Sometimes, being naive and enthusiastic and unaware of the dangers may overshadow any difficulties lying around. Sometimes. Not always.

Microsoft announced today at E3 an extension to the Xbox console that makes it … controller-less. I have no words to describe how excited I am, just look at the video. Skim through the almost-perfect working demo and look at Microsoft’s presentation:
Video 1

Video 2

One of the rumors is about a motion-sensor controller being introduced from Microsoft and/or Sony. What a surprise! I think Nintendo has already something similar out for the past ahm let me count, three (?) years.

Nintendo gambled everything with the Wii console. If you remember the great, but unfortunate, Gamecube, you can see in what risk Nintendo was. The problem with Gamecube was that the games were too-family oriented, too.. childish if I may say. I have had great fun playing Monkey ball and rolling a monkey in a ball around, but it never crossed my mind to spend a penny on Gamecube.

As a result, Nintendo had to risk. What could be an innovative, breathtaking and easy way to bring more people to play games? In addition, of course, to sticking with Nintendo’s style of games.

Out came the Wii and its controller and the announcements back in 2005. During that year, I was in Dublin, in a computer games/graphics conference. People from Sony were there, presenting the new Playstation. Everyone was dumbstruck by the processor, the graphics, etc. Awesome. Many conversations with friends followed, most of us agreeing that Nintendo had lost the plot before it even begun, because the graphics were crap.

How wrong I was.

I think I feel that after a bit of playing in exquisite-looking graphics, even the most drooling and demanding player will stop paying attention. I am not saying I endorse crude polygons that poke your eyes out. I am just saying that Nintendo found a market that was previously oblivious to the world of games. That was the 80% of people I personally know.

Most of my friends do not play games. Now, they all know Wii, they want a Wii or they have played on a Wii. That is amazing, and shows that the guys over at Nintendo actually discovered what would make games reachable. A keep it simple approach, use your controller as you use your TV remote.

Congratulations Nintendo, you have my unwavering admiration. You have even made me, a PC gamer, buy a console for the first time in my life.

Today I was having a discussion with a friend – she was confessing to me how she thinks that all these facebook,myspace,bebo etc corrupt the young generation and lead young people to isolation. My honest opinion on that is ‘bollocks’ – technology is amazing, it is up to you how you use it. My topic, however, is not social networking. I got to thinking, how many hours of my life I have spent (happily, I must confess) playing games. Did that turn me into a social recluse? No way, and I do not say this self-consciously.

So I got to thinking, how have games actually helped me develop into a sane (almost) person? I have been playing computer games since I was about 11. Now I am .. uh.. more than 29 and less than 31 This, my friends, is a LONG time. Retrospectively, I can confirm, that games have helped a lot, here are some examples.

1. Sense of location: I think all this running around fps levels and knowing where I’m going all the time has unconsciously helped me in noticing small details in an area. So the next time I visit it, I know where things are supposed to be. This is what occured to me in the airport: I was thirsty. I had been to that airport many times before and I knew there was a water cooler behind a magazine shop near to the gate I was going towards. This came to me as a flash as I was walking. I ignored it and proceeded to the gate, thinking I must be wrong. I was not. I came back, and there it was. The water cooler.
2. Reaction times: My reaction times are fast. And I don’t panic. When accidents happen sometimes it feels to me like things move slowly in split seconds so 9/10 times I manage to grab anything falling etc etc. A few weeks ago we were on a cycling trip with 50 other cyclists, running quite fast. At some point, the girl in front of me lost her balance. I knew she would fall. Split second decisions influence the handling of the brakes and avoiding to hit anybody.
3. Puzzle-solving: I love puzzles. I think this was helped by maniac mansion and all those nice adventures. It made me question things around me, and always strive to find solutions, however hard or hidden they may be.
4. English: English is not my mother language. If it was not for games, I don’t think I would love the English language as much as I do now. The dialogues of the first games I played, like monkey island or any sierra adventure, were very very good. They give you the sense of storytelling, and for me, they helped me to start reading English lit.
5. Persistence: You spend hours fighting the boss and you die. OK so you try again. You have to, otherwise you can’t move on. It is a funny thing, but for many tasks in life, persistence is the key. Keep trying and you will be better on it and be rewarded in the end.
6. Friendships: I can’t even remember the number of friends I have made when starting a conversation about games that we both may have played. Games are a funny thing; they entertain you, but they also move you in a way that you remember them fondly for a long time.
7. Technology: Tell you the truth, I think it was games that first got me started with computers. OK for some weird reason, DOS fascinated me as well.

Well, this turned out in a bit personal-looking post, but I don’t mind at all. If I remember any other reasons, I’ll probably update

Being curious, I downloaded the trial and I really loved it. If there are games that are slowly breaking this stupid superfluous casual vs hardcore divide, Plants vs Zombies is surely one of them.

A ‘guard your territory’ approach, which is not limited there. Great visuals, funny characters and voice overs and lots of mini games that unlock as you progress.

Have a look at the game trailer and give it a go!

I am starting to think that casual vs hardcore games will soon be distinguished by:
1. the pints of blood shed vs hour ratio
2. the mega vs giga bytes of download

but more on this another time

Now go, go and get this nice game from steam, it’s only 10 bucks!

