Xbox 360 Scratched Discs

If you have an Xbox 360, you might want to listen to this because your $60 games might be at risk. I was in a local Gamestop yesterday and overheard the following:

One lady came into the store, very flustered that the new Guitar Hero 3 game she bought for her kids' Christmas present was scratched.

The store clerk politely explained the following:

• The Xbox 360 is very sensitive to any outside vibrations. If it's on the floor, the system can be shaken by something as simple as someone quietly walking by it or sitting down on the couch to hard.
• These vibrations can cause the Xbox 360 to scratch the disc and cause it to play incorrectly.
• To avoid such disturbances to your system and games, keep the Xbox 360 on an isolated table or stand.

The Gamestop clerk also replaced this lady's copy of Guitar Hero 3, so if you have had these issues, they may do the same for you.

This has apparently been a problem since 2005, and in July 2007, a lawsuit was filed against Microsoft for selling defective systems that lead to scratching the discs.

Oy, another Xbox 360 warning to tack on after the Red Ring of Death.

The Post-Christmas Post

Weeks ago at the beginning of December, I handed my mom my official Christmas wish list. At the top of it--a Playstation Portable 2000 Core Set, valued at $169, with Final Fantasy Tactics: War of the Lions.

She laughed and scoffed, "I'm not getting you that."

I frowned. This wasn't the "I'm bluffing so I can really surprise you on Christmas" act; this was the full-blown "I hate your videogames, I'm really not getting you this, tough luck" cold shoulder.

It's not easy being a female gamer at Christmas time. Even when you ask your family for Super Mario Galaxy, they just shake their heads and buy you some boots. Don't get me wrong--boots and clothing are excellent gifts for me, but having the occasional $50, AAA title thrown into the mix would be awesome. However I will give my family bonus points this year. My mom and grandma made a well-intentioned attempt to buy the Final Fantasy Tactics game I asked for. But, one minor thing, they didn't include the PSP to play it on. D'oh.

Christmas is an important time to gamers everywhere. Holiday releases, the games of the year being named, and a time to get a whole new set of great games as gifts. Gaming is not a cheap habit, so at holiday times gamers appreciate a little help in expanding their libraries. Yes, even the girl gamers. You don't have to buy them the latest, most expensive system, but a game (preferably one for a system they have) is always appreciated.

I felt especially overlooked as a gamer today when I went shopping at Gamestop with my boyfriend. I was waiting in line while he was off playing a demo. I waited for a solid minute and when I stepped up to the cash register he came over to join me. The cashier then turned to him and asked, "Can I help you?"

The next seconds where wrapped in an awkward silence where the cashier recognized his mistake and that I, a girl, was buying something. He quickly repeated he was sorry about three times and the situation was dismissed with a few "no big deal/it's fine" from me.

The cashier's mistake didn't make me mad. I don't want to bitch about how discriminated against I feel as a female gamer because that's not the case at all. Gals are becoming more recognized as gamers, but there still are the few who forget (or in the case of the family, refuse to accept) there are geeky girls out there. I'm just a little upset that any credential I have as a gamer is often discredited simply because I have my lovely lady lumps.

So just remember to give any of the girl gamers in your life lots of love. (And a little respect of gaming knowledge and prowess wouldn't hurt either)

P.S. Special thanks to my boyfriend for the PSP Core Set. I love it and can't wait to play Final Fantasy Tactics :D

Wii Rainchecks

Still looking for that elusive Wii for Christmas?

Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime dropped two Wii-hunting tips in a special conference call yesterday:

• Nintendo and Gamestop will partner in a Wii raincheck program that promises Wiis to people who purchase the raincheck certificates on December 21 and 22 at a Gamestop store. The raincheck costs $249, the Wii's MSRP, and guarantees a Wii by January 29. However, this is only while supplies last. "Tens of thousands" of these rainchecks will be available, but in the ever-rabid world of holiday shopping, it's safer to get there sooner than later.
  
• A large quantity of Wiis will be released at "at least" six national retailers, including WalMart, Toys 'R Us, K Mart, Sears, Target and Circuit City. Remember, rainchecks are only available at Gamestop.

Sure getting a piece of paper promising a Wii isn't as fun as unwrapping the real deal, but just maybe it can still garner this kind of reaction:


_____________
Oh, and if you're a member of a wholesale club like Costco or BJ's, these places get Wiis too. Call in ahead of time and find out when the shipment is due to come in. Make sure you're on time because the last shipment of Wiis that came into my local Costco was gone in less than three minutes!

