Conquer the Stack

I'm fascinated by videogames and the accompanying industry. I want to write about them, talk about them, and discuss them with anyone who's interested. This is a call.

[conquerthestack-blog]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Violent Videogame Law in Brown v. EMA

After nearly eight months, the videogame industry can breathe a collective sigh of relief as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down their decision in the violent videogames case, Brown v. EMA. By a vote of 7-2, the California law, which imposed a $1000 fine on vendors caught selling or renting violent videogames to minors, was ruled unconstitutional due to the fact that it did not comport with the First Amendment. So, how did it all go down and what does this mean for the future of the gaming industry? Let's hash it out.

The opinion of the Court, delivered Monday, was written by Justice Antonin Scalia with support from Justices Ginsburg, Kagan, Kennedy, and Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion along with Chief Justice Roberts while two dissenting opinions were offered by Justices Breyer and Thomas.

In the Court's opinion, Scalia makes the most important declaration:

"Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And "the basic principles of freedom of speech[...]do not vary" with a new and different communication medium."

This is an important distinction as one of the key arguments of California's case was that videogames are such a new and distinct medium that they might not be protected equally. While Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, he cautioned that the Court might be too quick to rule out the possibility that videogames, or other new technologies, may need to be considered differently.

"In considering the application of unchanging constitutional principles to new and rapidly evolving technology, this Court should proceed with caution," offered Alito in his concurring opinion. "We should make every effort to understand the new technology. We should not jump to the conclusion that new technology is fundamentally the same as some older thing with which we are familiar."

Although he brings up a worthy point for discussion, videogames, as we currently understand them, are not fundamentally different from the older forms of media that are currently protected under the First Amendment. However, it's impossible to predict what form expressive speech might take as technology progresses and Alito's words could one day be prophetic.

One aspect of the SCOTUS decision that I find most intriguing is that both sides of the opinion seem to agree that California lost this case because the law that they were pushing was poorly written and not necessarily because their argument was without merit. In the Court's decision, Scalia comments on the fact that one major problem with the law was that it was not all-inclusive for minors.

"The California Legislature is perfectly willing to leave this dangerous, mind-altering material in the hands of children so long as one parent (or even an aunt or uncle) says it's OK[...]That is not how one addresses a serious social problem."

On the other end of the spectrum, in his concurring opinion, Alito took issue with the vagueness of some of the wording in the law.

"In drafting the violent video game law, the California Legislature could have made its own judgment regarding the kind and degree of violence that is acceptable in games played by minors (or by minors in  particular  age  groups). Instead,  the  legislature relied on undefined societal or community standards."

The big issue being pointed out here is that social standards that are used to determine obscenity were well established at the time of previous Supreme Court rulings. There was a publicly accepted standard of what was obscene, depictions of genitalia or sexual acts, when those landmark decisions were handed down. However, in this case, a social standard is unacceptable because there is no commonly agreed upon limit for what is "too violent." One needs to only watch the local nightly news to see depictions of gross violence to include beatings and murder or, as was pointed out by Scalia, to read a children's book such as Hansel and Gretel in which the protagonists kill the witch by burning her alive in an oven.

So, if the California law wasn't terribly far off-base in the eyes of the Court and was overturned mainly because of poor wording, does that mean that a more properly scripted bill could one day restrict the sale of violent videogames to minors? That is certainly a possibility but to achieve that goal would require a long, difficult battle. It took eight years from the time the original legislation was enacted until the SCOTUS decision was handed down. Future bills could be expected to take a similar lengthy traversal of the United States legal system. Also, just because one violent videogame law was agreed to be heard before the SCOTUS doesn't guarantee that any future legislation will receive the same privilege. The fact that a precedent has now been established providing videogames protection under the First Amendment means that future laws will have a far more difficult time achieving similar restrictions.

This was a huge win for the entire industry. Had this law been upheld it could have had a massive effect on the types of content that videogame publishers would have been willing to back financially. Now, without the fear of restriction, game developers are free to carry on designing the innovative products that we all know and love.

While many gamers and members of the enthusiast press were thrilled to hear the good news, others were less enthusiastic which I find puzzling. A statement that I saw echoed multiple times throughout the day after the decision came through was that the videogame industry now needs to step it up to justify the ruling. To me, this was a curious reaction and I'm willing to bet that those same people would have been crying in their Corn Flakes had the case gone the other way. I certainly won't argue that the gaming industry can't improve. However, I don't think developers need to validate the decision at all.

