Todas estas notas tienen una media de : 91

Gamer.nl

Assassin’s Creed 2 is an excellent game. It’s impressive to climb a massive cathedral from which you can overlook the entire city. The game surpasses the original game in almost every aspect, but the flawed AI and weak ending hold it back from becoming what we hoped for. It’s still a beautiful adventure from the very beginning until the end.

Fuente: Metacritic.com

El mundo de los videojuegos es un mundo lleno de sorpresas y noticias que salen día tras día, y como no es posible traerles todo a este hermoso lugar, decidí crear este pequeño espacio semanal para darles en pequeñas y digeribles dosis de información lo que a mi parecer haya sido lo mas relevante de la semana. Sin mas palabras, todo la información necesaria después del brinco.

——————————————————–

1) Los Cómics llegaron al PSP, despues de descargar la mas nueva actualización del sistema aparecera la sección de extras y en ella la sección de digital comics. Los comics estarán disponibles hasta diciembre, pero ya hay cuatro números que pueden descargar gratis, para ver los codigos visiten aqui.

——————————————————–

2) La edicion de coleccion de Bioshock 2 esta bien peluda, entre las cosas que incluye, podemos encontra un disco de vinilo con el soundtrack del juego (si, de esos enormes que oían tus abuelitos). En total incluye:

• Una copia del juego BioShock 2
• Disco de vinilo con la Banda Sonora de BioShock 2 (si los discos grandotes de acetato).
• CD con la Banda Sonora de BioShock 2.
• 3 Posters de Publicidad de Rapture. (como los viste en el juego).
• Art Book de BioShock 2 con 164 páginas.

——————————————————–

3) El No More Heroes original tendrá su merecido remake en PS3 Y Xbox 360, y se ve bien picudo. Una Galería de imágenes aqui.

——————————————————–

4) La ultima campaña publicitaria de Dante’s Inferno hará que mas de uno se persigne, presentando el ficticio Mass: We Pray, con el que se burlan de Wii, los juegos casuales y de la misma religión. El sitio infernal oficial aqui.

——————————————————–

5) Hoy 22 de Octubre cumple 4 añotes el Xbox 360!! Yey!! Mmm… Me pregunto cuantos aros rojos de la muerte se habrán visto hasta el dia de hoy???

——————————————————–

6) Comparación gráfica de Assassin’s Creed 2, PS3 vs Xbox 360. Muchos alegan que la versión de PS3 se vería igual con unos pequeños ajustes de contraste y brillo, pero la verdad como en muchas ocaciones mas (Bayonetta, FallOut, casi todo multiplataforma, etc) yo veo la versión de 360 mejor que la de PS3. ¿Cuando será la hora en que los programadores se pongan realmente las pilas chingao?!

Vídeo mendigo de la comparación aqui.

——————————————————–

7) Metacriticadas de la semana:

• Assassin’s Creed 2 (PS3/ 360) 91
• Call of Duty: MW2 (PS3/360) 94
• Tony Hawk: Ride (PS3/369) 59 Ja! se los dije!
• Uncharted 2 (PS3) 96
• God of War Collection (PS3) 93
• Braid (PS3)  92
• Forza 3 (360) 92
• Left 4 Dead 2 (360) 90
• New Super Mario Wii (Wii) 87
• RS: The  Darkside Chronicle (Wii) 73
• LittleBigPlanet PSP (PSP) 88

——————————————————–

Pues si banda, con esto se cubre maomeno lo que a mi parecer fueron de las mejores noticias de la semana, ahi nos estamos leyendo en los blogs, comentarios y en el Twitter. Asi que, sin mas que decir sobre una semana mas en el mundo de los videojuegos, se despide el Lic. Jesus de Nazaret. Amor y paz.

Si te gustó este post checa:

-¿Esto les parece divertido?

-Temporada alta de Videojuegos.

New Super Mario Bros.  Wii släpps på fredag. Nu börjar recensionerna på spelet komma ut och det ser riktigt riktigt bra ut. Gamereactor gav det en 8:a och en 9:a i andra åsikt. Loading gav det en 9:a. Och det ligger för tillfället på 87 på Metacritic.

När Nintendo utannonserade New Super Mario Bros. Wii på E3 i år blev jag lite skraj är de sa att fyra personer kommer att kunna spela tillsammans. Jag tänkte då att det inte skulle vara så optimerat för enspelarläget men det verkar ju av recensionerna att döma vara riktigt bra även det läget.

Jag har ju bara en Wii Remote och inga av dem jag känner gillar Wii särskilt mycket så kommer nog bli svårt att samla ihop ett gäng och spela det. Och så inget onlineläge.

Men det nog bli kul att spela ensam också, om jag inte hittar någon i Göteborgstrakten som också gillar Mario och vill spela med mig?

På fredag släpps det alltså och förhoppningsvis kan jag få lite tid över så att jag kan klämma in det här mellan alla andra spel som jag vill spela.

First off let me apologize for not posting anything the past couple of days. I’ve been in bed with the swine flu and watching enough Stargate to the point of expecting Daniel Jackson to invite me out for a cup of coffee in the morning.

I know I’m biased because I don’t give a hoot about consoles, but I’m amused at the low consumer reviews for MW2. Over at metacritic the PC version of the game rates only a 1.4, the ps3 gets a 4.6, and the 360 version wins with a whopping 5.5.(Thats an average of 3.8) People are screaming that this is the same game with a small graphics update.

Over at Amazon the game sports an amazing 1.5 stars for the PC, which is a shower of praise from the PC gamer community for the games groundbreaking multiplayer and overall console port feeling.

I don’t deny that this is a good game for some people, and I’m sure it will be the top selling game of the year. I just think there is a need to buy it if you own COD4. For me all my PC friends I think we’ll stick that.

Keep playing Call of Duty 4 People!

In terms of influence, there have been numerous news stories crediting Twitter for generating strong buzz that is often reflected at the box office. We could debate all day if Twitter has any real sway at the box office. What is important to fans and advertisers alike however, is monitoring Twitter’s sample of real time moviegoers. The opinions they spread on Twitter could be seen as an accurate representation of the word of mouth spread in the real world – albeit a highly compact one.