Competitive Enterprise Institute study on ESRB and media regulation

ORIGINALLY POSTED ON DECEMBER 12, 2007 at 11:49 p.m. EST. Moved back for holiday guides.
Scroll down for the December 13 edit.

Reading Assignment for All!

Lately there's been a little buzz about a study from the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And while I haven't finished reading it, I encourage you to pick it up and at least skim it's 30-some pages. Within the first few pages, the study starts off with a great message:

No ratings system can replace good parenting.
p. 3, last paragraph

The study isn't all about videogames--it covers movies, comic books, radio, music and television. Each medium has its own section that recaps the history of that medium's controversy, rating system(s), politics and legislation. I've been meaning to look into the history of media rating systems outside of videogames, and find this as a really interesting read.

EDIT TIME :D
Posted December 13, 2007 @ 8:32 p.m. EST

Videogame portion of the study
-Stop! Grammar time!-
By the way, CEI, since you have this site bookmarked and I would like to take a few seconds to be a grammar nazi (kinda surprised you guys found this blog, actually). The fourth word on page 21 should be "which" instead of "wich". Tsk, tsk on your editing.
//end grammar nazi

As with the other sections of this study, the videogame section begins with the history of the medium's controversy. Death Race (Exidy, 1973) and Custer's Revenge (Atari, 1983) are listed as the main offenders before political action against games was taken in 1992 when Mortal Kombat was released for Sega game systems and Nintendo's NES and GameBoy. MK was a big deal because of fatality and dismemberment finishing moves and added blood, which Capcom's Street Fighter II, Sega's competition, did not have (although these aspects were edited out of Nintendo MK games). MK had been in arcades for a couple of months before the game console releases, but it looks like it only became a political issue when it debuted on such systems and, therefore, into living rooms everywhere.

The study touches on the events that led up to political action briefly, but leaves me with one major question: why wasn't there any political action until 1992? That's almost 20 years after Death Race. Was it that a large and powerful title finally hit home consoles, and parents were worried? Sega had sunk a lot of advertising money into the MK venture and it was a hit right away. Was it that politicians had been occupied with the Cold War and the Gulf War and had bigger issues to worry about than addressing media violence? This is a real stretch, but 1992 was an election year, and even now, media violence is a fun topic to utilize to sway some votes your way.

Because the study talks about political involvement in the development of ratings systems, I would have liked to see an answer to this question. I wonder if it can even be answered. (And this is where not knowing U.S. history post 1960s comes and bites me in the butt).

After MK lit a political fire in Washington, Congress was about to pass a bill that would give the videogame industry one year to develop a ratings system of their own. But, the game industry beat them to the punch before the bill even passed, creating the well-known Electronics Software Rating Board (ESRB). The study praises the ESRB system for its flexibility and its ability to react quickly to the ever-changing game industry and US culture.

Criticism of the ESRB's rating process was talked about briefly, touching on the most common complaint about ESRB...

[The ratings process] involves three or more trained game raters watching a DVD prepared by the game publisher which must contain “[a]ll pertinent content (as defined by ESRB), including the most extreme instances, across all relevant categories including but not limited to violence, language, sex, controlled substances and gambling.” Some have criticized this method for an alleged lack of thoroughness, which supposedly allows some content to slip past the raters.
p. 22

...and swiftly discredited this argument.

Given the potential for such costs, why would a game manufacturer
submit to the ESRB rating process? Quite simply, for market access.

.... If the ESRB determines that a manufacturer is acting
dishonestly, it can make a pariah out of the company and its games.
p. 22

I don't know if I quite agree with this. From the example of GTA and Manhunt 2, which surprisingly was not mentioned at all in this study, one can see that being dubbed said pariah = controversy = controversial publicity = free advertising = BIG SALES. This is, of course, in absentia, the game merits at least a Mature rating come sales time.

The CEI study also covered the typical fare of parental controls and Rockstar's Hot Coffee controversy. I'm surprised the mayhem surrounding Manhunt 2 was not mentioned at all. Maybe because that would have nullified the "why would game publishers shoot themselves in the foot?" Simple answer: controversy = sales.