This case was about First Amendment rights, which protect the freedom of expressive speech, and not about the artistic integrity of videogames. In fact, the Court's decision does not come close at any point to having a discussion on the artistic merit of videogames. What they did say is that games are due the same rights as books and movies. As is true with other forms of "artistic" media, there are the great, the good, and the absolutely terrible creations. For every East of Eden there are 50 teen vampire novels. For every Mona Lisa there is an endless quantity of bad Photoshop art. Great videogames that have high artistic merit will continue to be the exception, not the norm, and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that the industry now has the capability to continue progressing, without restriction, is worth celebrating for at least one day.

People were lambasting Leland Yee on Twitter for creating such a bad piece of legislation but I think that was a poor reaction too as we should be high-fiving the guy instead. Sure, this law wasted a lot of California's time and money. However, this sort of bill was bound to be created somewhere, at some time. We should be thankful that it was a poorly-worded hack job that had little chance of success.

[conquerthestack-blog]

This amazing view looking down on San Francisco was taken by my girlfriend; she is there visiting for the weekend. I'm hoping we move there in the very near future and I'm totally jealous she's there without me right now!

[conquerthestack-blog]

Videogames and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Schwarzenegger v. EMA

I wrote this awhile ago but thought it would be worth posting again here with the Supreme Court decision expected to be handed down in the very near future. This article was originally published at Game Podunk.

On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) heard oral arguments for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California v. Electronic Merchants Association (EMA). This is an important case for the videogame industry that could have far-reaching ramifications. SCOTUS makes available on their website the transcripts for all oral arguments so I was able to review the 59 pages of back-and-forth dialogue between the lawyers and Supreme Court Justices in a hearing that was both enlightening and entertaining at times (full transcript). The following is a look at the arguments that were presented by each side as well as some discussion on the implications and possible outcome of the case.

Background Information and Why This Matters to You It is important, first, to understand the overall picture of what is at stake here. A lot has been written in the videogames media about the background and importance of this issue so I'm going to quickly gloss over it. For a great read and more detailed look at why this is important, check out Jeff Green's editorial on the matter. The state of California created a law in 2005 that made it illegal for minors (persons under the age of 18) to purchase or rent "violent videogames." EMA filed a lawsuit and the statute was subsequently overturned on First Amendment grounds by the United States District Court in California, a decision later upheld upon appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (source: videogamevoters.org). A California appeal of that decision has landed the case before SCOTUS, the highest court in the nation.

This case is important to the videogame industry for a number of reasons, principal among them being a decision on how the First Amendment applies to the still-young form of media. Books, movies, comics, and even music have had their day in court regarding the First Amendment and all have been given full protection with the exception of obscene material. If SCOTUS were to overturn the Appeals Court decision it would make videogames the first form of media to have exceptions to the First Amendment that fall outside the realm of obscenity. Rules of the Game: How SCOTUS Works in 100 Words Both sides file briefs with the court and if the decision is made to hear the case they get a limited amount of time to present their oral arguments. Justices are allowed to (and often do) intervene for questions at any time. When the time is up the Justices convene in private to discuss and vote on how to decide the case. The position that holds the majority of the nine members determines the decision. Decisions are handed down as written opinions many weeks or even months later and the opposing members may submit a dissenting opinion for the record. California's Arguments The crux of California's case is that there is precedent for their 2005 law in two previous SCOTUS cases: Ginsberg v. New York (1968) and Miller v. California (1973). Both of these cases dealt with obscene material of a sexual nature. Ginsberg specifically covered the distribution of such material to minors without the presence of a parent and the Miller case established a three-prong test to determine if material is obscene. The lawyer for California, Zackery P. Morazzini, began the hearing by arguing that the case in question is essentially identical to that of Ginsberg with the lone difference being the nature of the media, sexual material in that case and 'deviant violent videogames' in the present. This prompted a rather hilarious exchange with Justice Antonin Scalia that ended with the following zinger that is destined to go down in history or at the very least end up on a funny t-shirt somewhere: "Some of the Grimm's fairy tales are quite grim, to tell you the truth...Are they okay? Are you going to ban them, too?" Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (unrelated to the aforementioned SCOTUS case) continued this line of questioning and struck at one of the core flaws of the California law, its vagueness, which could potentially allow for future restrictions to other forms of media such as movies and books. She asked Morazzini to explain why video games are special from other media. The California argument for this is that the interactive nature of videogames is harmful to the psyche of minors. In the briefs submitted to the court, both sides presented studies for the record that argue for and against this position, so the disputed nature of this claim is known. Justice Sonia Sotomayor seems to have a good grasp of this concept when she jabs at Morazzini, "One of the studies, the Anderson study, says that the effect of violence is the same for a Bugs Bunny episode as it is for a violent video[game]. So can the legislature now, because it has that study, say we can outlaw Bugs Bunny?" The California law is also not clear in its definition of the types of violence that would fall under the regulation. Members of the court asked repeated questions as to what violence qualifies and how videogame developers and distributors are to ensure that they are complying with the standards of the law. Morazzini suggested that either developers judge for themselves or that a regulation board be created to determine what violence is obscene, an idea that sounded like a censorship board which Justice Scalia was quick to point out.