The new website Twitcritics would be worth keeping an eye on if you are a member of this twitterati. The website structure is similar to that of Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, but rather than compiling reviews from film critics. TwitCritics brings you real-time movie reviews and ratings directly from the Twiterverse (in their own words). Essentially, the site compiles a list of tweets by title, then tries to determine whether a tweet is positive or negative based on keywords used within the tweet. The idea is sounds great on paper, but the website is still in its beta stage and needs a few creases ironed out.

I think there is clearly value in a website like Twitcritic. People have always needed to study and contextualise real-time buzz and hearsay. As the program gets more complex, we were see how much value there really is in

Dré

When I first heard that Spike Jonze, director of two of my favorites Adaptation and Being John Malkovich, was making a feature out of Where the Wild Things Are I thought, “How in the world is he going to do that?” Then I watched the trailer and it looked like it actually had potential to be good. The trailer planted the suggestion that the movie aimed to identify the “wild thing” in all of us and call it out.    And recently I read a Q&A in Newsweek with Jonze, screenplay writer Dave Eggers, and author Maurice Sendak in which they described the movie as being potentially too scary for children; and made less for children and more about childhood. One of the panelist added that Where the Wild Things Are was created to be the The Wizard of Oz for the era of dysfunctional families—which added a certain measure of intrigue. I understand that the last thing some of us want to see at the movies is a slice of reality, but I can usually enjoy seeing a version of reality through the eyes of a gifted storyteller. Often this version opens eyes to the beauty around us and creates a heightened sense of what it means to be alive. These disclosures combined with a Metacritic score of 71 led me to conclude that Where the Wild Things Are was worth seeing.

Alas, I was wrong. I can’t possibly recommend this movie. Not only did it not deliver on its stated intentions. But neither did it deliver on the things I thought I might be able to take away—namely, that there’s something beautiful in us that only the wild can conjure. That even standing at the intersection of Chaos and Abandonment, the human spirit can will its way home. That Max, the 10-year-old son of a flawed single mother, would discover something deep inside —something that he discovers had been there all along—that allows him to see himself as King of the wild things but also king in other ways. That despite the messages he gets at home, he could discover that, yes, he does have “what it takes.” And along the way I found myself wanting to see healing instead of concession, which is what happened within every character as the closes in a whimper.

So the tale ends with each character for the most part in defeat. Yes, there can be a freedom of sorts in these sort of acknowledgments and epiphanies. I remember reading years ago in a book called Reading Faulknerian Tragedy by Warwick Wadlington that in a nuclear age in which each and every one of us lives with the threat of total and absolute annihilation, the world no longer yields the capacity for heroes. Wadlington concludes (now why do I remember this? Oh, right. Because I’m sick.) this because in the world he describes we are all heroes. We all face overwhelming odds yet charge off into battle with our morning coffee every day. For some reason that has always stuck with me and it bubbled up again during Where the Wild Things Are when Max learns that the sun, like all other things, will indeed die. In much the same way, in Jonze’s creation there is no capacity for a hero, either. It’s fatalistic and lacking hope. And, I ask you, what kind of a world is that? It’s a pall gray world void of color, certainly missing the wild, where every event is, to put it bluntly, pedestrian. I love the idea of a boy that refuses to be “housebroken,” instead looking to draw from the “wild thing” inside. But that never happens. Instead it’s a movie that trails off, ending in … . Ultimately, I guess, Where the Wild Things Are is a tragedy thus the net effect is something akin to motion sickness since the ride I expected from Jonze wasn’t the ride I got.

There is (or was) potential for Where the Wild Things Are, but it comes up way short. The trouble with the plot is that … there really is no plot. This isn’t necessarily the fault of the filmmakers since their source material is weak in story. There is unrealized beauty in some of the characters, but anything that might have been there is lost in the melodrama and absence of story. The biggest question I’ve got, though, is why Jonze didn’t get Charlie Kaufman to write the screenplay. That’s what we’re missing more than anything.

Why? Well because it’s the highest rated PS3 game since…..nope, it’s the highest rated PS3 game. According to Metacritic the overall rating for the game is at 97 based on written reviews by hundreds(more like 56) of gaming publishers. And a user score of 9.7 based on consumer votes.

But if you’re here, that means you can’t trust metacritic, and you think the general consumer is keeping dumb franchies alive (Naruto, Dragonball, and Gundam games still sell? What a world).

So take MY word for it. In a few days I’ll have my own video review on the site. I’m sure the game is great, but let’s just make sure.

Until then, the game had me thinking, what is your favorite PS3 game?

Very seldom in the history of music do we see highly heralded side projects.  Monsters of Folk, hoping to live up to their name, has received some mixed but generally favorable reviews on their self-titled debut.  Four years in the making this all star cast consisting of Jim James from My Morning Jacket, Conor Oberst and Mike Mogis from Bright Eyes and M. Ward, is packed with musical talent which leaves its fans with high expectations.  They attempt to blend a folksy sound with an indie sound and the end result doesn’t sound too different from what we’ve already heard from Oberst’s/Bright Eyeys latter material and James’ My Morning Jacket, but to hear it all on the same album is a real treat for the fans.

Metacritic, a website which takes into consideration a variety of reviews to come up with some sort of balanced review or score has currently rated the album an 81 out of 100.  Some of their included reviewers were Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, The Austin Chronicle, Spin and Drowned in Sound

In one of the albums most positive reviews The Austin Chronicle’s Doug Freeman states “Monsters of Folk’s debut threatens to fray at the seams of its diffusive talent. Yet while each songwriter’s contributions are uniquely signatured in sound on the album, they still meld into an exceptional whole behind complementing harmonies and stylistic blends.”

On the Contrary, Larry Fitzmaurice of Tinymixtapes.com believes that while the album may have a bright spot or two, it lacks the organization and discipline needed to make a great album.  ”I don’t have to tell you about the quality control exercised on Monsters of Folk, but I will anyway: it’s nowhere to be found. There’s no sense of cohesion or flow between any of these songs, partially due to a clear lack of thought devoted to these conceits, but mostly because every M. Ward- and Conor Oberst-penned song sounds the same lately,” states Fitzmaurice in his review, giving the album one-and-a-half stars out of five.