With talk of controversial game ratings inevitably comes the Adults-Only (AO) and Mature (M) ratings. Mature ratings are for ages 17+ and, according to the ESRB ratings guide, "may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language." Adults-Only ratings are for ages 18+, in other words legal adults, and "may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity." Seeing that most game retailers refuse to carry AO titles, the AO rating has become socially unacceptable.

Yet, the only real difference between the ratings' definitions is the word "prolonged" and one year. One year. Other than being able to legally buy porn and cigarettes, does that one year really make a difference in the content you view? Is 18 magically more able to handle "controversial" content than 17? Why just one year? Something does not seem right with that. Except, I don't know what a socially acceptable solution might be. Merging M and AO into one adult super-rating probably would not work because having that middle ground between Teen and adult seems like a necessary buffer. Maybe bumping back Mature to 16+ might make a teensy bit more sense... I don't know. This topic is easily another article entirely.

What I've been meaning to get to, however, is that I would like to see a study cover this topic of Mature vs. Adults-Only more in-depth. I thought the CEI study might touch on it because of its examination of the ESRB. It's not disappointing that they didn't, but it is something I would like to see in the future.

The conclusion of the study was definitely the most interesting.

In our judgment, the ESRB ratings system—the least government-
influenced of the lot—does the best job of giving parents the information
they need to make decisions for their children. At the other extreme,
the radio regulatory system, which is almost entirely political, provides
parents practically no useful information. Between the poles, we see a
great diversity of opinion. We close, therefore, with four pieces of advice:

First, keep politics out of ratings systems
... Ratings systems that avoid government involvement will do a better job giving people the information they need.

Second, know the medium being rated. Video games are complex... This complexity requires a ratings system that provides lots of information....

Third, if a ratings system collapses, it is not a cause for concern. Changing tastes or attitudes mean that all ratings systems will need to be updated....

Finally, ratings systems will never substitute for other social institutions.
Parents, houses of worship, schools, and communities need to take the lead
in keeping obscene, dangerous, or offensive materials away from children.
Ratings systems cannot be expected to do this. Properly constructed, they
provide useful information to parents, nothing more and nothing less.
p. 24-25

I cannot agree more with the fourth point. That is so important to remember, especially in today's culture where we cannot explain some of the tragic violence around us and look for scapegoats, something that can give us reason why one person snapped and went on a rampage. That "why" is very comforting--it doesn't matter if it's right or not, we just need it. And all media, not just videogames, are constantly evolving, making them fresh for the finger-pointing.

I really agree with keeping government regulation out of media, especially if the medium's industry is willing to take responsibility with some kind of ratings. The day that our videogames have to go under federal government review would be a sad day, indeed. This goes hand-in-hand with the second point mentioned, which is knowing the medium and acknowledging its complexity. Games are too complex to be broken down with paperwork, stamps and laws. You truly need that case-by-case scenario that the ESRB provides, and the possibility of having someone's politically-driven agenda behind that scares me.

After reviewing the CEI's conclusions, it's time to come to my own. Because my knowledge of rating system histories outside of videogames is limited, this was an interesting read. I haven't finished reading all of the sections yet, but maybe that can help provide new and better insights for this site and this article. The section about videogames and conclusion seem to mirror what I've seen and heard on the game industry scene lately. I'd say the study had some solid analysis, but this study almost seems to be too pro-ESRB, -videogames to be true.

Here's the link to the study at the CEI site.
Here's the link to the study (PDF format).

+5 cookie points
if you get this :D

Toasty!

Golden Compass movie shines until the last moment....

This post has little relevancy to family gaming. It's about the Golden Compass movie, which, by the way, I would say is family-friendly and not religiously controversial/heretical.

If you've read the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, then please give this a read. If you haven't your still welcome, but this page is one big spoiler for the whole series.

*EDIT: Holy cow this is a helluva long post... and I wanna sleep right now. So I'll edit this tomorrow, in the morning/afternoon.

**ATTENTION!! If you have not read the Golden Compass/Northern Lights or Amber Spyglass books by Philip Pullman, OR HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE MOVIE, PLEASE STOP READING or continue at your own risk of SPOILERS. You've been warned ^_~ **

As a dedicated fan of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, I went and saw the Golden Compass movie the day it publicly debuted.

I was impressed by the presentation of daemons and alethiometer, how they streamlined the plot to movie format, the epic bear battle between Iofur and Iorek (long live the bear king), and the most incredible fantasy violence I have seen in a long time. Dakota Blue Richards was an engaging, lovable Lyra, and the supporting cast was solid. (Daniel Craig makes a damn good Asriel).