Justice Scalia also made it clear that he had other issues with the law: "I am concerned with the vagueness, but I am concerned with the First Amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And it was always understood that the freedom of speech did not include obscenity. It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence." Morazzini countered by saying, "[A]s with sexual -- the regulation of sexual material and obscenity, we had to start somewhere. California is choosing to start now." EMA's Arguments The lawyer representing EMA, Paul M. Smith, began by arguing that California is seeking an unprecedented exception for violence to the First Amendment that would in turn have to be applied to other forms of media to include books and movies. Chief Justice John Roberts was quick to jump on this argument by claiming that the difference is due to the interactive nature of videogames. He says, "[T]he child is doing the killing. The child is doing the maiming. And I suppose that might be understood to have a different impact on the child's moral development." Following an attempt by Smith to disregard this statement due to a lack of consensus among the submitted studies, Chief Justice Roberts embarks on a line of questioning to establish that a similar lack of consensus was present in the Ginsberg case but common sense was used as a basis for the decision. Justice Stephen Breyer runs with this line of thought and concludes that it is common sense that a parent should have to make the purchase in order for a child to play excessively violent videogames. From there, Smith moved on to argue that there is a significant difference between obscene sexual material and depiction of violence and that it has never been illegal to sell the latter to minors in any medium. He points out that parents have been making those common sense decisions for a long time, not the government. When directly challenged by Chief Justice Roberts about whether or not the First Amendment could prohibit the sale of violent videogames to minors Smith responded by saying, "My position is that there is not a violence exception to the First Amendment for minors and there should not be." The discussion then transitioned to possible alternatives to the law. Justice Samuel Alito suggested a civic penalty to accompany the current rating system. Smith contested that this would turn the ESRB into a censorship commission which the First Amendment doesn't allow. Chief Justice Roberts theorized that certain videogames could be sold in areas of stores restricted to minors but Smith strikes that down as being no different in any way to the law under review. The Justices then query whether there is anything the states can do to restrict violent videogame sales and Smith sticks to his guns by stating there is nothing they can do. Smith’s final point is that drawing a line in the sand between acceptable and restricted violence is impossible when age appropriateness is considered. Chief Justice Roberts points out that a fine line is drawn for the drinking age, death penalty, and purchase of cigarettes. Smith ends the line of questions by saying, "But here you were assessing works of expression, deciding to decide what age they -they would correspond to, and I don't think you can cut it that finely and say well, this is an 18 game; this is only a 17 game. I just don't think that works." Final Thoughts Both sides were the focus of intense questioning by the various Supreme Court Justices. This a good thing as these men and women will make a very serious decision that could have a long-lasting impact on the First Amendment rights of all forms of media in this country. It is imperative that they play devil's advocate and probe all sides of a case and they seemed to do just that in this instance.

This leads to the obvious question: how will the decision play out? It is virtually impossible to discern from the hearing what the majority opinion will be. However, I’m going to attempt a guess at how the vote will end up based on my reading. Disclaimer: This is nothing more than educated guesswork based on my interpretation of the hearing and the reality is that all nine members of the court could go either way. I predict that Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Breyer, and Justice Alito will all vote in support of the law. I think that Justice Scalia, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Ginsberg will vote in opposition. It is tough to even wager a guess how the final three will vote. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Anthony Kennedy were relatively quiet and their questions did not appear to lean in any direction. The wild card in all of this is Justice Clarence Thomas who did not speak once throughout the hearing. His decisions typically tend towards the conservative so the smart bet is on him being in favor of the law. This is a bit disconcerting because if that does happen and I do have the first six correct, then Justice Kagan and Justice Kennedy would both have to vote in opposition for EMA to be victorious. That seems like a tall order since neither is very liberal and they gave no indication that they would vote that way. Please, keep in mind that this is nothing more than blatant speculation. I'm not saying all is lost but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a bit worried at this point. As an avid videogame player, I'm clearly in opposition to this law and hope that EMA is handed a resounding victory. The decision will take, at the minimum, several weeks to come down so until then we can only wait with fingers crossed. Hopefully, rational thought and the First Amendment will win out and we may all continue to game without interference.

