So now, after the new Xbox dashboard has pushed forward through all the hate, people seem to be quieting all their grumbles and life goes on as normal, right?

WRONG.

The new dashboard has completely destroyed the market for Xbox Live Indie Games. Once prominently featured in the game section, it has slowly been pushed farther and farther away from the public eye.

Do you remember this?



It seems a very long time ago that the indie (or community, or XNA games as they once were called) were featured right at the forefront of the games section. When XNA Creator's Club and the community games first were launched, it was a huge step in fostering console game innovation. A mere three days after launch there were already a reported 45 games released. I mean, wow. Developers could not wait to show the world what they could do on consoles, and now they had a wonderful vehicle to do so.

Fast forward to November 1st, 2010: the launch of The New Xbox Experience.

Microsoft takes a page out of Apple's design book and the "blades" of yesteryear and replaced with 2D content squares in a 3D space. While certainly not the "color TV phenomenon" that MS was hoping for, it did seem to make browsing the dashboard a little easier. Plus, OH BOY! AVATARS!

So what happened to the XNA Community games then? Well, let's take a look:



According to MS, Indie titles no longer have a place in the "Games" section of the Marketplace, but have now been lumped in with avatar items and music downloads in the "Specialty Shops" section. Fortunately for indie developers, lots of complaining paired with extensive media coverage prompted Microsoft to move the Indie Games back into the games section of the Marketplace.

So in the end, it was a victory for the little guy! Hooray! Let the spirit and innovation so heralded by the original launch of XNA Community Games live on!

Until....



Wait, where is that again?

Here are some directions for getting to the Xbox Live Indie Games.

Hit right bumper to get to the "games" tab (capitalization is so 2010 guys). Now to the bottom left, "Games Marketplace."

("Are we there yet Dad?" "No. And if you ask one more time, I will turn this car RIGHT AROUND.")

Choose the inexplicable photo of a girl jumping with the label "Game Type." Alternatively, you can check your reflexes trying to select the Indie Games option from the quickly revolving feature panel. Oh, there it is! The Indie games! Time to see what's hot in the community...but wait! There's still more jackassery to be had!

You can only browse Indie titles by release date. Unless you took the time to catch the Indie Games revolving panel, which offers browsing by "Kotaku's Favorites," "Contest Finalists," "Most Popular," and (here it is again) "New Releases." Why these options aren't available from the "Game Type" screen is beyond me. It's the first time I've had to play some sort of weird mini game to allow me to browse games properly.

These are not even close to how I would like to browse through any games. Two basically are "the best games...based on the opinions of a few people." Most popular and new releases are kind of useful but...what happened to "Alphabetical" and "Highest Rated?" I usually use a combination of "Highest Rated" and "Most Popular" to determine what's good.

I think it's truly a shame that Microsoft is trying to push Indie Games aside for advertising space and money. Indie Games are what truly make Xbox so unique and different from their competitors, creating a space for small-time developers to explore and show their creativity to a wide and varied audience. Remember: just because Indie Games don't have achievements, doesn't mean their any less fun or important to the gaming community.









Images sources:
Image 1: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/edunhill/archive/2007/09/03/getting-started-with-xna.aspx
Image 2: http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2010/11/03/xbox-live-indie-games/
Image 3: http://www.indiegamemag.com/satirical-shooter-game-type-mocks-microsofts-new-dashboard/

Yes, this is in response to the much debated GameStop Employees Are Jerks blog a few days ago. TheManChild's experience working there brought back memories of the good old days, and I thought it was time for a trip down memory lane.

Working at GameStop was pretty much the epitome of jobs when I was in high school. My sister was a keyholder at a different store (she exacted her revenge on the store by hiding pieces of fried chicken in the ceiling tiles), and I had friends in each of the three (yes, three) GameStops in the mall.

I actually got hired there because I used to sit on the floor behind the counter and play DS while waiting for my friend Bonnie to finish her shift. I'd usually end up helping customers find things or start talking game recommendations when I got bored so the manager just eventually just put me on payroll.



I was surprised at the things I could get away with. Like covering the Guitar Hero demo controller with sparkly My Little Pony stickers (see above), getting into a staple war with my coworker, or answering the phone and pretending to be an automated service ("Thank You for calling GameStop! Press 1 if you would like to buy a game. Press 2 to trade in a game. Press 3 to preorder the hottest new titles!).