Computer effects and acting aside, what was even more impressive was how the movie skirted around the book's idea of the evil Magisterium. In the Golden Compass book, it's incredibly obvious (although I forget if it's directly stated) that the Magisterium is what we know as the Catholic Church. Lyra and her crew are directly fighting the Church. But this is only hinted at in the movie. Magisterium HQ is ominously architecturally comparable to a cathedral. Mrs. Coulter, played by Nicole Kidman, cunningly dances around an Adam and Eve allegory, telling the biblical story but not naming any names.

This was all fine and dandy--kind of. I respect the movie's choice (maybe it was the director's choice, but I don't know) of leaving out any specific material; there would have been even more outcry from Christian groups that have been protesting the movie**[Link]. But, it's kind of sad that movies, books, media can't make statements without such backlash.

Not to mention, these groups are missing the point. True, Lyra and Will kill God at the end of the trilogy. But it's not because of a blind hatred of God and Christianity. This is a statement about any kind of religion, and what can happen if the religious group becomes to overzealous.

The Magisterium is trying to spread and tighten its control over the entire universe and abolish free will. Free will. The very thing God gave to us in the first place. When religious rules and controls are taken to such absolute extremes, religion no longer becomes the guiding moral beacon it's supposed to be for people. It becomes constricting, repressing, and something to be very scared of.

Within the Magisterium ranks, it's not about being the most pious, it's about being the most powerful and having your policy pushed forward above all others. When politics takes over peace, piety and honest-to-goodness human passion--that's when you know something has gone wrong. I may be wrong, but I think this may be a warning from the author (an atheist who openly states his books "are about killing God"), just like 1984 and Brave New World were warnings for ways humanity should not go. That's what I, previously a Catholic schoolgirl for 8 years, took away from it.

Overall, for the movie's purposes, they handled the religious aspect very carefully and very well. Even the Catholic church thinks so.

However, I do have a bone to pick with this movie. I, of course, respect that the entirety of the book could not be neatly packaged into one feature-length fantasy film, but when there's about 10-15 minutes of crucial film and plot cut off at the end that's where I draw the line.

If you're reading this, you have probably seen the Golden Compass movie. Sweet. Then you'll remember after the end-all battle at Bolvangar, Lyra and Roger run off to rescue Asriel from murderous Magistrate officials. Lee Scoresby offers them a lift and they take off in the hot air balloon.

The movie eventually cuts to Lyra and Roger talking about what they still need to investigate and the future. Lyra asks her aliethiometer about Asriel, and when Roger asks about what it told her she said, "It says I'm bringing him what he needs."

Oh, how the foreshadowing pierced my heart, but I felt ready for what was coming next.

Lyra gave an uplifting soliloquy about upcoming events, and then the scene faded out, taking the whole movie with it.

I waited. The whole theater audience held their breath for a hopeful second, only to unleash a mighty sigh and mutters of disgust. Roger's death was completely left out of the movie. Despite Lyra's ending optimistic pep talk, I felt dirty and betrayed that I had been lead this far into the adventure only for it to be left incomplete and broken.

The scene was in the palm of the movie's theoretical hands. Lyra's one line had set the whole situation up so perfectly. "It says I'm bringing him what he needs." Oh, the agony and frustration.

MTV has an article about director Chris Weitz chopping of the ending. Even more interesting is the questions he answered about the movie from readers that explain his reasoning for the movie.

Yes, I’ll try to give you a reasonable answer, and an answer to a lot of other people who have asked the same sort of question. First, I haven’t “cut” the ending of the first book. I have only moved it to the beginning of the second movie. Some people are distressed by this, citing that the end of the novel is beautiful. Yes, that’s true. “And Lyra and Pan walked off into the sky.” But this ending was posing a problem for the (relatively few) audience-members who saw earlier cuts of the film. What is plangent and beautiful in the end of a novel can be confusing or off-putting in the end of a film.