[conquerthestack-blog]

E3: Nintendo Press Conference Reactions

"What's the deal with Project Cafe?" That's the one question I had on my mind heading into this year's Nintendo E3 press conference, a thought I'm sure I shared with many others. Nintendo pulled back the curtain on its latest offering on Tuesday and after all was said and done I was left with a different thought: "What the hell?"

Nintendo Wii U

Project Cafe no more, the next step for Nintendo is officially known as Wii U. Congratulations Nintendo, you just won the award for most terrible name of E3 2011. Scratch that, make it the award for the worst console name ever. I want to be clear that this isn't just spiteful cynicism combined with a lack of comprehension on my part. When I first heard the name Wii I didn't love it but as I came to understand the goal Nintendo had for the console it made sense. This time is different. This time I get it; the name is just awful. Its one saving grace is that it sounds like Mario going down a slide if you stretch it out into a yell which is kind of fun. Enough about the name, let's get serious.

Nintendo spent the majority of their Wii U time showing off their new controller, a rectangular-shaped contraption with a 6.2 inch LCD screen planted in the middle, and avoiding any mention of the word "console." This was a peculiar tactic that left me scratching my head by the end. Is this actually a new console or just a new controller for the Wii? It would later be revealed, through interviews and show floor demos after the press conference, that the Wii U is, in fact, the console successor to the Wii. However, what I'm most interested in is the way that Nintendo presented its newest product to the world.

Before unveiling their latest hardware, Nintendo president and CEO Satoru Iwata talked about how their aim for their next generation was to offer a deeper gaming experience to a wider audience. The reference to deeper gaming experience means one thing: better games -like those seen on Xbox 360 and PS3- in order to bring the core gamer segment back into the Nintendo flock. With that as the stated aim for Wii U, I'm left pondering the tactics Nintendo used to present the device they hope to accomplish that goal with.

Most detrimental to this end is the fact that they did not show off the console hardware and even kept their mention of a console to a minimum. First off, this creates confusion in the marketplace which is never a good thing. Perhaps Nintendo wanted everyone to be puzzled in order to foster conversational buzz but this is a poor tactic because if even a shred of that confusion filters into the general public it could be very bad for business.

Second, and more importantly, remaining mum on the actual console is not doing Nintendo any favors with the hardcore demographic that they're clearly interested in recapturing. The controller is an eye-catching gimmick with intriguing possibilities but, as was demonstrated with the Wii, gimmicks don't captivate the type of gamers that Nintendo is currently lacking. These types of players want one thing: awesome game experiences powered by superior hardware. The fact that Nintendo did not so much as hint at the specs of their new machine is a strong indication to me that the Wii U's capability is, at best, on par with the current consoles available from Microsoft and Sony. If the Wii U does not have hardware that is more powerful than either the 360 or PS3 then I have a hard time imagining it will be successful in stealing away gamers from those systems. Nintendo can say all that it wants about their "experience" but players aren't going to spend hundreds of dollars to jump ship from their current console of choice if the games aren't better on Wii U.

Nintendo also made a blunder by not making a strong commitment to online play. If they hope to expand their audience then a full-fledged online service will need to be part of the equation.

The Controller

While a lot can be interpreted from what Nintendo wasn't saying, it's obvious from what they did say about their new controller that they feel it is the next big thing in gaming. Some of the demonstrations proved the device is toeing the line of gimmickry but I have to admit that the new controller is cool and has the potential to enhance gameplay. Then again, I also thought the same thing about the Wiimote the first time I saw it.

One of the more innovative uses of the controller screen was a golf game where the controller was sitting on the ground showing the lie of the ball while the player used a Wiimote to swing the club. There were hints of other creative uses such as providing a rear-view mirror in a racing game or an inventory for an RPG. These types of functionality are not only intuitive but add to the game experience; Kinect developers please take note. I'm eager to see what other uses game studios can find for the device once they've had significant time with it.

Third Party Support

One thing Nintendo nailed was their announcement of early third party support, particularly from publishing giant EA. The Wii's lackluster hardware drove third party developers away from the system which ultimately shaped the image of that console as the one for non-gamers. Getting the biggest developers to put out their multiplatform games on the Wii U is the right move for Nintendo and could be a boon for accomplishing their goal of an increased audience.