The store I ended up in was located in a back corner that no one ever went to so it was nice and quiet where I worked....until the damned Babies'R'Us opened up across the hall.



Now, this seems like such a small, unimportant thing to happen to a mall with over 1 million square feet of retail space. However, due to the the wave of horrible parenting gripping the nation, this meant that Mommy would send her children into the videogame store to play while she was shopping (oddly enough, I have NEVER seen a father do this).

So, with the opening of poorly spelled baby superstore, came the arrival of many unattended children between the ages of 6-11. These children would play our interactive Xbox and Playstation displays for hours (screaming to boot), open every single game box, sit on the floor to read copies of GameInformer, and in one case run around knocking as many game cases off the rack as possible.

At first, we developed what we called "Code 16." 16 was the numbered circuit on our breaker that powered the interactive displays. If a kid was sitting there playing the Guitar Hero demo over and over for an hour, we'd simply flip off the circuit. Usually, this conversation would follow:

Annoying Kid: "Hey, the thing stopped working."

Me: "Yeah...that happens sometimes."

-silence-

-Annoying Kid leaves, goes to GameStop across the hall-

A few times, the kids would throw us a frightened look, the bolt out of the store in fear that something they did caused the machine to break. Unfortunately, after a while this didn't seem to work anymore as children would get dropped off already holding their Nintendo DS, and just sit in the middle of the floor to play MarioKart.

My assistant manager (who also happened to be my good friend of 4 or 5 years) was not happy with this situation. She decided to use her friendship with mall security to her advantage: they became the Small Children Relocation Service. All we had to do was tell them we had a lost kid in our store and a few minutes later, a uniformed man would escort the children away like there criminals they were.


This is an actual photo of a security guard from the mall I worked at.

There were many other adventures, of course, so I'll just list a few:

-My sister worked the midnight release of Halo 2. Between 9pm (when the store closed) and midnight, all that separated the crowd from the new game was a pull-down grill. So the staff ordered pizza, popped the game into an Xbox and played for 3 hours, with the back of the TV facing the crowd, talking loudly about how awesome the game was.

-My district manager got so pissed at a customer (who had insisted that when she opened the boxed for her used Xbox, that she found a VCR instead and brought the VCR and demanded that she get a new Xbox for her troubles) that he went into the back room, took the new Xbox out and promptly poured water all over it. He then dried it, resealed the box, and presented it to the crazy lady.

-My friend Bonnie and I both ended up with stalkers. At first it was innocent, like they got us presents and hung out in the store. Then Bonnie got a voicemail on her phone that was almost 20 minutes long from a guy high out of his brain talking about all of the sex things he wanted to do with her. So the next thing she got was a restraining order.

Sad to say, a year or so ago the company finally realized they didn't need 3 stores in one mall, and closed the one I used to work at. They didn't bother to remodel any of the shelving in the store which makes me wonder...have the employees in the new men's clothing shop begun to find the hidden, sparkly pony stickers I left behind in every corner of the store?

I wanted to start be referencing a specific article, but unfortunately it seems to be lost within the black hole of the internet. In the article, a Japanese developer said something along the lines of, Eastern games are focused around building, while Western games are concentrate on destroying. Now, I don't believe that to be entirely true. Earth Defense Force 2017 is certainly more destruction based, and games like Civilization and The Sims are based entirely on user creation. What strikes me as a major difference in the types of games developed really comes down to the character representation, and how it connects the player to the game world.

This occurred to me while I was playing Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly. The Fatal Frame series is largely considered one of the best examples of survival horror in gaming. What makes this game so terrifying? Most of the game play involves simply moving around empty rooms, searching for clues broken up by the occasional ghostly assault. Why is it, that no matter how much I tell myself it's just a game, I still can't play this game at night (besides me being a huge wuss)?



The answer is this: the ability to connect to the character. Seeing the character as a full-fledged human being is crucial to making that connection. Whether you believe in ghosts or not, the idea is that ANYONE would be powerless against incorporeal monsters. The player and the protagonist are on equal footing in terms of power within the game world. Think of it realistically: if you lost your sister in a creepy town in the middle of the woods, what would you do? Probably walk around and look for her, right? Because you don't believe in ghosts, so there wouldn't be any danger. By the time you realized you were wrong, it would be too late. Having these things in common with the main character makes it easier to relate to them--as a person, not just as a game avatar.