For instance, people who hadn’t read the books (yes, these people exist! And they matter!) didn’t know if Lyra was in fact going to heaven. My job is to make sure that ALL of Pullman’s story will be told, not to flame out gloriously with one film. The juncture at which to leave audiences hoping for more was before Lyra sets off to find Asriel. She has fulfilled the intitial reason for her journey (to save her friend Roger), but there is a further tangible aim for her. Yes, I get that this means delaying some brilliant scenes from the book. But trust me, they would have been less brilliant if they had to meet the demands (as interpreted by the studio) of a movie-going audience for the end of the film. Whereas, difficult to handle/difficult to swallow material, which is to say dark material (no pun intended) can work perfectly well in the second film of a trilogy (cf. “Empire Strikes Back”). Trust me on this one, I was doing what I could to protect the integrity of these scenes and the overall story. Furthermore, I would not have done this without Pullman’s consent.

I can see where his concern comes from (having a movie that appeals to and is understood by all audiences), but I think if they were able to carefully construct the idea of religion, they should be able to easily articulate to an audience that Lyra is not going to heaven, but a city in the sky, a parallel dimension. I don't think that concept is to hard for the average movie-goer to grasp, but then again, I've probably read too many fantasy books and played too many RPGs.

So I guess I disagree with Weitz's interpretation. Roger's death easily would have established a better ending for a chance of a sequel. This ending is anticlimatic. Lyra's anguish and determination is what springboards the reader into the second book of the trilogy, and would have served the movies just as well (unless they're completely throwing the idea of finishing the trilogy in movie form... which I can completely see happening).

I can see where the movie might have wanted to end on a more upbeat tone. But even with Roger's death, it could have ended on a solid, semi-uplifting note (I swear, I don't like seeing people die and I don't have it in for this Roger kid, but the book's story is just so more compelling, dramatic and emotional that the film interpretation). They could have played out the betrayal scene with Roger's death, then Asriel and Coulter crossing over into Citagazze, and then have Lyra give her "rah-rah Pan-and-I-are-going-to-find-the-truth" speech and then cross the bridge. End film. Would take up an extra 30 minutes max, making it about a 2.5 hour, not to mention more worthwhile, movie.

Honestly, I think that would have worked fine. It still would have been an okay note to end on. Not a full-blown, feel-good, warm-and-oh-so-tickly-fuzzy Disney moment, but it would have been equivocal to any ending of the LotR movies feeling-wise (somber but determined tone... now that I think about it, the Golden Compass movie had an Enya-like song in its credits, just like LotR had one on their soundtrack... oh, New Line Cinemas, you crazeh). It's all right for a movie to end on a bit of a dark note, especially if the adventure is promised to continue in a second book/movie.

Speaking of a second movie, now remains the question--will there be one? Rumblings on the Internet suggest a Golden Compass movie sequel (seen here, here, etc.) is already lined up for 2009, but New Line Cinemas is waiting for the box office numbers on the Golden Compass.

Although I hate to doubt this possibility, I give a very solid "probably not," and hope that I'm horribly wrong.

As I mentioned before, the Golden Compass movie had a very lackluster ending, which is already bad news for a sequel.

But there is a much more powerful reason for why the rest of the trilogy won't see the silverscreen, and that returns to the religious reasons discussed earlier.

I have to admit, I was surprised with how cool the Catholic church was with this first movie. But that's just because Catholicism wasn't explicitly mentioned or stated, and no direct references were made. The Golden Compass has plenty of wiggle room to do this. The Subtle Knife and especially the Amber Spyglass do not have such luxury. From here on out Lyra and Will's ultimate task just becomes more and more apparent. I guess the movies could still have the Magisterium masquerade with this sort of unnamed anonymous religion, but from the books, everyone, including the Church, already knows it's THE God they are going to destroy. Simply, too much controversy. Too much mess.

And there is so much to capture in the Amber Spyglass. I really don't know if it can be crammed into one film in a way that does the grand finale justice. Aside from taking down Metatron, Will and Lyra also go to hell and back, Mary (another Biblical character, God help us) finds the strange elephant-like creatures and sraf, Pan and Lyra are separated, there's drama with secondary characters, and, most importantly, Lyra and Will's kiss. A very pivotal point to the ending and the importance of this kiss can easily be lost in Hollywood's oft-taken "romanticize everything" approach.

If they do go through with the rest of the trilogy, you can bet I will pay that $9 movie ticket to be there.

NIMF Video Game Report Card -A year in review

Yesterday, the National Institute on Media and the Family released their yearly report card evaluating the videogame industry and family interaction with it.

The big news? Everybody fails, especially videogame retailers who failed to educate parents about the ESRB rating system.