Grayson Currin of Pitchfork Media had mixed reservations of the collaboration and proclaims, “In many ways, Monsters of Folk feels like a summary statement for the inconsistent careers of the musicians behind it. Like the combined output of all four, these 15 tracks– a mix of highs and lows, stylistic risks and reservations, songs that sound either exactly or nothing like the past of the person singing it– are as frequently frustrating as they are satisfying.”  Pitchfork Media gave the album a 65 out of 100 as Currin also said of the album, “The opener is as intriguing as it is unexpected. It’s just too bad, then, that the rest of the album continues to ask similar questions, but never again with the same vigor or innovation.”

While the album’s individual songs seem to have very little connection to one another, it’s hard to believe that creating anything even close to concept album, or at least an album with much of a unified theme was the band’s intention anyway.  It seems as if Oberst, James, Mogis and Ward are getting together to have some fun and make some great music, almost in the style of a greatest hits album, while giving the fans an opportunity to see something that they’ve dreamed of but rarely witnessed which is a hybrid offspring of three great acts of the last decade.  Not popular acts, not acts that produce a lot of hits, not mainstream acts but great acts.

The first track, “Dear God (Sincercely M.O.F.) really does catch the listener off guard.  James’ vocals in the style of Soul is a nice surprise.  While the album is interwoven with many songs that sound like they’re straight cuts from an Oberst or a My Morning Jacket album, it’s still not a bad thing.  They’re still good songs that should be appreciated and not criticized for not being innovative enough.  If you are looking for a little more innovation make sure to check out “Baby Boomer,” a track infused with great vocals and sounds like a true collaboration between Bright Eyes, My Morning Jacket and M. Ward.  For another track with some true variety be sure to listen to “Losin Yo Head” which does the album some great justice as being one of the more upbeat songs on the entire collaboration.

Indie and Folk Rock fans will appreciate this the way that hard rock fans appreciate Audioslave and Velvet Revolver.  They are the new Traveling Wilburys in the sense that the collaboration not only includes great musicians and great songwriters, it includes one of the greatest songwriters of an entire generation in Conor Oberst.  While it’s not fair to call anyone the next Bob Dylan, Oberst is the greatest songwriter of this generation. While he hasn’t gained the popularity amongst the mainstream crowd that many predicted back in his earlier Bright Eyes days, he certainly has continued to make great music and there isn’t much that I appreciate more as a music fan than seeing Oberst and James together on the same stage.

So while it’s agreeable that the album isn’t perfect by any stretch of the imagination, it’s clear that it’s still a very good album.  Not everyone is going to love this album.  Some of the fans are going to find that this album is full of random songs, some are going to want more collective songs.  For what the band was trying to do though, it seems as if they did a pretty good job.

Rating: 8.4 out of 10

Tracks to check out:

Dear God (Sincerely M.O.F.)
Say Please
Baby Boomer
Man Named Truth
Ahead of the Curve
Losin Yo Head

Yet another episode of Artificial Idiocy has arrived! And this time, we talk about professional game reviews, delving into stuff like Metacritic, review scores, and even a bit of user reviews vs professional reviews.

One of the many things Uncharted 2 has going for it is its visuals.

…and they’re universally teeming with praise. Yes, you’re not seeing things – it’s a 97. The only game this generation that has surpassed a 97 is GTA IV. This game is that good. And it’s a PS3 exclusive, which will undoubtedly sell some consoles for Sony. This is definitely the kind of game that Sony needs for the upcoming holiday season. Get your wallets ready.

that the game’s great, what else? Reviews are out from Games Radar and IGN and both are praising the game for the unique visuals, smooth controls, solid online feature and … fun. That’s the word that best describes the first game for me as well; pure fun.

Here’s the metacritic link and the PAX gameplay video is after the jump. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves should be released in Octomber (13 for North America, 16 for Europe).

Pues ahora nos toca traer las revisiones de la “expansión” de Halo 3.   La que antes se las iban a vender a la mitad de precio de un juego, pero a la mera hora les dieron pan con lo mismo y se trata de “un juego completo”, así que a pagar!

Pues bueno, al parecer le ha ido 2-3 a esta expansión, siendo pues la principal diferencia que no usarás al Jefe Maestro.   Pero aquí les dejo el video-review de Gametrailers.

.

.

Y pues para que vean que le ha ido 2-3 al juegazo del universo de Halo, les dejo el Score actual que tiene en Metacritic.com =  85. Sí desean seguirlo más de cerca, chequenlo aquí, porque lo más seguro es que baje un poco el promedio final, ya que las revistas de Xbox, que fueron las que le dieron el puntaje más alto, ya tienen publicado su score.

Longtime developer of Electronic Arts’ NHL series of hockey games — and the country’s biggest studio — Vancouver’s EA Canada recently released the latest entry in the annual franchise: NHL 10. In this feature we analyze how the game fared with critics via its Metacritic ranking.

The PS3 version of the game currently holds an overall score of 87%, which puts it in the same realm as the last two releases: NHL 09 received an overall score of 88%, while NHL 08 reached 86%. The majority of critics seemed to agree that the latest game in the series is a step up in many ways compared to its predecessors.

1up’s Mike Nelson put it succinctly saying “if you thought NHL 09 was great, you’ll love ‘10.” Destructoid’s Samit Sarkar, meanwhile, lauded the 2010 edition as the best in the series. “NHL 10 is EA Sports’ best hockey title yet,” Sarkar explained, “offering considerably improved gameplay and another hour-eating mode in Be A GM.”

But while the majority of reviews featured near-universal praise, IGN’s Nate Ahearn believed that not enough was done to differentiate the game from the version released last year. “NHL 10 is a great hockey game, don’t get me wrong,” Ahearn wrote. “The biggest problem that fans of the series will have is that it just isn’t all that different from NHL 09…Nothing is a bad or poor choice that even comes close to ruining the experience, but there could have been more done to expand the core gameplay and offering of modes.”

That being said, he did bestow upon the game a fairly high rating of 87/100.

