Can I get a raisin Julius? Longmont Potion Castle

Technically, LPC released an album this year – LP8, but really, I discovered his whole catalogue this year. What is Longmont Potion Castle? The shortest way to describe him is that he’s a prank-caller comedian, but that’s hardly fair. LPC is the Jackson Pollock of his form. Or maybe, he’s the Salvador Dali – or probably both. Instead of just picking at the people he calls, he coaxes them into absurd situations through a combination of scattershot non sequiturs and surreal pranks.

Some of them include complaining about dog gnashing or asking a restaurant manager whether he wants to get lubricated with some good old boys, or threatening people with the vengeance of Dirk Funk – and none of this sounds funny on the surface, but trust me, it’s like Jazz – once you see where LPC is taking these skits, you start to appreciate the skill and style that makes this form of prank calling an art.

Dubstep is reaching singularity and it’s a good thing

If 2011 isn’t the year that dubstep reached its zenith, it’s certainly close. With extreme overexposure in movie trailers, cereal commercials, and pretty much anything signified to be dangerous or cool, dubstep is inching closer to its inevitable supernova. Let’s put this out there – dubstep going kaboom is a good thing because it’s the only way to save dubstep.

Like drum and bass or big beat before it, dubstep is hitting that point of saturation where it’s increasing harder to find evidence of what made the genre popular in the first place. I’d put most of the blame on the bandwagon jumpers – those that don’t really understand the genre, but begin doing dubstep because it’s the hot new kid on the block – as a result, we get music-makers who take the most formulaic elements of dubstep and turn them up to the extreme. Thus, for every Skream, we get ten Skrillex’s.

The bubble’s going to pop – and eventually listeners will tire and move on to the next big trend. I see the implosion as invariably a good thing:

First, the bangwagon jumpers will abandon the genre because it no longer sells – thus taking with them the worst tendencies of the music

Out of that a hardly few purists will remain – and they’ll continue making excellent music by distilling the very best parts of dubstep into its essence – i.e., Kode9, Digital Mystikz etc.

Finally as dubstep disintegrates – there will be musicians who take the genres most compelling parts and refashion them into something new and exciting. We’re already seeing artists working on the fringes – SBTRKT, Sepalcure, Egyptrixx – whose work might not be categorically considered dubstep, but they’re cribbing notes from the genre in interesting ways.

So, yeah...dubstep is dead...long live dubstep!

Music in 2012: The R&B Identity Crisis

R&B gets weirdly, wonderfully introspective – Frank Ocean & The Weeknd

What the hell is R&B in 2011? I don’t know – and I don’t think R&B knows any longer – at least that’s the vibe I get out of the two artists I listened to most this year: Frank Ocean and The Weeknd.

Frank Ocean is probably the more traditional of the two - there’s still plenty of come hither here, but it’s undercut by a willingness to be brutally honest (with himself most of all) and show a rare vulnerability, or even better, a willingness to follow his narrative where his imagination takes him – whether that’s driving an Oldsmobile into the ocean or smoking Novacane-laced drugs and dreaming of Stanley Kubrick.

The Weeknd shares a penchant for honesty, but it’s the cruellest kind. This Toronto outfit deals in empty promises and empty bodies, but buries it under pretty textures and softly cooed R&B tropes. Despite often falling into the familiar R. Kelly trap of boasts and bragging, there’s something unsettlingly sociopathic about it. It's a fascinating case of beautiful people singing songs about other beautiful people being the worst kind of monsters.

What Gamer Will the Wii 2...Appeal To?

Is it already time for the next generation of video game consoles? If you’re Nintendo, then the answer to that question is yes. Project Café is on its way (or possibly Nintendo FEEL – yikes), and it appears the gaming world will get a good look at it come E3 of this year.

So, why when you’ve sold roughly 80 million consoles would you need to start burning the fires of the production plant to pump out the next system? As I’ve harped on before, it’s because Nintendo’s strategy of selling consoles to casual gamers has painted them into a corner.

Casuals just don’t care

The problem with selling to casuals is that they’re not looking to extend their video game experience. Give them Wii Sports and the vast majority of them are supremely satisfied. As a result, the Wii’s attachment rate for games is paltry compared to say that of Xbox 360 and PS3.