Well, not everybody failed, but very few categories passed with flying colors. Here's the main breakdown:

• Parental Involvement: C
• ESRB Rating Education: B-
• Retailer Policies: C-
• Retailer Ratings Enforcement
• National Retailers: D
• Specialty Stores: B
• Rental Stores: F
• The Gaming Industry: C
• ESRB Ratings: C+
  

One out of three retailers fails to educate customers about the ESRB ratings system. NIMF also critiqued national retailer and rental stores, which tend to be chain stores for the most part (i.e. Gamestop, GameCrazy), for not enforcing ESRB ratings and selling M-rated games (for age 17+) to underage children.

While this isn't the main focus, many younger employees at retailers are more likely to allow underage kids to purchase games, the report card said. The report went on to recommend that employees are better educated about ratings in order to fix this problem. But, trust me, even if these "younger employees" are "more educated about ratings" they're still probably not going to disallow the sale of M-rated games to underage kids. It's simply not the cool thing to do at that age, and it never will be.

However, retailers selling to underage kids does undermine the ratings system, which, according to the report card, a lot of parents don't understand.

An ABC Report on NIMF's report card interviewed a mom in a game store.

"I don't understand any of this," she said with a shrug. "I just come here because it's on the wish list."

The NIMF report card recommends a universal ratings system that can apply to games, movies, TV, etc. to remedy this because parents understand the TV and movie rating system more. Hm, maybe they understand that more because the movie system because they grew up with it and the TV ratings because they actually watch TV, as opposed to playing videogames. Just a thought.

It makes me wonder whether a universal rating system would be practical. Is violence really the same across all media?

The report also said parental involvement should be higher and, on that point, I agree. I always wonder if it's credible for me to be talking about being a parent when I am not. I know some parents are involved in the games their kids play and I think that's awesome. I know some parents don't give an effin' Tetris block about what their kids play, and that's sad. But the current ESRB system depends on parents to be conscientous of what they and their kids are purchasing, especially because of the report's findings on retailers.

Here's some interesting data from the survey about kids purchasing M-rated games and parental involvement. I knew it would be bad, but I didn't think I would see these numbers:
I think the statistic that surprised me the most was the percentage of how many kids purchased an M-rated game with their parents' money while their parent was with them. Seriously, this is why games like Manhunt 2 get made into such a big deal because we need to "protect the children" who are bypassing rules and ratings to get games not meant for them.

I was hoping I'd never have to hear about the accursed Manhunt 2 again, but the report talked about it for a pretty good deal, scolding ESRB for leaving loopholes and game developers for exploiting them.

Here's a Manhunt 2 refresher: Manhunt 2, made by the same company who made Grand Theft Auto games, first received an Adults-Only rating from ESRB. The AO rating is the retail kiss-of-death because game stores will not carry AO titles (it's morally unacceptable, again, because of the children). So, Manhunt 2 was edited and re-submitted to ESRB. It got its Mature rating. The day of the release, hackers found you could still access the supposedly edited content by hacking the game code (which is no easy feat; not terribly hard to figure out, but it definitely takes some effort. Chaos ensued, ESRB took a bad rap, and Manhunt 2 made the games industry look really bad.

This is what the report had to say about it:

Sadly, the problem of hidden or blurred content which is inappropriate for kids is not a new issue and undermines the ESRB rating.

Well, they're right--it's not a new issue (remember Hot Coffee?). But that's not the interesting part of this quote. This is:

the problem of hidden or blurred content which is inappropriate for kids

Whether this content is inappropriate for kids is a moot point. The Manhunt 2 and Hot Coffee incidents mentioned in the report dealt with games on the super-fine line between Mature and Adults-Only ratings. Kids should not be playing these games anyway--the Mature rating is 17+ and the Adults-Only rating is 18+. And what does the one-year difference matter between Mature content and AO content? When I turned 18 and legally became an adult, I was hardly any different from when I was 17. I rest my rant and my case.

I found the NIMF report card makes a few morally-charged mountains out of molehills. True, the Manhunt 2 fiasco wasn't good for any party involved (except for Take 2, the game's publisher, who undoubtedly benefited from free advertising generated by controversy).

But they picked on "the supposedly family-friendly" Nintendo Wii for offering a special edition, blood-splatted, Manhunt 2 Wii in one promotional contest. Is it really such a crime for Nintendo to step out of their happy, sugar-coated, 5-year-old friendly box? Nintendo does have older gamer fans (i.e. me). And the contest was hosted by the game's creator, Rockstar (R*). I'm not exactly sure, but because it was on R*'s official site and R* is listed as the official sponsor, Nintendo probably had nothing to do with it.