As you can see according to the chart the average ranking score for Wii games was well behind the average for the other two systems. This year though, things look a little different. While the average for the Xbox 360 and PS3 scores remained relatively the same, the Wii has seen a huge jump in the difference of its score compared to last year.

There could be any number of things that could contribute to this. Are games really better this year than they were last year? I think that’s probably the case, but I also think it’s just as likely that after nearly three years on the market that developers finally understand what needs to be done to make Wii games successful. Gone are the huge numbers of party games, and games based on your family pet. In are more games that take advantage of the hardware and push it with a beautiful art style over ultra realistic graphics such as The Munchables, Little King’s Story or Ghostbusters. Games with interesting game play mechanics such as NyxQuest, Boom Blox: Bash Party or Excite Bots. It could simply be a revisit to classics like Klonoa or Punch-Out!!.

Whatever it is though, games are getting better on Wii and they’re just as good, according to Meta Critic as games on the Xbox 360 or PS3. Personally, I think they’ve been that way for some time, but that’s just my opinion.

Source:Go Nintendo, Industry Gamers.com

Most of the people who read this site will already be aware of the Kane and Lynch debacle and the fate of one Jeff Gerstmann (though to be honest if Jeff’s resultant work away from Gamespot is this good, I think it all turned out rather well). Though I have yet to be embroiled in a drama of this magnitude, I can’t help but relate (or at least empathise) with such stories after a recent run-in with that dreaded cabal, the PR Department.

The current state of games journalism is quite frankly a petrifying one, especially from my vantage point of ‘just breaking in’. First of all, we are an industry dependent solely on another industry’s performance and existence. Games Journalism is subject to the financial shortfalls of not one but two markets: the magazines actually written and the industry they cover (without a games industry, what use is a games magazine?). Being subject to any kind of financial risk isn’t ideal, especially during a recession. So what have I done? Set my entire future happiness upon the shaky shoulders of an industry subject to twice as much financial turmoil as most others.

Yeah. Good move there Mikey…

Also, one of the harder-to-swallow truths of games journalism is that it is almost entirely dependent on advertising revenue to survive. During my initial research into games journalism I read countless horror stories about PR agents scolding games journos with comments like “I pay your salary, you’ll write what I tell you to” and other similar quips and character assassinations. Aside from being quite blatant workplace bullying, this attitude shows a complete disregard for games journalism as a legitimate profession and seems to illustrate that PR Departments merely see review sites and magazines as another way to get titles off the shelves.

Examples such as the above illustrate that as far as revenue streams are concerned, advertisers have Games Journos by the balls! Mix in the fact that the Internet is pretty much destroying print journalism and you’re left with a situation that couldn’t exactly be called ‘healthy’.

Also, before anyone starts, I am aware of the ironic douchebaggery of a blog blaming the Internet for killing print journalism. I am, however, no hypocrite. O:BP is justifiable as everything we write, research and publish is merely a portfolio for, in my case anyway, an eventual application and employment in print journalism. That’s the plan anyway. In my case, working for Edge is the dream that keeps me going… It will be mine, oh yes, it will be mine.

I digress…

When I read a review, I am allowing someone else’s opinion to meld with my own. To shape my perceptions and compliment my own (rather learned) experience when it comes to which games I tend to enjoy playing. It’s as though you are entering an unwritten contract with the reviewer. As a reader you expect an honest, unbiased, and intelligent review. As a reviewer, you expect your opinion to be viewed as an informed one, and for it to be respected if not agreed with. If either side of this relationship does not hold up their end of the bargain then the whole system falls apart.

It is a betrayal.

Recently, Callum at Pixelated Gamer gave me the review code of a game called Archer Maclean’s Mercury, a sub-par puzzler for the PSP. Anyone familiar with previous O:BP posts or my other work for PG will know that I love puzzle games, so I was pretty confident in my ability to review Mercury. After a series of e-mails from Cal asking for the review due to pressure from Ignition Entertainment, the publishers of Mercury and the people responsible for supplying us with the review code, I finally completed the not-so-favourable Mercury review and sent it through to Callum so that he could forward it on. Suffice to say, they weren’t too happy. Which is entirely understandable, and completely acceptable. There is, however, just one small gripe from me…

DO NOT SEND SOMEONE A COPY OF A GAME TO REVIEW AND THEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SUBSEQUENT REVIEW!!!

Do you really think that as the creators of a game you have a valid, unbiased opinion? No! No you do not! You don’t see a camera mechanic, you see the three nights spent away from your wife. You don’t see a title screen, you see staying up until all hours, reaching deadline and eating last night’s takeaway. A bad review is not a critique to you, it is a barrier between you and more money. Your opinion, at this stage, does not count!

I didn’t read anything about the game beforehand, or check Metacritic’s score first (which, to be fair to Ignition and Awesome Studios, is a pretty good one). I sat down, I played the game, and gave my informed, unbiased opinion on it.

It is this state of affairs that bothers me so much! I don’t work for a big site yet and Ignition Entertainment probably won’t be releasing the next Tetris any time soon (all the power in the world to them though), so losing a few free games from them isn’t going to ruin my career. But what if a similar situation arose with Blizzard, Bethesda, Bioware or Valve? Or to reference Gamespot’s supposed nemesis, the mighty EA? Losing exclusivity for the next WoW expansion or the next GTA is the kind of situation that could make or break a games publication…

And PR Departments/advertisers know it!

I have no doubt that I won’t be receiving any more free games from Ignition Entertainment, but to be honest, that’s something I’m sure I can live with. I’d rather hold my head up high and declare my journalistic integrity, than grab a load of freebies and fall into invalidity.

That is, of course, unless anybody would like to throw a new PC and access to the new Diablo 3 beta my way?

No?

Damn!

- Mikey Base

A lot has been said, written, and typed about hardcore third-party sales figures on the Nintendo Wii. While numbers for such titles may not rival that of the cutting-edge systems, we may not be seeing the complete picture. It is no secret that development costs on what is basically a last-gen console “retread” are exceptionally less expensive than the current-day process. Also, it seems that today, software sold is NOT considered successful until it reaches the 500,000 unit mark. Could these facts be causing a misinterpretation on the part of gaming and enthusiast press?