Though neither of those systems sold at the astronomical levels that the Wii did, those consoles were sold mostly to gamers, who happen to buy at least three to five games per system.

Combine that with non-standardized technology and a mountain-full of shovelware, and few developers were willing to risk money to make AAA games a success on the biggest console seller. And those that did heed the Siren’s call of a huge user base, discovered what discerning minds already knew, no one who seriously plays video games only plays them on the Wii.

Moving in a new direction

Give props to Nintendo though, they’ve realized this fact and are not sugar-coating it any longer. I can recall past statements where developers weren’t getting the Wii. Apparently, that’s not the case any longer as Iwata himself thinks it was a mistake to position the Wii away from core gamers.

It’s more than just marketing speculation though; if the rumours are true, the next Wii is on its way, and its goal is to appeal to third-party developers, and ultimately core gamers.

Somewhere Michael Patcher must be smiling, because he called it all along, despite Nintendo’s numerous denials. The era of the Wii2 will begin sometime in 2012 – and first and foremost – it will be the dawn of the HD era for Nintendo.

Wii2 hardware speculation

If you’re going to make a system in this era, it’s going to have to be in high definition. With the Wii2 that much was certain since high definition televisions have been rapidly adopted over the past few years. But what else will the next Nintendo system contain – and what does the speculative hardware say about Nintendo’s chances for success.

From a horsepower perspective, it’s likely the Wii2 either be on par with the Xbox 360 and PS3, if not more or a little less powerful. Graphically and speed-wise, the new Wii will likely be on equal footing. A bigger question is storage – Nintendo has traditionally stayed away from in-built storage – but it’s likely (and cost-effective) that they go with a hard drive this time around.

Like whatever Microsoft comes up with in its next console, the new Wii probably won’t be sporting a Blu-ray drive – I think that’s something neither console maker wants to concede to Sony.

Now, here’s where the rumours get interesting. The reason the next Wii might be called FEEL is because it may have touch-sensitive screens in its controllers. Though initial projections say that the controller will have a traditional layout, the screen gives Nintendo a differentiator and a way to bridge the gap between casuals and core gamers (apparently, it will also have the waggle functionality of Nintendo’s Wiimote and Wii Motion Plus).

It also gives gamers the ability to interact with two screens, or stream content from one screen to the next (which explains the other rumoured name for the Wii2 – the Nintendo Stream). It also possibly opens the door to not using a controller to play the system, but the ability to play with a handheld – ahem, the DS or 3DS.

Can Nintendo compete – from a hardware perspective

If we’re talking pure horsepower, then yes it seems the next Nintendo is designed purely to run with Sony and Microsoft; however, from a cost perspective, I’m more than sceptical.

I have three systems already – adding a fourth to this cycle of consoles is a reach – especially if the rumours that the system will be priced around $400 are to be believed. Even as a core gamer with disposable income, you’d be hard pressed to convince me to buy a second console in five years.

Add to that the somewhat miserable buying experience with the Wii, where core gamers were proverbially left out in the cold, and I truly believe Nintendo is climbing a pretty steep hill. Sure, you’ll get fans and people excited about the next big thing, but I’m sure there will be an equal number of people who wait on the system to see what it offers – a lot of people will need to be convinced of the next Wii’s value.

Nintendo can’t afford for these people to wait too long – because they are potential sales that could likely be scooped up by Microsoft and Sony when their consoles come knocking in 2012 and beyond. Additionally, as the first entry in the next cycle, Nintendo’s next system is at great risk to be leap-frogged by the next Xbox or Playstation from a hardware perspective.

So what can Nintendo do? If they’re truly after the core gamer, it means the system is going to need AAA titles early and often, and more importantly, from developers other than Nintendo. If they really are serious about capturing that market, it means not just playing ports of existing games, it means delivering gaming experiences that truly define the next cycle of consoles.

Can Nintendo compete – from a marketing perspective

It seems like Nintendo is coming full circle. One of the reasons for the Wii’s inception was Nintendo’s realization that they were no longer adequately equipped to compete with Sony and Microsoft for the core gamer. If anything, the rough ride that was the GameCube solidified Nintendo’s blue ocean strategy of appealing to casuals in the next go-round.

