Kotaku has a post about several journalists and game-related thinkers weighing in on whether video games will ever grow up. Steve Gaynor, N’Gai Croal, John Walker, they’ve all got a take, but the guy who best articulated my feelings on the matter is Armimaan, a commenter who’s thoughts were spotlighted in the blog’s “A Week in Comments” section.

Here’s what Armimaan had to say:

I think the primary reason gaming is in danger of being forever infantilized is the industry’s reliance of violence as the primary gameplay factor. 99% of games out there involve shooting, bashing, stomping, cutting, and so forth. Even the ones with great, mature stories — BioShock and Mass Effect, for example — require you to go blasting away through waves of enemies to get to it. When a game comes out that doesn’t feature violence, it’s derided by the fanbase and met with low review scores, while games that overemphasize violence are lauded. It’s the same thing with comics. There are exceptions to this, of course, but those are too few to make an impact on the overall perception of the industry.

The majority of books and movies, on the other hand, focus on drama. Sure, there are lots of action movies out there, but there are a lot MORE comedies, dramas, mysteries, thrillers, and so forth, that rely on character and internal conflict, instead of pure power fantasy. For every violent action film that gets released, there are ten non-violent films.

Quality of content aside, this is why movies, books, TV and music are viewed as being “legitimate” forms of entertainment: they address a broader range of topics about the human condition, and they do so in a manner that doesn’t evoke the image of a three-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.

Remember: violence is considered juvenile, and while being juvenile isn’t a bad thing, being TOO juvenile is. Currently, the gaming industry is too juvenile — we focus too much on violent gameplay. Things are changing, but we do have to tread carefully, otherwise we WILL end up permanently living in the kiddie ghetto with comic books and no hope of moving on up.

One need only look at lavish mainstream praise for Guitar Hero and Rock Band to see how ready the media is to flock to video games as a cool cultural artifact. The industry simply hasn’t given them enough fodder.

Media, Violence | No Comments »

Been a while. Time for a playlist:

What’s in:

Zack and Wiki: The sleeper hit that gamer nerds love to love. It’s a point and click adventure, like Monkey Island, with some Wii controls thrown in — manipulating objects requires you to figure out the corresponding motions. The concept sounds good, but in execution I’m wondering if this is just a gimmick or something that will actually improve the gameplay. Hopefully I’ll find out before Wiki’s voice compels me to throw my TV into a wall.

Double Dragon II: The Revenge: I forgot what it’s like to battle The Shadow Warrior, or whatever his name is. Unfortunately, I also forgot the feeling of playing six solid levels before being confronted with a series of arbitrary jumping puzzles that can make or break your entire game.

What’s out:

No More Heroes: First time in a while that I’ve been really sad to finish a game. A first-rate title from start to finish, with only a few minor flaws. I find myself disagreeing with critics’ main detraction, but more on that later.

Rez: The “interactive techno music video on acid,” as I like to call it, was totally super awesome pants. It was also totally super awesome short, and I really mean that. It’s nice to have a game that doesn’t take 15 hours to finish, but you can return to later for some simple psychedelic euphoria.

What’s coming:

Something violent that’s already been released three times: Call of Duty 4 and Devil May Cry 4 are queued up on my Gamefly account, just to see what all the fuss is about.

Playlists | No Comments »

An article of mine that I wrote for The Escapist few months back finally dropped today.

It basically takes on Ian Bogost’s argument that “anti-advergames,” defined as games that protest a product or service, can change the way consumers think. This was my first opinion piece of any considerable length, and it was a little unnerving to challenge one of the industry’s most respected academics, but the editors seemed to like it so hopefully I’ll get to do this more in the future.

A note for the record: I was dismayed to see that Chris Dahlen, a fine video game journalist, used a similar “look we love you Ian, but…” cushion when reviewing “Fatworld” in January, somewhat stealing the thunder of my own lede, which was penned last year but did not come out ’till today. Whatever, I guess it can’t be said enough.

Newman, Theory, Academics | No Comments »

CNN’s Doctor (how does a newsroom have a doctor, anyway?) Sanjay Gupta explains to the commonfolk why men are more apt to be addicted to video games than women.

Men and women were given a simple destroy-the-dots to play while their brains were hooked up to an MRI scanner. Showing three highlighted parts of the brain, Gupta says:

“What is important about those areas, Karen, is that they represent the reward centers of the brain, and they are much more brightly activated in men as compared to women.” He further explains that the study intended to answer the broader question of addiction, and whether men might be more inclined to become addicted to things.

Nevermind the usual gamer feedback that applies — the host seems intent on writing off games as a worthless pastime — the thing about these kinds of studies is the variables I’m really curious about never come out to play. For one, I’d be interested to know whether men’s reward centers light up more during any goal-oriented task. Might they feel more “addiction” to work or a household project as well?

Also, this game resembled something from the Atari era. Do more complicated games that involve more than just a simple high score objective lead to the same kind of brain activity? Do other emotions the player may feel during, say, Bioshock, interfere with this “addiction” trigger? Paging Dr. Gupta.

Media, Addiction, SCIENCE! | No Comments »

Part of a series that is doomed to increase as I get to talking about games way later than everyone else

When Super Mario Galaxy first arrived in my mailbox, I played it for a few hours and put it away, only stabbing at a star here or there before retreating to Mass Effect, Virtual Console or anything that wasn’t Super Mario Galaxy.

It pains me to play this game. I tried rationalizing this with all sorts of silly theories — I’m into more mature content, I like games with more of a plot, it’s too much like the last Mario games — but really, it’s all just a pack of lies.

What was actually going on was my refusal to admit the truth, that the childlike whimsy I once felt while playing Mario games is gone from my soul and will henceforth return only as nostalgia. I spent all my boyish wonder on Mario 64, went into boyish wonderdebt at Super Mario Sunshine, and now that Galaxy has dropped, I’m so far in the hole Mario’s going to have to jump out of the TV set to dazzle my spirits.

The frustrating part is, I can’t figure out if Galaxy simply isn’t wonderous enough or if part of me has changed. On one hand, I remember every star in Mario 64 being a tangible accomplishment, as if a small mountain was climbed each time Mario popped out of a painting victorious. But those were the days of all-nighters and weekend binges. The weekends had that special quality. When the school week ended, gaming began because it was cold outside and Nintendo 64 was a box of magic.

Certainly I’ve heard about little kids enjoying this game more than a Disneyland Character Breakfast, but do adults who grew up on Mario feel the same way? I’m not sure — the critics are all praising the game for it’s fine, distilled platformery. Those that do talk about the game’s whimsy and fancy and reckless abandon, well, I wonder if they really mean it, or if they haven’t admitted the truth themselves.

Wii, Rants | No Comments »