The character in Fatal Frame isn't a tool to explore the world. How the character interacts with the world is restricted, making the player feel as if they are watching rather than controlling the character's movements. The game uses different camera angles and lighting techniques normally found in cinema to build the relationship between the player and the protagonist. We see her vulnerability because we are able to observe her from every angle without her knowledge. We feel for her because she--like the player--is burdened by the limitations of being human (an example being that she carries the camera as her single weapon). We only see her point of view while she's being attacked: while she is at her weakest state. (The only exception to this is if you bought the Xbox version, which allows the option to play the game from a first-person perspective).



There are of course, other aspects that contribute as well. Probably the most obvious is that your only weapon is a camera. The significance of the camera is that it's a weapon that harms aggressors without actually touching them. It is a reminder that there is no physical protection from the killer ghost townspeople who are wandering around. In addition, ammo (or in this game, film) pick up areas don't regenerate. That's right: if you find all of the film in the game and use it, you're stuck using nothing but the shitty basic film...which is the equivalent of using nothing but a handgun in a traditional FPS.

Now take a game that is developed by an American studio, like Dead Space (keep in mind, I'm not scrutinizing the quality of the game). My experience with this game is a little less extensive, so a lot of what I know of the latter parts of the game are through conversations with others and watching other people play. I already know this will open up to some criticisms, but hey, this game is the best example for comparison.



In Dead Space, you play as a full grown man with up-gradable space armor with (relatively) convenient access to weapons. This moves the focus of the game away from the character and towards the items and abilities he can utilize. Isaac moves around the environment with his back to the player, severing the connection to the most recognizable aspect of people: the face. On most of the occasions we do get to see his face, all we get is the glow-in-the-dark can he wears as a helmet. Even Isaac's profession, as an engineer on a spaceship, is difficult for the average person to wrap their head around. While the weapons in the game mostly focus on an engineering background, we take another small step away from reality when he quickly adapts to using and modifying the tools of his trade to kill instead of repair. In addition, most people I've spoken to (and many forums I've visited) complain that by a certain point in the game, they felt their character was too powerful and the game lost some of its fear factor.



The second point of interest here is that the camera can be moved around at will. This gives the player a significantly larger amount of control than the character in the game. Putting more control into the players' hands prevents them from from seeing the character as a separate personality. The player controls what the character sees and interacts with (as opposed to Fatal Frame, where the camera is set specifically so the player and the character experience certain events together). The character is now an extension of the player, and is more of a Swiss Army Knife than a character in terms of his function within the game. The times we can connect with him are when there are cutscenes involving the plot. The only problem is, since the player has spent so much time in action-oriented scenarios like solving puzzles and shooting enemies, these moments feel more like breaks for the player than anything else.

In both Dead Space and Fatal Frame II, you control a protagonist searching for someone they love. However, the latter denies the player they control usually granted in third-person games, limiting the character's abilities to those of a normal human being. The former give the player abilities beyond what's currently feasible for a human. The draw of Fatal Frame, and in fact of many Asian-developed games, is the character and story development that pulls you into the full experience. A North American-developed game holds it's own be creating a detailed fantasy world that relies more heavily on the player using the main character as a tool for physically interacting with and exploring that world.

So which technique lends itself better to survival horror? Well, given that Fatal Frame II: Crimson Butterfly is a last-gen game released in 2003 that retails for $30 used, and Dead Space was released in 2008 and retail price new is around $20...well, I think the East wins on this one.

When I heard the announcement of The Beatles Rock Band, needless to say I was quite excited. Whether you like them or not, The Beatles changed the music world. I happen to be a fan, so my excitement was only checked by one lingering doubt: Would this iteration of the series simply be a re-designed version of the older Rock Band games?

The answer, for those of you who have probably read any review or had a hands-on with the game, is a resounding "no." Even at the most basic level, the 60's-inspired visuals and photographs do more than just make the game look pretty. These, in combination with the timeline of Story Mode, really do transport you back to another era. Seeing the appearances of each band member change over time gives the player a new lens in which to view the band's career--a view previously only observed by those old enough to have personally experienced the phenomena known as "Beatlesmania."