As I’ve mentioned before, the problem with that strategy is that it painted Nintendo into a corner. Casuals are not gamers – they don’t buy games regularly (if at all), they don’t invest time researching which games are good, and they are not console (or arguably channel) loyal.

You can sell a lot of systems to excited casuals, but not a lot of games. Worse still, casuals have no loyalty to you – they are not fans and they will move to the next big thing with no hesitation. If anything, this threat is emerging in the casual games market found on the iPhone and Facebook – these are serious competitors to Nintendo because the products they make are convenient and cheap, and appeal to the same user base.

Further, the casual user base is a one-shot deal, particularly when we’re talking a second console in five years. If Nintendo can’t get casuals to buy more than one or two games from its current system, what are its chances convincing them to buy another system entirely? I don’t think they are very good.

Where does this put Nintendo? Some think they might go back to core gamers, but that’s an equally dangerous strategy. Xbox and Playstation are no longer new, unproven concepts. Their brands now have significant history and cache with gaming enthusiasts – and the gaming world in general is one that tends to maintain strong tribal associations.

Whether it’s to a specific console (the typical fanboy), or to gaming in general – my informal impression is that the Wii is not considered a serious gaming device. Additionally, Microsoft and Sony, in competing for this market, have gotten very good at appealing to gamers, developing their own niches and communicating their value propositions. Nintendo struggled to appeal to core gamers with the GameCube – where will the company be now, nearly ten years later, against better prepared competition?

Well, success starts with games. If you’re going to appeal to the core, you’re going to need games they want to play – and games that can’t be played on the other guys’ systems. If the rumours are true, Nintendo is courting big names like Rockstar and Capcom.

They’ll need high-end developer support – and it will need to be continual because one or two games just won’t be enough to move the market to purchase – any core gamer who’s been burned by the Wii will take that much more convincing.

It’s a good thing Nintendo is so flush with cash from the previous cycle because it’s going to cost significant dollars to woo developers to the new system – and further, publish and market games that demonstrate a strong vision of how the next generation of consoles will be defined, while also motivating gamers to forget about Nintendo’s last one.

Some lingering questions

Is Nintendo going after core gamers?

In a recent Destructoid article, a valid point was made – why would Nintendo go for the core gamer market? As I mentioned above, this is the same market that didn’t do Nintendo any favours on the GameCube. Though finicky, casual gamers represent a lot of dollars. Perhaps, Project Café represents an upgraded version of the Wii, with better graphics and processing and its own unique functionality – via handheld screens. Here are the big issues I see with this approach:

The trouble with causals

• · If Nintendo makes the system too quirky, it will be too costly for developers to make ports of games on it – thus no games – like the Wii
• · If Project Café is an upgraded Wii – it will have an upgraded cost – can Nintendo really convince casual gamers to shell out $400?
• · Casual gamers just repeats the previous issues – low attachment rates and low loyalty

If they go the other way and try to appeal to core gamers, and all the Call of Duty’s that entails – they run into the following problems:

The trouble with cores:

• · If the system is only slightly better, most developers will make ports of games – why would anyone bother buying a system that plays games they can play on systems they already own?
• · Nintendo’s reputation and image as a core gaming company is non-existent – it means a lot of dollars convincing developers, media and ultimately gamers frozen out by the Wii
• · Being first means being leap-frogged by Sony and Microsoft who will play the wait-and-see-approach and then try to capitalize with stronger hardware

I suspect Nintendo will try to appeal to both worlds – using an upgraded system to leverage its unique IPs in order to appeal to core gamers , while trying to provide enough quirky functionality to try to appeal to the casual market again.

The risk they run is simply this – go too far towards core and they’ll lose the casuals and end up competing with better prepared competition that will eventually have better hardware.

Go too far toward casuals and they repeat the Wii’s mistakes – make a system that’s difficult to develop for, and doesn’t sell enough to justify the effort – thus being relinquished to the dreaded causal zone.

I’m curious and hopeful for Nintendo’s efforts, but honestly it’s the most treacherous path I think they’ve ever taken. Because as the old saying goes…try to satisfy everyone and you end up what….?

Are video games too long?