According to VGChartz.com, House of the Dead: Overkill sold almost 235,000 copies in 10 weeks(keep in mind that the site does not track past that point). The game reached it’s sales pinnacle in week two with over 44,000 units moved worldwide. This suggests that, even with a Metacritic score of 78, gamers were paying attention to the reviews of major sites and publications. The score is actually decieving as well, for ratings on the lower end are from less reputable sources, possibly searching out controversy.

Example number two is MadWorld. Released on March 10th 2009, the game pushed roughly 260,000 through retail to the consumer in two and a half months. Gamers definitely had their eye on the title, as it’s week one sales were in the neighborhood of 65,000 copies. An old-school “beat ‘em up” with an artistic flair, MadWorld was extremely popular with the mainstream gaming press. It did break the Metacritic 80 percent barrier(by one point), but again, how many of the lower reviews are credible?

Maybe the largest hardcore Wii experiment to date, The Conduit, blasted onto the gaming scene  June 23rd 2009 selling 83,000 copies here and abroad in it’s first week. There was no question that High Voltage Software, the game’s developer, had the spotlight aimed their direction. The Conduit had boasted lofty lighting and particle systems, along with the most-intuitive first-person-shooter controls since Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. The title has slowly fizzled out to a measly 8,000 units moved in it’s sixth week at retail, culminating at a total of 200,000. With a Metacritic score of 69(eek), it seems that most trustworthy reviews are in the 80’s and 70’s.

So, what does the bulk of this information mean exactly? These signs point to the fact that there IS still some segment of a core gaming audience on Nintendo’s tiny white console. SEGA, who published each of the games above, must believe that this is case. But as far as SEGA, Headstrong, Platinum Games, and High Voltage are concerned, do these sales figues warrant sequels? There is still much that we do not know. How many of the units moved at retail were at a reduced price point? Regardless, gamers’ support is crucial. Do you think that the Wii needs more hardcore software? If yes, then ask yourself this: how many of these titles have YOU purchased? Voting begins with YOUR gaming dollar. Do not let that vote go unheard.

I liked GI Joe. Okay, it’s not Citizen Kane. It’s not even The Mummy. But who says it has to be? I found it to be a fun, brainless summer action film in the tradition of many fun, brainless summer action films that came before it. Yet in a time when film critics are already seemingly becoming obsolete, their response to this summer’s blockbusters make them look all the more out of touch with what the average moviegoer. GI Joe looks to be on track for a $55-60 million opening weekend, and received a “B+” Cinemascore from audiences– and an “A-” from those under 18 who saw it. This is in stark contrast to the 39% on Rottentomatoes.com and the 32 on Metacritic.com, numbers that plummeted lower as more film critics saw it and provided snarky, above-it-all commentary about the film’s noisy, brainless demeanor. Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal went one step farther, publishing a non-review on Friday morning trashing the film. Audiences ignored him, and the other critics, per usual.

Rob Moore, vice chairman of Paramount Pictures, decided to not let critics see GI Joe in advance, saying, “After the chasm we experienced with `Transformers 2′ between the response of audiences and critics, we chose to forgo opening-day print and broadcast reviews as a strategy to promote `G.I. Joe.’ We want audiences to define this film.” Smart move, Rob– GI Joe received the second-biggest opening weekend for a non-sequel in August ever. Now a movie swamped with negative advance buzz and critical thrashing still has a shot at making a profit. The only losers here are the critics so willing to trash the movie, in particular Mr. Morgenstern, who dedicated a surprisingly large amount of article space for his elitist, holier-than-thou non-review. I found it to be so odious, I shall provide the article in its entirety with side commentary.

Morgenstern: “The folks at Paramount wouldn’t screen “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” for critics—they must love the movie so much they want to keep it to themselves. But why do I have to see it to review it? People debate the merits of movies they haven’t seen all the time—especially on the message boards of the Web, where vast numbers of fanboys, apprentice ­fanatics and professional grousers turn an endless supply of baseless ­assumptions into groundless ­conclusions.”

Translation: “I’m mad that I didn’t get a free ticket. I’m also mad that the Internet is where people turn to find out about movie buzz, and not to Pulitzer-Prize winning film critics in The Wall Street Journal.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By insulting those who write on the Internet– the wave of the future for film criticism– and by condemning a film and those who’ve seen it… WITHOUT HAVING SEEN IT HIMSELF!

Morgenstern: “At first I felt shut out, but then I realized I was missing the point of a double blessing. Paramount has spared me the pain of sitting through another military-toy epic (the recent “Transformers” sequel having been a near-death experience), and the studio has set me free to reach my own conclusions—not quite groundless but close—on the basis of the “G.I. Joe” trailer.”

Translation: “The last hit movie Paramount put out was too low for my elitist sensibilities, so I’d rather spitball COMPLETELY groundless conclusions out of anger.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By portraying film critics as angry, out-of-touch old farts who are more than eager to trash a film before stepping into a theater. Note to Mr. Morgenstern: don’t pretend watching a trailer helps one reach sound conclusions about a film. Often trailers don’t represent the best parts of a film, or sometimes even the correct genre.

Morgenstern: “The first thing that happens in the trailer involves the Eiffel Tower, which is hit by a missile and makes a splash by falling into the Seine. I don’t like movies that trash the Eiffel Tower, although I loved “The Lavender Hill Mob,” in which Alec Guinness’s mild-mannered bank clerk smuggles gold bars out of England by turning them into Eiffel Tower paperweights.”

Translation: “Since I’m better than you, let me reference an old film you probably don’t remember that has nothing to do with the current film at hand, but makes me look smarter.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By showing that critics are more than happy to stick in a mindset of “I wish things were as good as they were in the old days,” rather than being forward-minded and look for merits in current films.

Morgenstern: “The second thing involves an ­actor intoning, voice-over: “We have never faced a threat like this. A team is being assembled. They’re the best operatives in the world. When all else fails, we don’t.” Even apart from the actor pronouncing “assembled” as “assimbled,” the speech suggests a sound clip from an early rehearsal of a junior-high-school pageant. I don’t like movies with bad actors reading dumb lines.”