Some games that were announced for the Wii U are Batman: Arkham City, Assassin's Creed, Darksiders 2, Ninja Gaiden 3, Tekken, Aliens: Colonial Marines, and Metro: Last Light. These are impactful titles and the increased third party support is a big step in the right direction for Nintendo to recapture some of the core market. All of that being said, I maintain that having those blockbuster games won't mean a thing if they aren't better on the Wii U than they are on 360/PS3. Being equal simply won't be good enough and if the games are worse or released later than on other platforms then Nintendo could be in for a rude awakening and an uphill battle.

What about 3DS?

Nintendo's other piece of hardware got some love as well, with announcements of 3DS entries for some of the company's biggest franchises. Mario Kart, Starfox, and Kid Icarus: Uprising were all revealed to be due late in 2011. Super Mario 3D and Luigi's Mansion 2 were also on display featuring new adventures in 3D. Finally, Nintendo teased that a new Super Smash Bros. game was in development simultaneously for the 3DS and Wii U.

Seeing all of these game announcements from well-worn Nintendo properties, I can't help but wonder how much longer the company can continue to fall back on the franchises they created years ago. Sure, these titles will make fans of each series happy and sell plenty of copies but excuse me if I'm not frothing at the mouth to play 3DS versions of Mario Kart and Starfox, two games that were released more than ten years ago on the Nintendo 64. The Kid Icarus game seems to be the most exciting of the lot as it has had the longest hiatus of all the franchises and will offer 3-on-3 multiplayer which could pave the way for multiplayer-focused titles in the future.

Zelda 25th Anniversary

To open the show, Nintendo spent some time discussing all things Zelda to celebrate 25 years of adventuring with Link. Link's Awakening, one of my favorite Zelda games, is now available on the eShop which will give players who missed the original releases an opportunity to tackle one of the franchise's best adventures. Perhaps the biggest news on the Zelda front is that two re-releases will be available on 3DS next week: a free download of Four Swords and the updated version of Ocarina of Time. Both titles should help generate some momentum for a currently weak 3DS software lineup but it could be a long summer for early adopters of the handheld. Finally, it was revealed that the newest Zelda game, Skyward Sword, will be released this holiday season on Wii which is sure to please fans.

E3 is all about making a big splash and Nintendo certainly accomplished that goal by providing a first look at the Wii U. What remains to be seen, thanks to the somewhat confusing presentation, is whether or not it was effective. Many more questions will need to be answered before even a preconceived notion of the new console can be formed but, if nothing else, it should be interesting to watch as things unfold over the next year.

[conquerthestack-blog]

E3: Sony Press Conference Reactions

Sony needed to have a great showing at E3 this year after the turmoil they've experienced in recent months from the PSN debacle. Following a lackluster, Kinect-heavy press conference by Microsoft earlier in the day, Sony had an opportunity to really knock it out of the park before Nintendo unveiled their new console Tuesday morning. However, rather than feature a daring show full of new game announcements, Sony played it safe (no surprise here) by showing off their biggest titles due out in 2011, offering all the necessary details on the NGP, and beating the 3D horse until it was dead two times over.

PlayStation Vita

Let's dispense with the biggest news right away. The official name of Sony's second generation PSP is PlayStation Vita which is Latin for "life". Releasing this fall, the PS Vita will be available at two price points: a WiFi-only model for $249.99 and a 3G/WiFi model for $299.99. Both of these launch prices seem adequate to me and shouldn't be prohibitive from establishing an early player base. The WiFi-only model will be directly competitive with the Nintendo 3DS while the 3G model offers more capability for those who want or need it. AT&T will be the exclusive carrier for the PS Vita in the US and will come with free access to AT&T WiFi hotspots around the country. A grown went up from the E3 crowd when the AT&T news was announced but seeing as I've been an AT&T cellular customer for more than ten years without issue I'm cool with it.

More than 80 titles are already in development for the Vita and Sony showed off a handful of the biggest names. What impressed me most about the Vita, beyond visuals that rival those of the PS3, are the creative ways that developers are already using the touch and motion controls.

Uncharted: Golden Abyss, which looks almost as good as its PS3 brethren, allows the player to use a variety of optional touch controls, the coolest of which was the ability to draw a path for climbing along walls. A new ModNation Racers game is in development for Vita and it seemed to really shine with the touch controls. Players can quickly draw tracks with their finger and place world elements, like trees, by touch. Even more inventive is the ability to create lakes on a track by hollowing out a space using the front touch screen or adding mountains by pressing up from the rear touchpad. These touch controls are innovative ways to enhance already solid gameplay which is a lot more than can be said about most of the uninspired designs shown off for upcoming Kinect games.

Other Vita games on display were Ruin, an action/RPG game similar to Diablo that allows players to carry on their games between the Vita and PS3 and a new version of LittleBigPlanet featuring touch controls that seemed a natural fit.