In NIMF's assessment of the videogame industry, they commend Microsoft for more family-oriented parental control options, shame Nintendo for the blood-spattered special edition Wii, but make no mention of Sony.

Lastly, there was something that scared me in the report card. In the ESRB Rating Education section, NIMF applauded and further encouraged the involvement of state government officials in spreading the word about ESRB. Doling out public service announcements for ESRB is no big deal, but anytime government involvement gets near videogames, I still cringe. I don't want any regulations on games from the government that correct problems that could have been solved by parenting.

All-in-all the report card found some pretty evident flaws in the game industry. But there are also a few flaws in the report card. To see the report card yourself, see the links below.

You can download the report card here. (PDF format)
The official website of NIMF can be found here.

Gerstmann fired from Gamespot

Game reviewer Jeff Gerstmann gets deep-sixed over Kane and Lynch's 6

What a sad, terrible day in games journalism. I realized this was an issue, but I didn't realize it would actually come to fruition.

There's a fairly fine line in games journalism... large (and small) gaming publications/magazines need a substantial flow of cash to stay profitable and alive. Most of this revenue comes from not magazine subscriptions, but advertiser payments. Some advertisers pay incredibly hefty sums for ads. This was the move game company Eidos made to promote their new PS3/Xbox 360/PC title Kane and Lynch:Dead Men (which, by the way, is not a family-friendly title). They purchased banners that blanketed the whole background of GameSpot.com's website (and those don't come cheap).

On November 13, the Kane and Lynch was released to the pubic and the game's review, written by Jeff's Gerstmann, was posted on Gamespot.

November 30, a rumor that Gerstmann had been fired because of the "tone" in his Kane and Lynch review was leaked. Gamespot denies there was any advertiser pressure for firing Gerstmann. Largely, the reasoning for Gerstmann's termination is still unexplained, but Gamespot editor blogs and tips from "inside sources" heavily hint that Gerstmann was unjustly fired.

Thus, all craziness broke loose on videogame message board. And that's putting it lightly. Because of Gerstmann's firing, website NeoGAF will be boycotting all CNET and Eidos material. Many people have reported canceling their GameSpot subscription.

Gerstmann, who had last caused a stir when he gave The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess an 8/10 (eerily similar to the score I had given it *scary*), had quite a following of fans and I've heard many say he was the man who made Gamespot. His critics dislike him for his condescending tone and "king of the nerds" attitude.

Despite what anybody actually thinks about Gerstmann, what happened to him was abominable. Getting fired for your opinion that you were hired to write about in the first place? Especially because your opinion disagreed with the thousands of dollars the advertisers paid? (And let's face it, Eidos hasn't exactly released any gems recently).

Gerstmann is not without support. December 1, Ziff Davis and 1UP staffers held an impromptu protest of Gerstmann's termination. It's great to see other game journalists speaking out against this, especially because 1UP and Gamestop are competitors in the games media market.

It has been roughly a day since the madness started and there's still not a whole lot of truth in this situation. No insiders can officially talk without fear of retribution, and anonymous sources claiming to be Gamespot editors, while very compelling, can be shaky, especially over the Internet. Maybe someday we'll know the whole truth about what really happened to Gerstmann. But right now, all we can do is get mad as hell, as one Gamestop game guides editor Matt Rorie said.

The funny thing is, without knowing what really happened behind those closed doors at Gamestop/CNet, I find it hard to get mad as hell. I mean, I'm mad, I'm angry, that's why I'm writing this thing at 1:30 in the morning. But not knowing the full-fledged truth and just general shock this actually happened is causing some reservations about completely judging the problem, I think. I've got the "mad" part, but it's the "as hell" part I'm still coming to terms with.

But, still, I'm mad. The whole situation is bizarre and unjust. And I hope that instead of hurting games journalism, this problem of revenues and reviews can be resolved in a way that helps games journalism become more stable and reputable. I realize it's highly unlikely this will happen overnight, or in a fortnight, or in whatever many moons, but maybe it will cause a step in the right direction. And that's a start.

And to Jeff, I'm sorry. This sucks.



Edit: Some hackers were so mad, they hacked GameFAQ's daily poll. Here's a screen capture of the poll