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.

Music Review: Gayngs - Relayted

Despite his recent run-ins with the law, George Michael has at least has one thing to smile about – Gayngs’ newest release, Relayted. After all, the album has fingerprints of his influence all over it, as it drips with slow-burn ballads full of softly cooed sexual advances. In fact, nearly every touchstone of eighties soft rock gets a shout-out here – whether it’s the saxophone-player in a smoky alley vibe of Sade or the nearly note-for-note homage of Godley & Creme’s Cry. The trouble is Gayngs play it a little too tight, forsaking the deconstruction of this rich source material into something exciting (see: Ariel Pink's Haunted Graffiti), and instead choosing to create lesser facsimiles. Still, Relayted remains a worthwhile listen, but only as a warm up while you dig out the originals from the crate in your basement.

Music Review: Infinite Body - Carve Out the Face of My God

Infinite Body – Carve Out the Face of My God

Somewhere between the abrasive melodicism of My Bloody Valentine and the tireless drone of Stars of the Lid rests Infinite Body, the handiwork of one Ryan Parker. His album title couldn’t be more apt, as his musical landscapes are populated by grand hymnal reveries full of swelling, clear-eyed crescendos, buried by cottony sheets of white noise. Like some kind of sonic approximation of the disintegrating gaze of a deity, Carve Out the Face of My God is full of songs like ‘Out to Where I Am,” where a majestic cathedral organ multiplies itself over and over until the sheet power of its presence strips everything else away.

Are games getting a little too real?

With the recent E3 show, all three console makers either unveiled or showcased more support for motion-based peripherals.

Clearly, Nintendo’s success signaled significant market opportunity for that type of gaming, which perfectly explains why Microsoft, Sony and a number of developers are jumping into the market. Reserving my own skepticism on this strategy (following the money – more on that later), this influx of motion controls left me with a broader question:

With motion-based input, when do video games cease being videos games, and become a little too real?

Body movin’ body movin’

No matter whose presentation it was at E3 – console maker or developer – a big component was devoted to motion-based games.

At Microsoft, it was Kinect.

At EA, it was the EA Sports Active.

At Nintendo, it was Wii Motion Plus support.

At Sony, it was Sony Move.

As part of these presentations, a variety of live demos were done to show how the product works. A couple of them stood out in particular. First, the EA fitness titles demo highlighted a woman running in place using Kinect. Second, as part of the Sony presentation, Tiger Woods golf was demoed using Sony Move.

In both cases, the person’s actions using the peripherals were meant to approximate, as close to reality as possible, the actions taking place on screen – for the first example, it was running, and for the second example, it was swinging a golf club. It left me wondering, at what point do video game cease being games and start becoming reduced approximations of reality – and more importantly, what role does the peripheral play in this sliding scale?

This is where it starts getting real…

In the Sony demo, the presenter noted that he had trouble hitting a particular shot in real life – and with the Sony Move – he had the same difficulty. The question I would ask – is the game supposed to mimic the reality of the game player’s tendencies and limitations, or is it supposed to enable the player to do things they wouldn’t normally be capable of doing – in essence, allowing them to achieve some level of fantasy through the game?

My personal response would be that I’m not looking for a golf game to approximate how I play golf. I play golf terribly – that is why I’ll never be on the PGA tour and play PGA courses. The game allows me to achieve my fantasy, without requiring me to develop the real world skill to achieve it. As games ask us to make inputs that are closer and closer to the real thing, it begs the question, why don’t we just do the real thing instead?

Which leads me to the EA fitness demo for Kinect. In the video, a woman is seen going for a run – not a real run, but a virtual run, through a virtual world – via running in place in front of the system and television. I’m a big advocate for physical fitness and appreciate EA’s efforts, but it becomes necessary to ask: couldn’t players simply go outside and do the same thing, saving themselves the cost of the system and game? Provided, living in Canada means long winters, but the barrier to getting access to a treadmill or a gym are low – so what does the game provide that real life doesn’t?

You’re living in a fantasy world.