Let me tell you a story, it begins with a bright-eyed boy, full of pep and vigor – ready to put that fresh Final Fantasy 13 disc in his Xbox. It ends, with the same boy, pale of skin, and with hollowed-out eyes staring at the screen, 70-some hours later and with no will to go on.

I’m over exaggerating (kinda – but not about the hours), but at some point, my will to keep playing Final Fantasy 13 evaporated. I made it through the tedious first 20 hours, kept plowing away at the endless, and endlessly frustrating side-quests, and eventually just gave up – and pretty much right at the end – I just didn’t want to play any more Final Fantasy 13.

Why? For me, the game was too long – and it overstayed its welcome. I just didn’t want to commit any more time to the same game, when there was so much else out there that I could be doing – in real life or virtually with other games.

It got me thinking – are games today too long? Because a game costs $60, do gamers inherently expect a certain number of hours out of it? And more importantly, do hours actually equal value?

This led me to wondering, what is the right length for a video game – and tied intrinsically to that – what’s the right value based on that time?

Have games gotten longer? Yes.

First, I think this question needs to be answered. My experience says yes. So, why?

Well, when I was a kid, most games weren’t actually very long. Something like Kung Fu on the NES only took about half an hour to beat. Once you beat it, you just kept playing the same levels over and over.

Other games were longer, like Mario Bros. – but the actual core experience was pretty short. The game compensated its short length by making it challenging. The time consumed, was really in doing levels over and over to beat them. Some examples: Mega Man, Ghouls n’ Ghosts, Contra etc.

I think the obvious answer for why this was is simply technology – a cartridge could only hold so much information, so naturally the games were limited by this constraint.

That said, there were some long games on the NES. The two Zelda's and Final Fantasy 1 were long for their time – but interestingly, they fall into a particular genre – role playing. And they weren’t the only ones – Dragon Quest, Crystalis etc.

The right length depends on the game – to a degree

So perhaps, technology was not the only factor – but the type of game also dictated length. I mean, I can’t imagine playing an 80 hours Mario Bros. game, and wouldn’t want to…the game would become too repetitive at that point.

But, for some reason, an adventure games seem better suited for longer completion times. As this forum posted noted, there seems to be a magic formula for certain game genres.

Where does the magic formula come from? Gamersushi’s says it’s related to pacing.

In a similar vein, a recent Destructoid article points to the quality of the experience.

I think both articles are right, if not touching on the same thing from different angles - a game is only so good as it entertains you. So why does genre play a role in these things? I believe it’s because genre dictates the flexibility of the narrative structure and the flexibility of the game’s mechanics.

Take for example, the best shooting games (COD4, Bioshock, Halo). The mechanics of these games is fairly restrictive – there is a particular way to play them, and that stays unchanged. These games seem to be most successful by presenting intense experiences in a variety of environments that challenge the player’s mastery of the mechanics. These types of experiences seem best served by a tight script that allows for a good balance between quiet/loud scenarios.

A game of all intense firefights becomes exhausting. A game of fetch quests in abandoned hallways becomes mundane. And at some point, the best shooting games also know when to finish – because you can only shoot so many nameless enemies before the specter of repetitiveness kicks in.

Same rules apply for other genres of games – the more flexible the play style and story structure, the longer the game can be drawn out. For example, Assassin’s Creed 2 does a great example of making a 40-50 hour game seem compact, because there are a variety of narrative strands to follow and a variety of different tasks that can be done using the game’s mechanics. With more stories, and various things to do, the game avoids being repetitive. Some other great examples are Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3, Oblivion.

The right length depends on the player – to a degree

Even though I found the quality of my experience with Assassin’s Creed 2 to be excellent, I still struggled completing it. And that’s entirely my own fault. The right game length doesn’t just depend on the game itself, it depends on who’s playing it.

As this GamePro correspondent points out, gamers (like me) are getting older. And here’s the key maxim that applies to our gaming habits:

• · Adults have money, but no time
• · Teenagers have time but no money

My most important commodity when gaming isn’t the cost of the game. It’s how long the game takes to complete. I simply don’t have time to play video games, work a full time job, play sports and pursue other hobbies. A 70-hour game means I couldn’t play seven other 10-hour games.