I was cautiously optimistic about the NGP when it was first revealed but at this point I'm pretty enthusiastic about the possibilities. What remains to be seen is whether or not the third party developers will flock to the system and create the software necessary to make the handheld a worthwhile investment although it appears that Sony is off to a better start than the support it received for the PSP.

Blockbuster Titles

Two big-budget games that Sony has on the schedule for release later this year are Uncharted 3 and Resistance 3 and promising gameplay was demonstrated for both titles

For Uncharted 3 a level was shown that saw Nathan Drake infiltrating a ship at sea in the middle of a storm. The rain-soaked ship decks put the game's gorgeous water effects on display and stealth was heavily in play as Drake took out the ship's guards one by one while sneaking around. One subtle but impressive thing I noted was context-sensitive animations of Drake such as him reaching out to steady himself with both hands while passing through a door as the ship rocked with the ocean. As the action unfolded, an explosion caused the ship to capsize which led to a harrowing escape from drowning as the ship's compartments began to fill with water. At this point Uncharted 3 looks to be living up to the lofty expectations established by Drake's Deception.

Resistance 3 showed off two different levels, the first of which was a standard combat set piece that utilized some cool combat hardware like a gravity well. The second portion was an interesting twist on an escort mission which had the player's character, Joseph Capelli, in the role of the escorted while carrying a piece of Chimera tech that prevented him from defending himself. Sony also announced that there will be a Sharpshooter Resistance 3 bundle that includes the Sharshooter gun peripheral, Resistance 3, a Move controller, and a PlayStation Eye for $150. The bundle seems like a stretch to push with a game like Resistance 3 but could provide a nice option for gamers that want the Sharpshooter but weren't interested in either Killzone 3 or SOCOM 4.

Sony also announced the next entry in the Sly Cooper series which has long been rumored to be in development. The trailer didn't show any game footage but revealed that the game is due out some time in 2012.

3D, Whether you want it or not

Sony is clearly desperate to make 3D gaming the next big thing and their relentless hammering of the message started to get a bit stale towards the end of the press conference. To encourage gamers to adopt the technology they will be offering a PlayStation display package that includes a 24 inch 3D TV, Resistance 3, a set of 3D glasses, and an HDMI cable for $499. I'm not exactly sure who this package is aimed at but it could find success among the trust-fund enabled college crowd. The set of 3D glasses will be available separately for $69.99 as a budget entry for the technology.

Finally, Sony announced that two new remastered game collections will feature updated 3D support. The first is a God of War collection that includes both PSP titles from Ready At Dawn and the second is the Team Ico collection of Shadow of the Colossus and Ico. I'm not overly excited at the 3D support as the tech is still a bit too expensive for my tastes but I'm thrilled at the chance to play an updated version of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, one of my favorite games of all time.

Closing Thoughts

Ken Levine revealed that Bioshock Infinite will include Move support. Nothing was demonstrated so I'll remain skeptical until it's proven to improve gameplay. He also teased that Irrational is already at work on a Bioshock title for the PlayStation Vita which is a pretty big victory for Sony.

Medieval Moves, a fantasy action game for the Move looked like a nice game for younger PS3 players but wasn't exciting enough to get me off of the fence regarding Sony's motion controller.

Another announcement was PlayStation Suite which will make PlayStation content available on non-PS devices like Android phones. I'm not exactly sure what the end-game is for this one but it could prove an interesting development down the line.

A trailer was shown for an upcoming game based on the J.J. Abrams Star Trek universe which looked promising provided they can successfully capture some of the magic that made the feature film great.

Dust 514 is a new FPS that will connect with the PC-only MMO Eve Online. Not much of the game was shown but the ability to interact with an established PC franchise is an intriguing new direction for Sony.

I don't think Sony took any big gambles, which was understandable in light of the recent tribulations with PSN, but I think they successfully did what they had to do even if their pushing of 3D was a bit much. They revealed the most important information concerning the PlayStation Vita, showed off their highest profile games for 2011, and hinted at some interesting developments in the future.

[conquerthestack-blog]

E3: EA Press Conference Reactions

EA entered their press conference having previously revealed several of their high profile titles in development like Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3. As such, I was most interested to see what their strategy would be for this E3. Would we get to see gameplay demonstrations of the biggest titles like ME3 and Star Wars: The Old Republic? Could the publishing giant possibly have any more tricks up their sleeve with such a strong lineup already on the docket? The answer to the latter question, not surprisingly, proved to be "not really" but EA still made a strong showing with extended demos of both ME3 and Battlefield 3, release dates for both, and trailers for several other high profile games in development.

