BF3 and MW3.

  BF1943 - I didn't even know this game existed.

  There were so many factors that I either failed to consider more carefully or didn't even know. The result was tunnel vision. BF3 was never meant to directly compete with MW3. It was meant to reunite the two main groups of BF fans in one game. EA knows every well BF will never come close to MW's sales if it stayed PC-centric, but another console-centric entry will simply drive most PC gamers away from the franchise altogether, and that portion is significant. BF3 is meant to correct the marketing mistake caused by BC before shifting the entire fan base to the consoles in a more gradual manner.

  Or maybe the schism created by BC was expected in the first place. EA wanted to win over a group of console gamers with BC knowing most PC gamers will remain loyal. EA may have planned to unite the two groups using BF3 from the beginning, years ago before BC even came out.

  Wow! I remember thinking something similar about Microsoft and the reason why Windows Vista was so gaming-unfriendly. This level of strategy sends shivers down my spine.

  • Posted Dec 9, 2011 5:30 pm GMT
  • Category: Business
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 7Dec 11

  Litigation or arbitration? Voluntary or involuntary?

  The second question is perhaps more pertinent. Is the binding arbitrary clause of some high profile-EULA today really entered on a voluntary basis? Such a thing doesn't exist between people and sellers of food. A car manufacturer can't add such a clause as a condition for buying a car. (Or can they?) This is a digital age. The notion that you can still pursue happiness without any digital products or services is quite ludicrous to most people. Does that alter the nature of contracts between digital businesses and consumers?

  Arbitration is designed primarily as a tool to deal with disputes that cannot be easily resolved through legal means. It admittedly can be simpler than going through the courts. However, should we as a society permit most people to waive their right to settle legal dispute in court, when most of them do not fully comprehend the severity of that decision? The role of government in such cases is highly controversial but more important than ever.

  • Posted Dec 7, 2011 8:12 pm GMT
  • Category: Opinion
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »