As many of you know there has been a tragic shooting incident at NIU. We’re not late to the game with our report, we just try not to mention Jack Thompson and his antics.

It seems that any time anyone reports on his ludicrous claims that the only outcome is his face on TV. Which doesn’t add anything to the discussion, only deludes the important matters at hand and gives him the attention he so craves.

The young man who felt that the only option was to go on a violent shooting spree was just another soul who society had failed. Violence was the result of his internal issues and could perhaps be a cause, but I serioulsy doubt the man ‘trained’ in Counter Strike.

I understand Thomson spent umpteen hours studying to be a lawyer. And I understand that he’s apparently successful in his career choice. But sometimes (read: all the time) he just sounds totally off his rocker. Apparently in his latest attempt to get attention he’s contacted the NIU public safety department asking the following:

“Pursuant to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request production of copies of all documents that reveal Steven Kazmierczak’s play of violent video games,”

With comments like that it’s just too easy to pick on him. I can only hope it’s just as easy for those in positions of power and in the media to ignore him.

BTW: Curse GamePolitics for having such good content. I keep linking to them.

Jack Thompson sculpture in Central Park from *PaysImaginaire*’s Flickr page.

[Read more →]

I wish I could take credit for the name of this post, but I’m afriad I have to point you to the crazyness that insipred it.

In her report for the Times Online, Janice Turner takes a rather dismal and defeatist look at television and how it effects the youth in Britian. While generally not focused on video games she does mention them.

“…These are Satan’s Sudoku, crack cocaine of the brain. Even the crappiest cartoon or lamest soap teaches a child about character, plot, drama, humour, life. Playing videogames, children are mentally imprisoned, wired into their evil creators’ brains. And they play them - beepety-beep - on journeys, over family meals, any minute in which they find themselves unamused.”

Yeah, ok. She sound perfectly well balanced. Check out the article and let her know what you think in the comments.

BTW, while reading this I kept thinking of the conversation between Nigel and Austin Powers in Goldmember

CC liscensed photo from brandylee via Flickr.

[Read more →]

A fact that seems to have slipped past Blogger Kevin McCullough. This lack of insight appears to have fueled his attack on the Xbox 360 game Mass Effect in this poorly written and grossly inaccurate rant. We became aware of this disturbing piece of “journalism” thanks to this post at Game Politics. I do not want to waste the space to quote from McCullough’s piece and point out the numerous misrepresentations. As it is, Game Politics did an impressive job of restraining themselves and limiting their selections. Suffice it to say that McCullough has so many mistakes in his story that once they’re removed, there isn’t much of an article left.

What is of relevance to us here is that this individual is apparently outraged at some mature content in a videogame. So much so that he doesn’t look close enough to see that the game is clearly targeted to an audience of 17+ years and that the 30 second risque scene is less graphic than what appears on most mature television dramas these days.

I appreciate any attempts to help us parents make informed decisions about content to which our children should have access. However, when the discussion becomes slanderous and seems to encourage censorship I have to question the true motivation of the writer.

In our households, we still need to ”baby-proof” things. The thought of a razor blade left in one of the kids’ rooms sends shivers down our spines. But what McCullough did here was like trying to have the local pharmacy shut down because they sell razor blades in their shaving department. And, in his horror to realize this, he chose to call them nuclear-powered and said that they would kill on contact. (My father will roll his eyes when he reads this and say, “All analogies are suspect,” but I couldn’t help it.)

Here at Game Apparent we’ve said it before and we’ll be saying it for years to come. Not all games are for kids. This is one of the reasons that we decided to create this site. If there’s ever a question, you ALWAYS have resources at your disposal:

• Check the ESRB rating for the game.
• Post a question in our Forums.
• Email us directly - Chris or Ted.
• Visit our friends at Gamer Dad and search their site for a review.

We’re all in this together and as long as we have the proper tools, we can make informed decisions on behalf of our families.

[Read more →]

In our last article, Chris brought up the concept of licensed games and how they make their way onto our children’s wish lists. It is important to understand the politics of making a game that has a television or, especially, a movie tie-in. The rule of thumb is that these games are rarely great games. There are exceptions, but they are infrequent. The fact is that nothing can be more frustrating for a family during the holidays than to get a highly anticipated game as a gift only to realize that it isn’t fun at all. Well, one thing is more frustrating…being the parent who paid $50-$60 for that game and realizing that it was wasted money.