The art direction in this game is truly exceptional. Especially noticeable (as Nick Chester mentioned in his review) in the "dreamscape" levels, where the songs will start in Abbey Road recording studio and transport the player into a psychedelic kaleidoscope or an undersea land. My personal favorite would have to be Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band/With a Little Help From My Friends. The amount of work put into these environments is incredible, and the collaborative effort of Apple Corps and Harmonix in recreating the feeling of The Beatles as a visual aspect of the game is beyond words. The whimsical, surreal, and just plain beautiful worlds encompassed in the songs of The Beatles are well represented.

To be perfectly honest, playing The Beatles Rock Band could only be compared to my experience in The Beatles Museum in Liverpool. I felt as if I was looking through a window of time, seeing the faces of young boys becoming men; moving, growing, traveling, and changing as people. The main difference is that at the museum, I felt as if I was haunted by the faces and voices of happy ghosts; boys never knowing how the future would pull them apart. While playing The Beatles Rock Band, I felt as if I was experiencing the good times with them, carefree and ready to embrace the future. Both the Story Mode and unlockable content help in maintaining this feeling of actually existing in the time period.

I think what is truly unique about this game is that it really is more than a game: it's a full experience that draws you into the careers and lives of The Beatles. I don't by any means think this is a perfect game; in fact "hardcore" gamers might even complain about the title's lack of technical difficulty (outside of the new and challenging vocal harmony mode).

If you are a Beatles fan, a music fan, or a history fan, this is a serious must buy. This isn't just Rock Band. This is a music revival in the form of a living, breathing chapter of musical and pop culture history.

Warning: This is a GAME R SRIOUS BIZNISS post :D

(originally posted on my personal blog Super Nintendoll)

There's plenty of commotion after this year's E3. Nintendo disappointed (again), Sony busted out some big titles, and Microsoft concentrated on the social software of the Xbox 360. But in the fray, what really caught my attention was Takahashi's comments in the Eurogamer article where he talks about Katamari and consumerism.

Takahashi is really a man ahead of his time. While other developers are making games as simple entertainment, he is making games that intertwine fun and social commentary. Katamari Damacy is a game that I (and I'm sure many others) have not really taken a lot of time to think about deeply. This is probably because as gamers, we are trained not to. Most games are about quick reaction time or strategic thinking, leaving no room contemplation or interpretation. To me, Takahashi's games are reaching in the the realm of classic literature by manipulating these standard components of gameplay. This may sound like a strange comment, but bear with me while I explain.

Good books are those which are well-written, and can send out a powerful message. Books like these you will frequently find on bestseller lists. But truly great books are those which are not only well-written by standards of language, but also through use of symbolism and allowance of open, personal interpretation. These are piece of literature that allow the mind to explore and make a personal connection with the writing--sometimes one that may not have been intended by the author.

Katamari Damacy is a great game because it leaves itself open to interpretation. Yes, it was intended as a statement on consumerism. Yet it also leaves itself open to a multitude of personal interpretations.

Can it not also be seen as supporting the perseverance of individuals in the face of great challenges? I mean, the King asks you to make the moon in a half hour. It seems like an impossible task for such a measly Prince. The physical rewards giving to the Prince by the King are hardly worth the effort. So the Prince's main motivation is from within himself--whether it is driven by a sense of responsibility for his family or for the larger responsibility as Prince of of the Cosmos. He gets no true reward for his actions besides self satisfaction.

It can also be seen as making a statement on the fragility of human life in the grand scale of the universe. A larger-than-life being makes a simple mistake of knocking out the stars and through the course of the game, the whole world is destroyed for it. People are proud that we have been able to fill the world with all sorts of wonderous things, but it is for this very reason that the King targets the Earth. There seems to be no regret on the part of the King or Prince for loss of human life; in fact it is portrayed as amusing. Isn't it strange to think that we've been playing a game that trivializes human life in the grand scheme of the universe, and never once stop to think about how powerful that message could be?

The key to his game is simply, in some ways, the blatant shallowness of the King and the blind obedience of his son. Neither character takes time to think about the consequences of their actions, just as human being frequently act without thinking. Does it not also reflect our own blindness as gamers, playing whatever is shoved in front of us and not asking what war games or fantasy games represent in the larger scheme of things? Has anyone really ever stopped to think about what games like Call of Duty represent? The horror of war and death, which most game designers have no experience with, is not even truly and accurately portrayed (though I'm sure it is done to the best of their ability). It can be seen as a powerful statement against those who look but don't see the world around them.