To be honest, this question isn’t what really piques my curiosity. It’s the broader context: the fact that the input requirements of these new peripherals and games blur the line between real and unreality so closely – that one could reasonably weigh the options between doing the action in a game and doing the action in real life. Which just leads to more questions, such as where do we split the difference?

Because I can easily approximate a golf or bat swing with a motion controller, does that mean I need to do so in a game? What about more complex inputs for sports such as hockey or football? Both sports already have motion-based games, but the movements required don’t really mirror what’s done in real life. Will they eventually, or because the movements are too complex for the motion-based controllers, are players to be left with a weird hybrid?

For my part, I prefer when games are enablers to a fantasy world – one that might contain real-world elements – but still lets me do something easily that I could not do in real life. Out of all the games showcased at the main E3 presentations, the one that offered this opportunity the most was Nintendo’s new Zelda game. Sure, it required real world inputs, but it did so in the context of a fantasy world – and even when it mimicked certain actions, it was in a completely fictional setting that a player could never actually inhabit.

What’s another world for immersion?

To me, Nintendo’s approach with Zelda demonstrates where motion controls mostly succeed. By creating more tactile inputs for gamers, developers and console makers can add new layers of immersion, while still retaining the fantastical elements that give games their escapist pleasure.

That said, there’s certainly risk for overkill on motion-based input. My experience with the first Red Steel was a sore right arm, from having to hold up “my gun” for so long as I traversed levels. And my fiancé eventually gave up on Twilight Princess. Seeing it firsthand, the path of her user experience with motion controls was pretty clear: from surprised joy, to frustration, to “I wish I could just play this on a normal controller,” to letting the game collect dust in our Wii box in the basement.

What makes something viral?

Something I've been thinking about a lot lately is what makes something viral. Not necessarily from a viral video or marketing campaign perspective - but the larger question of: where do memes come from? I was sitting around the airport a little while ago and jotted down some random notes:

What makes something viral?

• Content
• Liquidity

Content

Why do I share things?

To build social capital

• My friends will like me more, pay attention to me, respect me more

What builds social capital?

• Making things that meet people's needs

What do people want?

• To be entertained
• To discover something that blows their mind
• To discover something that validates a strongly held belief
• To be part of something others consider important
• To laugh
• To make a difference (or to be seen as making a difference)

When you make something viral:

• You are not speaking to a customer, you are speaking to a person.

So, you have to ask, what do people care about?

• It’s not about your message, it’s about the message.

Example: Evian dancing babies...often viral content that is associated with a company is only tied in the loosest, subtlest or most metaphorical way.

With this in mind, ask yourself:

• How does what you do bring something good into society at large?

• How does what you do bring something good to a person’s experience of life as a whole?

• What do you believe in that’s not part of the organization’s success?

Liquidity

What makes something liquid?


It’s easy to find

• I can Google it and it comes up right away

• It’s unique to itself

• If I look for it, I know that I can find only it.

It’s easy to share

• I can send it
• I can save it
• I can post it

It’s easy to show off

• It can be a badge
• It can be added to my profile
• It can be carried across various media

So these were my random thoughts...not sure how they stack up against the experts (Seth Godin or Dan Ackerman). What do you think? Are there other factors to take in account, when considering whether something goes viral or not?

Dead Man's Bones - s/t

Dead Man’s Bones – s/t
Oh October, how you charm with your ghostly gifts. Halloween’s a funny (non)holiday – it gives us a chance to both cringe and laugh at the things that go bump in the night. The collaboration of Ryan Gosling and Zach Shields., otherwise known as Dead Man’s Bones, gets this contradiction completely. Backed by an eerily high-pitched children’s choir, they sings songs about zombies, love, werewolves, love and drowning – and in that order. It’s a marvelous blend of old-school doo-wop crooning and darkly dreamt romanticism – in other words, a great soundtrack for a night of ghouls and giving out candy. Highlights include: My Body’s a Zombie for You, Pa Pa Power and Flowers Grow Out of My Grave.

Wii Don’t Play – Why Nobody’s Playing the Wii in 2009

Sure Nintendo has put a lot of Wii’s in a lot of homes over the past couple years, but if a recent report by Nielsen Research is to be believed, nobody’s playing them. The report notes that only 6 percent of Wii users are playing the system actively, the other 94 percent aren’t using the system much at all.