Translation: “Because I didn’t like the way one vowel was pronounced and Paramount didn’t show me their movie for free, I will dismiss Dennis Quaid as a bad actor, and these lines as being dumb.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? By showing how critics can be needlessly nitpicky and spin wild conclusions out of the most trivial of details. Dennis Quaid is an Academy Award nominated actor, and he is perfect for the role of General Hawk. The dialogue may be dumb, but it fits perfectly into the genre of the film, and the film itself is fun because of lines like these.

Morgenstern: “Most of all, I don’t like vast industrial productions based on toys I never played with as a kid (although the first “Transformers” was actually good fun). When I wrote a review suggesting that the sequel would hasten the end of civilization, a reader emailed me to say, “I have more than 700 Transformer toys and you don’t know . . . ” That’s as far as I read, since what I did know is that he was right. I am no more qualified to judge the details of these toy-based monstrosities than a toy critic—there are toy critics, aren’t there?—would be qualified to review “Casablanca.” (Though a battery-powered Rick puffing real smoke might be collectible.)”

Translation: “Because I missed the boat on these crazes, I’m going to act like the kid who is ‘too cool for school’ when it comes to movies based on these toys. I also think I’m better than the young people who play with these toys and see these movies.” How does this paragraph hasten the death of film criticism? These young people who play with these toys are the people who buy the tickets and are thus the people who the studios make the films for. If you can’t approach a movie based on toys and expect nothing more than a fun, gadget-filled romp, and instead you feel a film like this can “hasten the end of civilization,” then you’re expecting too much. Even if you hate these types of films, as a critic, try to put yourself into the shoes of the target audience. Don’t simply dismiss a film and everyone who sees/enjoys it, otherwise YOU will be the one who looks like they missed the boat.

Morgenstern: “Nonetheless, I insist on my right to say that “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” will also hasten the end of civilization and may well be as dreadful as it’s said to be by countless online blatherers who, exactly like me, haven’t seen a single frame of it on a big screen. These days, not seeing is believing.”

Translation: “I don’t know how the Internet works, but it has a lot of power, and I am jealous.” The Internet buzz turned quite positive once test screenings started occurring, and online critics such as Harry Knowles and Devin Faraci, kings of the “fanboys,” deemed the film to be fun. Of course, that point is moot when one considers that Joe Morgenstern isn’t an online blatherer– he’s a Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic. He is supposed to help an audience decipher whether a film is worth seeing. That requires two things: 1) The critic should see the film. 2) The critic should write for all readers, not simply for other Pulitzer Prize-winning critics. If critics like Joe Morgenstern continue to write for each other, without thinking about the people seeing the movie, then the precedent Paramount set here by not screening potential blockbusters will spread quickly. Yes, in the past, movies that aren’t screened often are of a lower quality– but shouldn’t one see a movie before deciding if it’s bad? And shouldn’t one not be so peeved at the prospect of having to *gasp!* pay for a movie ticket that he dedicates six paragraphs to his anger?

In the end, his review no more hastens the end of film criticism than Transformers 2 hastens the end of civilization. But film criticism is dying a much faster death than civilization, and between film critics and Transformers 2, it seems most of civilized America would be glad to side with Optimus Prime.

NOSTALGIA.

I’ve had a gutful.

Fallout 3’s the game that recently aroused my ire- although it’s not so much the game as the reaction to it. The whiny, unpleasable, fan-dumb reaction to it. Now, I’ve played a bit of the game, and as far as I’m concerned, it can be officially regarded as Pretty Sweet™. It’s got the Joe Bloggs Seal Of Approval. But Jezus, according to the fan base, the whole thing would have had to be a constant 80-hour sidequest-filled blowjob to match up to the INCREDIBLE, LIFE-AFFIRMING Fallout 1 and 2. Reviews of the new contender were filled to the brim with phrases like “It’s good- but can it live up to its legacy?”

I can’t claim to have played either of the (no-doubt fantastic, I’m sure) original fallout games, but the whole debate quickly became moot when I looked through some reviews Namely These Fallout Metacritic ( Fallout 3 Metacritic and noticed that Fallout 3 actually rated higher than the original- an 89 to the newbie’s 93. A poor score for one of the best damn games of all time, I’d think- so, Fallout 1’s obvious brilliance wasn’t immediately recognized by the gaming press? The gaming press overhyped Fallout 3 with dishonest reviews?

Worse, I noticed, starting to laugh, the reviews of the original Fallout were calling it the Spiritual Successor to some now-forgotten RPG called “Wasteland”- wait for it-which they were calling one of the best RPG’s of all time.

In that one moment, I could suddenly see it all, in one big thread stretching back to creation. Wasteland was probably originally compared unfavourably with some even older creation rendered only in ascii art, which was itself called a boring rip-off of some dark-age creation played on the oscilloscope, which reviewers said had none of the spice and originality of freaking PONG, which, itself, had people grousing about the days when all they had was pictures on the cave walls, and that was damn well good enough for them.

And some day, far in the uncharted future, some future space-reviewer will lean back in his chrome-plated hover-chair, have a sip of cyber-wine, look out at a particularly amusing VR simulation thoughtfully and say-

“It’s good.

But is it FALLOUT 3 good?”

For those who need it spelled out to them, I’m not having a go at the Fallout franchise. I’m sure they’re great games. I’m not even having a go at reviewers, or RPGs in general. I’m talking about the fact that, apparently, no game is ever as good as the game released a few years before it. Fallout 3 isn’t as good as Fallout 2, which was a sad misinterpretation of Fallout 1. Deus Ex 3 will not be good enough to kiss Deus Ex’s multiple-pathed boots. Super Smash Bros. Brawl was a carbon-copy imitator of Super Smash Bros. Mêlée, with none of the latter’s pizzazz and spunk. Half life 2 sucks when compared to Half Life, which itself was just another Doom clone. Games have just been on a terrible downward slide for the entirety of their existence, getting worse and worse with each game created.

Except, of course, that’s bullshit.

If I can be the one to call us out on this: The technology people use to make games has been getting progressively better and better. No-one’s arguing that, right? And the people who are making games- stay with me here- are not getting any worse. So games, therefore, unless the people who make games have been suffering some sort of mass-brain damage recently, are getting better and better.