Some people may read this and think, "Holy Jesus, you're taking this way too seriously. It's just a game!" But those are the type of people who only set the gaming industry back, preventing it from reaching its full potential as both an art form and entertainment. Gaming is in a very in-between place. There are certainly plenty of games out there that are trying to get a message across. Their methods however, are simplistic and unrefined. The messages are often boiled down to one sentence: "Do the right thing," "Defeat the enemy," "Justice Prevails," and so forth. These messages are often diluted through gameplay that is repetitive and provides no direct connection to the message itself. How does shooting someone in Gears of War represent justice? Does the death of an enemy bring Marcus Fenix closer to justice, or just allow him to make it to the final level?

When we think about what is the most impressive in a game, oftentimes what first comes to mind is either graphics, story, or entertainment value. Most games today lack a personal message or connection with the player. There are very few games today that use the medium to convey meaning while allowing the player to simultaneously draw their own conclusions based on their personal experience with the game. Katamari Damacy as well as Noby Noby Boy are intriguing games because they serve as open ended metaphors for larger life issues.

So the question stands: Why aren't there more games that try to make a personal connection with the player? The answer is simple, one that Takahashi also knows: money.

A game that connects with someone on a personal level means that everyone will have a different reaction to it. I know plenty of people who think Katamari Damacy is a stupid game. That is because their personal connection is different from other peoples'. Games like those done by Daniel Benmergui (Ludomancy) are also a good example of open metaphor games--there are no instructions, you simply must interact with the world as best you can. By not outright telling the player what the "winning" situation is, Benmergui lets the player freely explore the environment and make decisions based on their own emotions and personal preference.

Because games like this have no formal instruction or way to win, they are very hard to market to a wide audience. Those who are less patient will get frustrated easily and give up, saying the game is poorly made. To a degree, it requires the player to care about characters or stories that are difficult to understand--and that is a challenge that not all gamers are up to.

This trend of open-ended metaphor games is one that I hope will only grow larger as gaming becomes more mainstream. There will be room for these niche games. The original Bioshock made it about halfway by installing a twist that made you question your identity and motives. However, this brief moment of a self-contradictory existence is only lightly touched upon, as your character automatically makes the correct "moral" decision (which is more based on self-preservation than morals). Still, this baby step towards games that make you think is much appreciated, as can be seen by both sales and raving reviews.

People seem to be pushing innovative gameplay this year, but what they should be pushing are innovative ways of connecting and communicating with the player. I hope to see more developers pushing the envelop when it comes to games that will make you ask questions instead of answering them. This to me is the only way that a gamer can become more actively (mentally) involved in the gaming medium.

Hey guys, so I had some drinks tonight. And it just reminded me of all the good times I had at PAX being drunk with you guys. Remember that time I stole your hat, CountingConflict? Or that time I played against Asain joe in drunk DDR? What about that time I made out with Mid3vol, or drank that mysterious half-full glass of beer at redwood bar? Those were good time.

I might keep writing about PAX, but it's an ATV trail so I might just have to turn back.

Seriously, destructoid people are the best people, even when I can't feel my face. THE FACE STILL LOVES YOU. All of the good friends I have now, I found through this website. I dunno. I mean, it's not like I didn't have friends before this. But meetin Dtoiders near me, was just totally rad. They're all just people I can be myself with and it's awesome.

Also, vote for sickNasty in that Mirror's Edge contest, because he had to show off his junk to all of NYC in Times Square. Tourists took phtos with him. HARDCORE.

Happy birthday Samit!


More love to Destructoid people. I'm an extra nerdy nerd, because I'm a girl who loves video games and sci fi and anime, so there;s a pretty limited niche of people who share my interests. At my school here, there's practically no one I get along with. But Dtoid people, no matter how long I've know them, feel like they've been friends with me for years. It's totally awesome.

Also, mid3vol requested that I blog her dick. I'm not actually sure how to go about doing that. And Gandy needs to grow his beard back.

I'm sur there are other, important things I should say. Besides "Destructoid is awesome." But alcohol is making me a little sleepy. So I will say goodbye, and that IRC is awesome. If you want to talk to me drunk, go to #destructoid on the dynastynet server. DOOO EEEEEEEEEET!

G'night :D