You Can’t Stay Casual Forever

So what’s going on? I have one theory: when it comes to casual users, they either stay casual forever or eventually they become refined users.

The drawback to Nintendo’s blue ocean strategy is that the casual market is inherently an entry market. To use a metaphor, Nintendo is selling a product to infant users. As infants, there’s only two ways for them to go. Users can stay infants or they can grow up.

If they stay infants then they stay casual – for good. And as truly casual users, that means they aren’t going to play your system very often (likely at parties and social occasions), they aren’t going to buy very many games or non-brand games (non-Nintendo made games) and they are unlikely to buy system upgrades (the refinements to the Wiimote are going to be a hard sell).

As I’ve argued before, the original Wii sports was highly successful in getting these users to make a purchase based on its transformative experience. Unfortunately for Nintendo, for most of these users, Wii Sports is enough to satisfy their infrequent gaming needs – and things like Wii Sports Resort don’t appear different enough to be appealing.

Infant Gamers Grow Up

On the other side of the coin, some infants eventually grow up. That means users graduate from casual gaming to more refined gaming. Again, unfortunately for Nintendo, the needs of these users are not sufficiently met by the Wii. Ultimately, as these users become more accustomed to the norms of gaming, things like Wii Music appear too simplistic to say something like Guitar Hero.

That’s not to say that Nintendo has no games for this audience – there’s Mario Galaxy, Punch Out and others – it’s just that there aren’t enough of these games. Another inherent risk with infants who grow up is that they will start trying other systems and other games. Users being siphoned to other systems is only half the problem for Nintendo – another large issue is that as these gamers try other systems, they become accustomed to these system’s play styles and controllers.

By my own experience, what eventually happens, is that as a refined gamer, you begin to find Nintendo’s offering somewhat lackluster – both from a game level and a playability level. As a refined gamer, you start looking for bigger, longer games with more exceptional experiences – something the other consoles do quite well. And, as some of my friends would agree, you begin to say to yourself while playing a Wii game, “this is alright, but I’d like to play it with a regular controller.”

Even with the refined control of the Wiimote, I suspect it won’t be enough to convince refined gamers. Sure, the remote has some interesting input capabilities that mimic real-life interaction, but it also has its drawbacks. No one I know wants to be waving a controller around, all the time.

If I were Microsoft or Sony, that’s something I would be thinking about pretty hard before committing too much to their own waggle technology. Same goes for making casual games – it’s a huge market, sure – but it’s an unstable market that will possibly ignore your new games out of indifference, or worse, starting playing the competition’s games out of boredom.

PR: Are you Busy or are you Indispensable?

One of the great failings of most public relations is measurability. First off, I'm not talking evaluation. There's plenty of collecting news clips and analyzing media impressions.

That, however, is not the same thing as being measurable.

Sure we PR people do all sorts of campaigns and activities - and yes we make sure to count all of these activities and their surface level results. But what does this show? Does it show that we're indispensable or does it just show that we're busy.

I came across a recent article by Diane Thieke that resonated pretty strongly with me. She argues that we, as PR professionals, need to demonstrate the value of our offering in clear, measurable terms. And by measurable, she means the bottom-line.

She provides 10 different ways to accomplish this, and the ones that stick out with me are tying PR activities directly to company yearly objectves, assessing what the competition has done - and most importantly, objectively measuring the variety of relationships that PR manages.

That means analyzing and qualifying your strategic and media relationships, because the nature of those relationships, is the difference between getting good or bad press, or potentially, between winning or losing on vital revenue-impacting opportunities.

Collecting clips is a great way to show effort, but the analysis needs to go one step deeper. By taking evaluation to the next step, being truly measurable, you will not only quantify your activities, but qualify them with the contextual value that ultimately contributes to the bottom line.

DLC Works for Me: Burnout Paradise

They made me an offer I couldn’t refuse. Criterion that is, and the offer was expanded content for Burnout Paradise. At some point, the amount of downloadable content (DLC) that came with the game spurred some critical mass in my buying subconscious. With so much content to try and explore, I could no longer justify not owning the game – which made me wonder – am I the only one, or has Criterion discovered special in its DLC strategy?