Before you dismiss me as a person with low sanity points, please consider that I don’t want the world to end tomorrow/or transform to the next Dr. Strangelove. It’s just I find these games nice to play.

I believe the games I like stem from the types of books I like to read. I always enjoyed writers like Poe, Lovecraft, Tolkien, H.W. Wells, Adams, Orwell and numerous other fantasy/sci-fi writers.

Well, I’ve read some excellent books that apart from the fact that they would make a great movie, I think they would be amazing in a game setting.

So start coding, Bethesda!

The books are:

• Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake / The handmaid’s Tale
  
• Orwell’s 1984 (cliche, I know)
• Joe Abercrombie’s First law books (if you liked the witcher, you’ll love this one, as sarcastic, witty, serious as it gets. Amazing books)
• The Magician book by Feist although his books follow the classic ‘ good always wins’ pattern. So, on second thought, no Bethesda, don’t do it.

The game deals with the recent Iraq war, and specifically the Fallujah battle in 2004 which was violent and fierce for everybody involved-in pure numbers it was the worst for the civilians. It follows a squad of U.S. Marines. The developer, Atomic, has been specialising in battle-reenactment games before (Close combat, World at War). For the development of Fallujah, they (Atomic) have repeatedly said that they received support and information from actual participators, whether this is US marines, Iraqi civilians or insurgents.

Atomic Games describes Fallujah as a survival horror game, but not in the traditional sense of zombies and supernatural effects. Rather coming from the unpredictable tactics employed by insurgents, the player  controlling the battalion is uncertain of what will occur next.

In any case, the game’s announcement was followed by a stream of objections, coming from peace groups. survivor groups, even from other wars’ veterans. I haven’t seen any Iraqi objection yet, even though they were the most affected. Anyway. Konami took the criticism to heart and decided to stop supporting the game with the best way a publisher can: stop being a publisher.

Apparently, Atomic learnt all this through the likes of IGN and Gamespot and were, I quote, “suprised.” They are now looking for another publisher, and most likely with all this snowball effect, viral-news, freedom of speech support, they will get one.

My question is not whether the game will or will not be good in the end, but whether the public, sometimes, overreacts and is too ‘politically correct.’ What are games? Are they some form of entertainment? Just for passing our time? A favourite pasttime of recluses that has now found its way into home/family consoles?

What is that, that gives people the anxiety  to criticize the violence of GTA, Bully, sterile sex scenes in Mass Effect and not blink an eye with irreversible, elephant, bowling for columbine, fahrenheit 9/11 and a long list that I won’t even bother to fill?

Besides the first one being a list of games, and the other of movies, there are two factors: Longenvity and amount of interference.

Longenvity

We tend to forget that films have been around for 100 years. Lots of subjects that films are discussing now would be a ‘no-no, you’ll burn in hell’ 30 years ago. Even in Greece, (or should I say because it’s Greece), when one of the most controversial books of N. Kazantzakis (of Zorba fame) was made into a movie by Scorcese [Τελευταίος πειρασμός/The last temptation], there were huge protests, burning of cinemas, etc,etc. It was briefly shown into the cinemas in 1988, technically since then it’s  forbidden to be shown in cinema halls in Greece.

Films have changed much, but we tend to forget that sometimes, films, influence people. This is not always a bad and exaggerated thing (Look, I’m superman, I can REALLY fly) – it drives people to consider scenarios, think about the protagonist, and look at life (even briefly) from another viewpoint. Or, remain numb, while watching zombies. It’s all the same.

Interference

The line between movies (and documentaries of real-life events) and games is interference. In video you are a passive participant. You watch, unable to stop the horror, or the passion, or the whatever. You have no control. In games, however, you choose. You choose to shoot zombies/steal a car/answer questions in a bad or nice way/shoot the Iraqi in the battle of Fallujah. You choose, and you control. And this is, I think, what scares most people that do not play games. That by choosing to do one thing in a game, you immediately accept that somewhere deep inside you, you might do the same action in real life.

It’s the same with heavy metal music and Marilyn Manson and all that craze that arose after Columbine. Because the music says so, I have to do it.

For me, games are the films of our century. They have the power to educate, entertain, involve and move people in a way that was not possible before.  It depends on the individual how he/she will take any information provided. Because, in real life, unlike in games, the individual has a real spectrum of choices for his actions.

Mike Thompsen from IGN is so much better than me in this.

A story came up in the news today about the famous sculpture of Romulus and Remus (yes that one with the wolf, see picture). It has long been a symbol of ancient Rome, being linked to its mythical heritage. The statue was supposedly dated c. 500 BC.

Wolf and cubs (from wikimedia commons)

Since the 18th century,  the figures of the two brothers were actually attributed to Renaissance workmanship – although the theory was heavily debated.  Wikipedia has a very nice article on that story as well as the BBC.  Now, it turns out by some radiocarbon tests done by the University of Salento that the wolf is also not so ancient as previously thought. In fact, the new date is circa the 13th century AD.

Why the fuss, you may ask.

For me this finding is of great interest. It proves my belief, that in archaeology we must always question and be open to new interpretations. Secondly, once more, scientific tools have actively helped archaeological research and this is a good thing.

There have been a number of well-documented hoaxes in archaeology or cases where the dating has been wrong, and it’s good that people are not just accepting theories as dogma but testing them all the time with new tools and effort.

For the Italian-adepts out there, here is the original article.