Licensed games are titles that are created to extend the experience which began with the film upon which the game is based. The thought is that if you really loved the movie, you’d like to take on the role of the hero and experience it yourself. The concept makes sense and to the massive entertainment industry, it gives them yet another opportunity to market something based on a successful franchise to its target audience at the height of its popularity. This last part of the equation is crucial. I will reiterate that it should be timed for release at the height of the franchise’s popularity.

This means that as teenagers were leaving the theatre after seeing Spider-man in the spring/summer of 2002, it was important to have a playable game available in the stores that they could buy while the experience of the film was still fresh. With this in mind, the game was released two weeks before the movie and was available accordingly. In the case of the Spider-man games that tied to the movies, they haven’t been bad. (Although the current Spider-man 3 for the PS2 and Wii isn’t highly recommended. The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are better.)

The challenge is that to have a game available for the optimum sales window, it must be completed, packaged, and in the stores when the movie is released. This is a firm deadline and cannot be pushed back. There are many developers who estimate game releases and then push them back when they realized that they have unforeseen challenges. GTA 4 for the PS3 and Xbox 360 was delayed from Fall 2007 to a Spring 2008 release. A number of developers (and most gamers I know) would prefer that a game get delayed in order to provide the developers the time needed to fully realize the experience. Sure, we all would prefer to get things sooner, but how many people would rather have pancake batter poured onto their plates at a restaurant instead of waiting until the pancake is finished?

In the case of a firm deadline, game companies have to ship the game in the state it’s in. Since this deadline is understood early on, sacrifices are made during development in order to stay on schedule. There are three aspects to any project (not just games):
1) Time
2) Resources (i.e., money, staff, facilities)
3) Quality
If one of these is firm, then adjusting to handle unforseen challenges falls upon the other two. In the case of a licensed title, you can’t change the deadline so you either have to put more money into the development or you sacrifice the quality of the production.

One of the first (and most notorious examples) of a poor franchise videogame was the original E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial for the Atari 2600. In Howard Scott Warshaw’s (the game’s programmer) defense, he only had 5 weeks to make the game and he told me in a conversation that I had with him a few years back that two of those weeks were spent on coding the title screen alone. He had a firm deadline and no one else in the company wanted to work on a doomed project so his resources were limited. What happened? Quality was sacrificed.

This was only the first of hundreds of licensed games that have not met the expectations of the game-playing public. This is not to say that all movie-based games are bad. Two of the three Lord of the Rings games (all rated “T” for teen) for the last generation consoles (Gamecube, PS2, & Xbox) were excellent. The Two Towers and The Return of the King had co-op play that allow you and your kid to share in the experience. As for The Fellowship of the Ring, you’re better off watching the movie again or, better yet, just pull out the book and read it with your family!

[Read more →]

The Scooby Game, Part 2:
For those of you who missed Part 1 or would like a refresher, you can find it here.

As noted previously, when a game is rated “E” for Everyone it is referring to the content. Let me qualify this, if I may. Since viewing a film is more passive, the rating is appropriate for all viewers because everyone who sees the film is capable of participating similarly based on their level of interpretation. (This is not to say that everyone walks away with the same experience.) However, with a videogame, you have the player and you have others who may view the game. Now if a game is rated “M” for Mature, I would infer that my four-year-old should neither play the game, nor watch someone else playing the game because of the content. Does that make sense? In contrast, a game that is rated “E” should have no objectionable content for practically anyone in the room to view. But that doesn’t mean that anyone can play the game. (Keep in mind that games rated “E” for Everyone are actually intended for ages 6 and older, not everyone as the rating implies. For more details, check out the ESRB ratings guide here.)

In the case of Scooby Doo! Night of 100 Frights I found nothing that was objectionable for my son to watch. However, playing the game requires a level of hand-eye coordination and patience that was far beyond my (then) three-year-old. In fact, as a seasoned gamer, there were a number of sequences in this game that truly frustrated me and required that I play them over and over until I accomplished the objective (and survived). Many more challenging games have such sequences and provide a sense of accomplishment for a veteran gamer. However, sequences like these can discourage and dishearten a younger and less-experienced player.

There are a few specific sequences in this title that hearken back to old arcade games or early 2D platformers where the only way that you can survive the sequence is through memorizing the patterns. Gamers 20 years ago thought that this was “fun” and it provided an opportunity for bragging rights. However, these days it can be a bit tiresome.