Mass Effect 3

Game director Casey Hudson showed a portion of gameplay to the E3 crowd that was heavy on combat and light on conversation. The battle portions of the game look like a subtle but significant improvement over that of the first two entries in the series with a faster pace of play and tighter shooting mechanics.  Guns in Mass Effect 3 clearly have more satisfying feedback in both firing and impact which is a big step towards improving the feel of the muddled third person combat. Melee combat has also vaulted into the arena of awesome with the new omni-blade, a hologram sword that can savage enemies in close combat.

The demo mission showed a variety beyond most of what was seen in Mass Effect 2 to include painting a target for a bombing run and combat against a reaper. Curiously, the demo was conducted with a total absence of Kinect which further reinforces my reservations expressed after the Microsoft press conference. What I saw of Mass Effect 3 today left me wanting the game immediately. Thankfully, EA announced when it will be available: March 6, 2012. This is a bit longer wait than was originally anticipated but the revised release date should boost sales by avoiding a crowded holiday market.

Battlefield 3

EA's other heavy-hitter of the day was Battlefield 3 which continues to impress me more each time that I see it. They showed off a small portion of multiplayer gameplay and a lengthy single player level featuring tank combat. The tank level again demonstrated how impressive the Frostbite 2 engine is with outdoor scenes rendered in photo-realistic beauty. Long-range combat between two tank platoons looked exciting but tactically simple and probably nothing that would excite fans of old-school tank simulators like M1A1.

Beyond showing gameplay, it was revealed that Battlefield 3 will come packaged with an online service called Battlelog that tracks stats, allows for platoon creation, and can be accessed both in game and on the web. Battlelog is direct competition with the recently-announced Elite premium service for Call of Duty but will be available free of charge. EA has stated that they're aiming to take down Call of Duty as the king of shooters and this seems like one more step towards successfully achieving that goal. The most important announcement concerning Battlefield 3 was the release date which is now set for October 25 -two weeks before Modern Warfare 3.

The Rest

Arguably the most anticipated title in EA's lineup, Star Wars: The Old Republic, turned out to be the biggest disappointment of the press conference. That's because the only thing shown by BioWare was a CG cinematic that was largely a compilation of previously released trailers and featured zippy gameplay. BioWare's Greg Zeschuk promised that a healthy amount of content would be playable on the show floor but the curious absence at the press conference suggests to me that The Old Republic won't be coming out until sometime in 2012, likely after Mass Effect 3 has seen release in March.

Former Boston Red Sox pitcher-turned-development-studio-founder, Curt Schilling, made an appearance to show off 38 Studios' new game Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning. The game is a fantasy RPG with some hefty names attached including Ken Rolston, Todd McFarlane, and R.A. Salvatore. While the trailer looked promising, it remains to be seen what Reckoning will offer to set itself apart in terms of gameplay compared to recent entries such as Dragon Age II.

Some final thoughts to wrap this one up:

The trailer for SSX has me excited for a type of game that I haven't cared to play since 1080 on Nintendo 64. Peter Moore mentioned that NASA satellite maps were used to recreate real world locations and that the player could drop in at any point in the world although I fail to see the draw in snowboarding off the top of a Walmart in Topeka, KS.

Insomniac announced a new IP called Overstrike. No gameplay footage was shown although from the CG cinematic it looks to be a squad game, possibly with cooperative play. The action-packed trailer had an irreverent tone to it with a wisecracking hero and some humorous moments. Definitely one to watch.

EA Sports previewed new features for FIFA and Madden 12 but there was no live gameplay footage of either. FIFA is focusing heavily on new online features that should foster more competition while Madden has...unemployed NFL players as marketing shills. Also, something about improved defense.

Need for Speed: The Run will feature action both in and out of cars with the on foot portions centering around Quick Time Event gameplay. This one left me scratching my head a bit as it would seem to me that gamers who enjoy racing games probably just want to drive fast instead of running less than ten miles an hour but what do I know.

EA did a solid job overall by displaying the goods for their two impending juggernaut titles but I think they let one get away by not showing more of The Old Republic. Then again, I suppose it was crucial to squeeze in the announcement of The Sims Social in place of a Star Wars gameplay demo.

[conquerthestack-blog]

E3: Microsoft Press Conference Reactions

For Microsoft and Xbox 360, Kinect is clearly the way of the future. If their E3-opening press conference is any indication, that future is woefully underwhelming.