There’d probably be a mass outcry to that last sentence, if anyone actually read this blog. Seeing as there’s not, I’m going to continue as if I’ve been suddenly asked a bunch of angry question by a pitchfork-wielding hoard of nostalgia-crazed fans.

“But duuuude, games back then had much better economy of design and the beauty of simpliciiiiityyyy” The shambling creatures would cry. “Modern games are overly influenced by fooocus grooooups and getting the increasingly large amounts of money they pour into the game baaaaack, so that there’s no real innovaaaatioooon. Graphic s should be a secondary conceeeeeeern grah grah grah braains.”

Legitimate arguments all, unwashed masses. But, c’mon guys, let’s be fair- past games were hardly just one incredible innovative gem after another- and the fact that they’re putting huge tons of money into them makes them really good games. Hey, if you want non-graphics intensive Innovation, the Indie games scene( TIGsource ) is still putting it out in spades. Can you honestly look at a page of stuff like this( Cinemassacre ) and say you’d prefer to be living back then?

But, the past is always better than the present, for some reason. Time heals all wounds, and that shitty interface and instant-death platforming that gave you a huge headache in your youth will be fondly remembered as an adult. Nostalgia, folks, clear and simple.

I fall prey to this as well, I have to admit. Adventure Games are my fond memories of choice, and I’m personally terrified about what they’re going to do to Monkey Island over here( Tales of Monkey Island )- Will it ever be able to measure up to the originals, etc. And, of course, there’s a ton of cash-cow farming enterprises that seem to delight in making terrible sequels to games you once loved. I’ll list the childhood-memory raping Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts ( Banjo-Kazooie Nuts n’ Bolts ) and leave it at that.

(VEHICALS, MAN. BANJO DOESN’T RIDE, HE FREAKING JUMPS. AAARGH.)

But, there’s a time when you have to look back at the games you thought you loved- look back at an article like this( OldManMurray ), and realise-

“Hang on.

That game was actually pretty shit.”

So, come on people, let’s not get hung up on the past. It was great. We had some good times. And hey, good old games deserve to be remembered. There’s a reason people obsess about them so much. The past was great fun, while it lasted. But- let’s stop this bloody glorification of it, ok? If I read one more article about how old game X is better than new game Y, or how the demise of adventure games shows how gamers have become morons( Adventure Gamers ), or how gaming these days just isn’t the same( Games suck these days ), I’m going to spew high-definition bloom-lighted vomit all over the place.

Honestly. It’s not the game that you think was better than today- it’s the memories it gives you. So, can we, as a group, try and sort of admit:

New games are pretty cool, actually?

Drowning in Pixelated Nostalgia-
-Joe Bloggs.

Let’s face it: Authors aren’t known for having great web sites. Most don’t even bother with them at all. But I’m glad that Aimee Bender is at least trying to delve into other media and giving it a shot at flammableskirt.com.

Now if only they had release calendars for them, like MetaCritic’s for music. Ah, I guess you can’t have everything. But, in looking for hints on new ones from Bender, Tim O’Brien, and Melissa Bank (and of course I found nothing), I at least found a cool interview with Bank about what record her latest book would be, if it were set to music. A good dialogue about The White Stripes and Billy Collins’s influence on her too (yay poetry!) is here.

In today’s fast-moving world of web 2.0, the buzz band reigns supreme.  Unheard of one day, a virtual household name the next, it seems as if there is a new buzz band every month or even week. From the Arcade Fire in 2004(perhaps the first “modern” buzz band) to Clap Your Hands Say Yeah in 2005 (the definitive example of a buzz band) to Wavves in 2009 (the perfect example of the downside of being a buzz band), we increasingly see bands rocket into popularity.  While the actual worth of many of these bands is sometimes debatable, never mind the system that hypes them endlessly until the next flavor of the month comes along, the fact remains that there has never been an easier time for a band to breakthrough to mainstream acceptance than current day.  We’ve seen it time and time again as the internet and social media increasingly facilitate word-of-mouth through online user generated content (blogs, forums, twitter, video, etc).

But what actually makes buzz band?  What makes one band’s popularity explode “overnight”?  It’s a trick question; a band does not explode in popularity over night.  Reaching the tipping point usually takes years.  I have compiled a case study of what turns a band a buzz band to give us greater insight into the process.  This story is a rather well documented example of the power of word-of-mouth when it comes to music.  This case study borrows heavily from the work of MetaCritic Forum poster The Fall of Troy, to whom this post owes a great debt.

Toronto based Rural Alberta Advantage are blowing up, seemingly out of nowhere.  Previously known to only a select few, the band’s popularity has snowballed this spring and summer, culminating in a stunningly positive review in Pitchfork today.  Hometowns, their debut album, is considered by many to be the best album of 2009 and the band has attracted an usually dedicated and loyal fanbase through their album and through their energetic live show.  This is how that fanbase pulled the RAA from indie obscurity to indie mainstream in one year.

The Rural Alberta Advantage, consisting of Paul Banwatt, Amy Cole and Nils Edenloff, formed in 2005.  Paul and Nils met each other through Amy Cole and the band formed around an open mic night hosted by Paul and Nils in Toronto.  They played their first show on January 30^th, 2005.  By the end of the year they had played 11 shows (10 in Toronto, one in Cambridge, ON) and recorded a demo.

2006 saw the band record and self-release the Rural Alberta Advantage EP and play 33 more show, all in Canada and the overwhelming majority in Toronto (although they also played their first shows in Montréal and Ottawa).

In 2007 saw the band play 30 more shows, but this time they played as many outside of Toronto as they did in.

2008 is the vital year for the RAA.  They spent 6 months self-recording their debut album, Hometowns, which featured songs from their EP as well as new songs.  Every song but one (Frank AB, which was written in the studio) was from their live show.  They sold the album themselves through the internet (it was not available in any store).  The band played 29 more shows with the majority of them outside of Toronto.