The stats don’t lie, using telemetry (achievements or trophy information) game developers have noticed only about 5 percent of players finish most games. And further, more than 90 percent of games are only played four or five hours. A specific example would be the less than 10 percent of people who beat Joe Danger.

But, despite this, one look at forums discussing the issue and you see comments like “if it’s less than 25 hours, I won’t buy it.” And I understand that – because as a young person with limited income, I remember wanting the biggest bang for my buck. On the other side of the coin, are older gamers commenting “Free time is scarce when you’re not 13 anymore.”

What’s the right value for a game’s length?

So if there is a divide in what makes a good game length, not only based on the game, but on the player’s profiles (age, income etc.), what is the magic formula for a game’s value?

I don’t have the answer, but I see some solutions that help address problems on both sides:

Short games with lower price points: For older gamers, I think games like Portal and Limbo provide an excellent experience in a tidy 3 hours, and most importantly, the games are priced like a 3-hour game. I know that I gravitate toward Xbox Live titles because they provide a variety of experiences, without being too costly for my wallet or my day timer.

Serialized games: Penny Arcade Adventures provided a great experience in short installments, rather than be released as a full-length game. I haven’t played any TellTale games but they seem to be taking the same approach release the full game in small affordable chunks.

Create your own content: Though Little Big Planet has its own campaign, what really extends value for those looking for hours of entertainment is the ability to create and share your own content. The game never ends as long as people are contributing content.

Multiplayer: One of the reasons Call of Duty and Halo are so popular is that they can appeal to young and older gamers. You could play Black Ops Zombies for hours trying to master it. Or you could just hop into a couple of matches with friends, and then drop out to take the dog for a walk or do dishes, or god forbid, play more Final Fantasy 13.

Is there free speech in video games?

Some people have Failblog, some people have videos on Break, Me, I visit the Xbox Suspension and Console Bans forum for my morning laughs. There’s something inherently hilarious about reading angry posts from 13-year olds and seeing their lies and/or sense of entitlement picked apart by weary Microsoft staff.

Freedom means responsibility

See, games today give us more freedom and more ways to express ourselves. Now it goes beyond simply our Xbox or Playstation profiles - games themselves are becoming modes of expression - whether it's levels in Little Big Planet or emblems in Call of Duty Black Ops.

But more freedom means more responsibility - and that's not something a lot of preteens handle successfully - at least that's my Xbox experience. So inevitably when these kids (and in their defense, plenty of adults too) get banned for misbehaving, one of the most common defenses that they use is their First Amendment Right to Free Speech – this is usually their justification for creating racist, homophobic, or just plain pornographic (hello giant pensises!) material in their profiles or in game.

The first amendment explained

So, does the First Amendment apply to these poor souls. The answer is no. But why?

First, and most important, the First Amendment does not entitle people to free speech - and that's in any capacity - whether you're in a shopping mall or on your Xbox. You can't go yelling racist things in a store or movie theatre any more than you can on a game of Halo.

So, what does the First Amendment protect? It protects you from the government limiting your speech. The American government in particular cannot pass laws or legislation that prevent the use of some language. But since Xbox and video games are private businesses and are non-governmental entities, this right does not apply.

Terms of service and video games

What does apply? Here's the second point: whatever rules the private business makes.

Specifically, for Xbox and Playstation, in order to use their services, you have to sign their Terms of Service Agreement. In that document, the companies outline what gamers are allowed to say and/or do, and what the consequences are if they don't behave. If gamers continue breaking these outlined rules, ultimating they can be completely removed from the service, no matter how much time they have spent on their profile or money on their games.

The same goes for games such as Halo or Call of Duty - when you play them online, you are agreeing to their terms of service - which includes other things such as boosting or modding. For example, get caught boosting in Black Ops, get banned for 48 hours - continue doing it after your ban and you run the risk of being blocked from playing the game online entirely.

Free speech is not a grey area

If there's one thing about language, it's ever-evolving. For people that watch over games, that means an endlessly changing list of what words, phrases and symbols are inappropriate.

As the head of Xbox's enforcement group notes, context is hard to determine, so they tend to fall on the side of prevention - sometimes that means accidentally banning someone for living in Fort Gay - but, at the same time, it means they can avoid getting into endless (and often ridiculous) debates with people about the historical context of the Swastika, for which I'm personally glad.