Following an opening salvo of Modern Warfare 3 gameplay, Microsoft spent the majority of their conference demonstrating an array of new Kinect-enabled games. They featured some big name titles such as Mass Effect 3, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, Star Wars, and Fable: The Journey but throughout their demonstrations of new Kinect controls I found myself asking "why?"

Take Mass Effect 3, for instance, which will allow players to use their voice to respond in conversations and to issue orders to their squad in combat. Is it really more efficient or effective to say those orders rather than simply hitting a button? The same could be asked for the conversation system. I suppose that using the voice interaction could heighten the immersion of the experience but without hands-on time it's impossible to determine whether that would actually improve the game experience. Now, if the conversation system would allow you to dictate your own response as opposed to merely reading what's on screen, then that would really be something.

Other games featured similarly pointless or clunky motion controls with the Star Wars Kinect game looking to be the most egregious offender. Light saber swings had noticeable delay and enemies more or less stood around waiting to be destroyed. And then there's the movement issue which has obviously yet to be cleverly implemented by any developer. Star Wars handles it by giving the player a dash mechanic which sounds nice but in the demonstration led to a cycle of dashing to an opponent and then slashing in place before moving off to the next victim. Other Kinect titles, like Fable: The Journey, place the user on rails which is certainly more efficient but amounts to little more than Time Crisis with waving hands as opposed to a firearm.

One title that appeared to do some nice things with Kinect is Ghost Recon: Future Soldier which demonstrated a nifty weapon modification UI. Motion controls were used to separate guns into all of their component parts, select new options, and voice controls could load saved combinations. Their developer stated that their controls in this system were accomplishing things that would not be possible with a regular controller and for the most part that appeared to be true. However, that simple statement reveals what is really the largest issue with Kinect: developers have yet to grasp how to develop innovative controls with the device that do things a standard controller can't instead of simply replacing already efficient methods with either motion or voice. Ubisoft clearly doesn't have it all figured out as moments later their stage man proceeded to show off their shooting mechanic which required him to flick open his closed fist to fire each shot; /facepalm.

The other direction Microsoft has clear intentions of taking the 360 is toward the family and youth markets with titles like Disneyland Adventures, Sesame Street: Once Upon a Monster, and their Fun Labs tool suite. The Sesame Street game looks to be a natural fit with the humorous designs of Tim Schafer and the folks at Double Fine and could be a surprise hit for more than just kids. While Fun Labs might not provide endless entertainment, it did show off some promising technology that could have intriguing future game applications. Most notably was the scanning feature which allows gamers to use their Kinect to create virtual, 3D representations of real-life objects. In the future, developers could allow players to scan in their own items (say a family heirloom shield?) for use in their games.

Here's some final quick hit thoughts to end on:

Tomb Raider is impressive but the gameplay they showed relied a bit too much on QTE

Forza 4 looks to be the racing game that Gran Turismo 5 should have been

Getting console exclusivity for Minecraft is a huge win for Microsoft but it will be interesting to see if it can captivate the console masses the way it has on the PC

Speaking of the PC, it appears Microsoft just doesn't care about its roots anymore

Halo 4 "announcement" might have been ruined by the news leak prior to the show but it was still the biggest of the day so far, particularly the news that it will be the beginning of a full trilogy.

Mass Effect 3: Kinect controls, meh. Tech sword, WANT.

I'm disappointed that Peter Molyneux and Lionhead are cranking out another Fable title. I was hoping that he was using his creative genius to create something new.

Microsoft should let Cliff Bleszinski and Ice T tag team every future conference from start to finish. Cliffy B is a natural showman and Ice T is flat out cool.

That's all I've got for now concerning Microsoft's press conference. Up next: EA.

[conquerthestack-blog]

Pre-E3 Most Wanted Games

E3 is about to kick off in just a few minutes so I wanted to post the list of games I'm most looking forward to prior to the big announcements. Here's my top five:

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim - The sequel to the game that made me love my 360 early on looks to be bigger and better in every way. Oh, and dragons.

Battlefield 3 - I've yet to play a single minute of any Battlefield game but the trailers that have been released so far have me salivating. Easily the best-looking game due out in the next year.

Mass Effect 3 - I didn't love Mass Effect 2 (more on that at some point in the future) but I'm eager to see how my decisions from the first two games will play out.

The Last Guardian - Shadow of the Colossus was a special game in many ways and Ueda's team looks to be going a step further.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution - If this game can capture a bit of the play-as-you-want magic of the original then it should be outstanding.

It will be interesting to see how this list evolves over the next few days, hours, and minutes. It's currently dominated by big name sequels so I'm hoping for some new IP announcements to get excited about.