I will let The Fall Of Troy from the MetaCritic Music Forums take it from here:

On February 19, 2008, a review of Hometowns appeared on Herohill.com, a site that defines itself as “a music review site from the Great White North”. This review refers to the RAA as “probably the best unsigned band in Canada.” Herohill summed up Hometowns as follows:

“On the surface, you are hit with the trio’s Neutral Milk Hotel pop and Nils Edenloff’s detailed narratives of his Alberta roots. While it seems almost necessary to toss in a Sufjan reference when you talk about the subject matter, the final product couldn’t be farther from one of the indie rock poster boy’s releases. Instead of calculated, over thought, lush compositions, RAA prefers energetic, spontaneous, spare arrangements with just enough shocks and surprises to keep you guessing. And the power the trio delivers is astonishing.”

In early summer of this year, one of our members, nmeiborg was poking around Herohill when he discovered the RAA. On June 24, nmeiborg posted the following in the “Best Records of 2008” thread after listening to Hometowns:

Pretty impressed with a couple albums recently:

The Rural Alberta Advantage – Hometowns

Indie folk-rock that reminds me a bit of Neutral Milk Hotel

The War on Drugs – Wagonwheel Blues

Indie-rock with hints of Springsteen, Eno, Sonic Youth and early U2

This short post caused ripples that created a stir on Metacritic which has ended in a ground-swell of support for this unsigned band. Since then 7 people have put the RAA in their top 20: mneiborg (#2), RavingLunatic (#2), twinsdad (#4), L.R. Willaim Spencer (#7), Liberal Kid (#10), ajar (unnumbered, but at the top of the list), and CoCoCo (putting RAA in the “GoodGoodGood” category). Several others have mentioned it as an album they are still digesting. Not bad for an unsigned band.

RavingLunatic saw nmeiborg’s post, and picked up the album. Since then, RL has been an ardent supporter of the band. On October 5, RL made the following post in the “Best Records of 2008” thread:

Dudes, I recently re-listened to that Rural Alberta Advantage album, Hometowns, and it is freaking killer. I’m tempted to call it the best indie-rock album since The Meadowlands. These songs are passionate, catchy, and fresh. At times it recalls Neutral Milk Hotel, but they are different in many ways as well. Rural Alberta Advantage is now in a ferocious battle with Tallest Man On Earth for my #1 spot. If you are a fan of indie-rock and haven’t heard this, you need to.

This is where the RAA picks up a little steam. Seeing this post, I checked the RAA out on their myspace page. I instantly fall in love with the band. But, I’m too honest to illegally download the album and too cheap to pay $12 plus shipping and handling from their website. So, I posted a message on the message boards at eMusic directed to Yancey Strickler, one of the editors at eMusic. In my message, I asked if I could recommend an unsigned band for the eMusic Selects program. Every couple of months, eMusic signs up unsigned artists to promote and digitally distribute their albums. The program has been going on for less than a year, but so far eMusic signed up Breathe Owl Breathe to distribute its Ghost Glacier EP and at least one artist – High Places – has received a record deal after being an eMusic Select artist. Yancey was impressed with the RAA, and said that he would contact the band.

So, as The Fall Of Troy says, he posted a message on the eMusic message boards, directed to Yancy Stickler.  Yancy saw the message, checked out the band, and was promptly blown away.  That same day he contacted the Rural Alberta Advantage and within a few days they were signed to eMusic Selects.  The RAA were now exposed to eMusic’s 400,000+ subscriber base, in addition to having eMusic’s marketing and promotions team working for them.  The band joined with eMusic in Norvember or December of 2008 and within a few short months they were the all time top selling eMusic Selects band.

As of today, the RAA have played 35 shows in 2009, including their first shows in the United States (a three show mini-tour to NYC in February).  This mini-tour was followed up by three performances at the music industry showcase SXSW in Austin, TX in March.  At SXSW the RAA played in a special showcase that eMusic set up for the band, opening for indie rock fan and critical favorites Grizzly Bear at the beautiful Central Presbyterian Church.  Knowing that the idea of Grizzly Bear in a gorgeous venue such as that church would attract many music fans and members of the media alike, the event was set up to promote the RAA.  The band nailed their set with an energetic and heartwarming performance; they completely won over the crowd and their set was often cited as one of the highlights of SXSW.

Post-SXSW the band played a few shows around the United States in April and May, including visits to NYC in early April and late May.  On May 1^th the band signed to indie mega-label Saddle Creek, home to bands such as Bright Eyes/Conor Oberst, Cursive, and Tokyo Police Club.  Saddle Creek re-released Hometowns today, July 7^th, the same day that Pitchfork gave the band an overwhelmingly positive review.  A quick scan of Google News revels widespread attention being paid to the band from both indie music blogs and mainstream print media.

So in summary, how did the Rural Alberta Advantage become an “overnight sensation”?

-    First and most importantly, the RAA wrote and perfected an amazing group of songs and learned how to perform these songs in a very engaging manner

-   They played frequently, averaging about 30 shows a year.

-   They built up a fan base in their hometown (no pun intended) and then built off that fan base as they expanded outward, playing shows further and further from home.

-   They recorded music early in their career and got it out there on the internet so people could find them.

-   They got one positive early review.

-   One influential person saw that review and passed along its message to a receptive group of music lovers.

-   That group of music lovers shared a mutual love for the album, encouraging one another to listen.

-   From that group emerged one person (The Fall Of Troy) who knew of somebody in a position to help the band (Yancy Strickler) and then tipped off that person.

-   That person, upon hearing the quality of the songs, used his power to put the support of an organization behind the band (eMusic).

-   That organization used its power to support the band (by making Hometowns an editors choice, by setting up a SXSW showcase and inviting media, etc).

-   One of the promotions that the organization set up (SXSW) led to the band signing with an influential record label.

-   That record label re-released the album, resulting in a furry of media attention and positive reviews.

-   The Rural Alberta Advantage became an “overnight” sensation.

It’s that simple; there is only three parts to it.  Do something amazing.  Have the right person or people see it or hear it.  Let the word-of-mouth trickle through the internet.

Sources:

My interview with the Rural Alberta Advantage and Yancy Strickler, of eMusic.

The RAA’s list of shows

The MetaCritic Forum Thread about the RAA.  Includes the Fall Of Troy’s history of the band. A very interesting read.