As I mentioned in the first part of this article, Scooby Doo! Night of 100 Frights is a hub-based game. This means that as you accomplish certain tasks and navigate particular areas, you then can return to the starting point. Usually, sucessfully navigating an entire area gives you the opportunity (thankfully) to unlock another linking point. This allows you to jump in at that point instead of having to go through the whole area again. In many cases, this saves time. In certain instances, it truly preserves sanity. I don’t mean to beat a dead horse. As I said before, overall the game is actually pretty good. It’s just those few areas that test whether or not you are committed to finishing the title.

In part one I mentioned the monster tokens. These are for the completist and are simply a novelty within the game. Acquiring them neither pushes the plot further nor helps in any way to finish the game. What they do offer is another opportunity to nurture the desire to collect things. It was this aspect of the game that really captured my son’s attention. He wasn’t as interested in the story or the plot line as much as seeing the different monsters in the areas and collecting the monster tokens. Once a token is acquired, it unlocks that creature in the monster gallery. There were entire 0ne-hour sessions during which all my son wanted to do was look at the statuesque representations of the monsters in this cavern showcase. This macabre trophy room became more important than any other aspect of the game. And it was his interest in this that got me thinking.

Whether it be Pokemon, Matchbox/Hot Wheels cars, or baseball cards, our culture encourages children to collect things. When I was a kid, I collected rocks and coins. As a young adult I began to collect comic books and videogames. The fact is that there is a big difference in collecting rocks as opposed to comics or baseball cards. Though there are rare gems and minerals, there are no lists that say, “only 1,000 gold nuggets were made.” Yet no matter what, when you want to fill a gap in your collection with a rare or limited item, it usually costs more and can become a bit of a thorn in your side until it’s acquired.

This concerns me. I see games that encourage this level of collecting (and we can trace this as far back as the original arcade version of PacMan) and I wonder what we’re “wiring” our kids brains to do. If my son becomes as obsessive about baseball cards as he was about those monster tokens, is he going to justify spending a thousand dollars on some single card one day to complete an historic team from his childhood? Should this be an issue for concern?

I don’t have answers. I have questions and concerns for my family. We all want what’s best for our children. And we want to help our kids navigate the challenges that life offers. Sometimes games (including sports, board games, and videogames) can offer the opportunity to role play and problem solve to enhance a skill-set for life. But they can provide the opportunity to learn other behaviors as well. Some of which may not serve our children’s best interest. All I can say is that as with all things, we parents must try to maintain open communication with our sons and daughters to better understand what they are learning and to help shape those lessons accordingly.

[Read more →]

The National Institute on Media and the Family issued its annual report card for the gaming industry yesterday. It noted a number of areas where the industry had regressed compared to advances made in previous years. You can download the report from this page on their site.

I believe that many of their observations are valid, but a few may be skewed. The most prevalent theme throughout the report is their concern with violent media. Though they recognize the maturation of the game-playing public in one sentence, they criticize the industry for making mature titles in another. The fact is that the violence in many of these games is less graphic than content in R-rated movies (which also are targeted to a 17+ year old demographic).

At one point toward the end of the report I found myself a little confused and I re-read a paragraph a few times to try to get my brain wrapped around the logic. Having not read the original book which they cited as research, I don’t know if this assertion is from NIMF or the researchers themselves. On page 14 in the second paragraph under the “Content” sub-heading of the “Research” section, the report cites the book, Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy. In this paragraph they state:

Yet, both children and college students were more aggressive to others after playing the aggressive game, even though it did not include what most parents would consider “violent” content. It is important to remember that aggression is typically defined as intentional harm to victims, and not by how graphic it looks.

Correct me if I’m wrong (and chime in below), but according to this, the children and college students intentionally harmed others after playing this game. They define aggression as intentionally harming victims after stating that they players were more aggressive to others after playing the game. Really?

I have no doubt that media can influence behavior and significantly impact the viewer/player. I believe that this is a given. I’ve laughed and cried during films. I have friends who have yelled at their televisions in disgust when characters in their favorite show behave ignorantly. I have witnessed smack talk and elevated emotional reactions during competitive videogame sessions as well. However, I have witnessed all of this behavior during any number of events including baseball games, debate tournaments, and live music concerts. The fact is that we are emotional creatures and we react to input - virtual and real. Our media merely extend our experiential realm. As parents, we need to make sure that our children’s experiences are appropriate for their level of maturity.

Having said that, in spite of any concern I have with specific observations within this report, I whole-heartedly agree with their conclusion which states:

[Read more →]