Hit and Miss and Hit

When it first came out in January 2008, I tried the demo. I liked the game, but it I wasn’t convinced that I wanted it. So, I waited. And waited. The buzz for Burnout Paradise was strong at first, but then it diminished pretty quickly. Now, by EA’s own admission, part of the reason was that DLC support just wasn’t there. Blame it on a combination not offering a lot of content at the beginning, and overcharging for the content that was there.

As a result, Burnout Paradise drew scorn from users who felt they were paying for content that either could be in the game (play modes) or content that didn’t seem to require much effort from Criterion (palette swaps on cars). Eventually, I stopped hearing about the game and forgot about it.

Then a funny thing happened. Criterion released new game modes in July 2008 – and along with it, new challenges, and a couple new vehicles. Then, in September 2008, Criterion went one step further, adding a whole new play type – bikes – plus, a day/night cycle, dynamic weather and more new challenges.

Following up on free content, Burnout Paradise began offering paid DLC, starting with a local multiplayer party pack (February 2009), to new theme cars, to new game styles to most recently an entire new island filled with new cars, events, smashes, jumps and challenges (Big Surf Island - June 2009).

Content keeps them coming back

I couldn’t say no any longer. For me, the content was just too tantalizing now, and I picked up a copy. That’s my story. But the question is, what did EA and Criterion learn? And more importantly, was it a success on a bigger scale?

A quick survey of media coverage says yes. Between the Cops and Robbers release and the Big Surf Island release, Burnout Paradise is renewing media interest with a slew of reviews and discussions – and this is more than a year-and-a-half after the release date. That kind of coverage is unheard of for most games. As one senior producer at Criterion noted, the response to DLC was a significant increase in people playing the game right after new content was made available.

Criterion’s approach is unique, but they aren’t the only company who’s made a commitment to supporting their games well after launch. Most recently, World at War (WAW) and Fallout 3 have offered extensive iterations of DLC post-release. The results have been significant, with WAW garnering over 2 million downloads of both map pack one and map pack two. Fallout 3 has experienced similar success, as Anchorage and Pitt have been some of the top downloads on Xbox Live.

DLC makes cents

If there’s one thing these games share, it’s the idea that the purchased disc is only the beginning. As a recent interview with EA’s John Riccitiello noted, the publisher is invested in the idea their offerings don’t have to end with the first purchase. With a mix of free and paid-for DLC, gamers now have the opportunity to expand their games, prolonging value, preventing trade-in and providing revenue through expanded content that doesn’t require a whole lot of new assets.

And for the developers themselves, it’s the opportunity to keep the game fresh, going so far as updating the game in order to improve the physics or continually refine gameplay elements. In the case of Burnout Paradise, Criterion uses its DLC not only to offer content, but to refine the code, so that the gamer ultimately receives the best experience the game’s technology will allow.

All this leads to positive word-of-mouth, which builds momentum through the right media channels, and makes someone like me, reconsider a game I originally passed over for purchase. In my case, the DLC worked for me – and as the numbers attest I don’t think I’m the only one – so I fully expect to see more of this DLC strategy when we see a Burnout sequel.

Music Review: Discovery – LP

Discovery - LP

Summer is the best time for ridiculousness. Something about all that heat seems to loosen up our normally narrower critical faculties. Summer makes it okay to wear crocks and appreciate Transformers sequels un-ironically. With that in mind, LP from Discovery is made for the sunshine season. Born out of a long-running side project from the lead singer of Ra Ra Riot (who released the solid Rhumb Line recently) and the keyboardist from Vampire Weekend, Discovery is all about throwaway pop songs and plenty of auto-tune. It shouldn’t work, and it wouldn’t usually, but the cheesy lyrics and ramshackle synths scream summertime good times. If a comparison can be made, it’s like Chromeo, but less lusty. Whether it’s the playfulness of So Insane or the spot-on cover of I Want You Back, Discovery are mining the right kind of shallow – and making the perfect soundtrack to baggy shorts and Hawaiian shirts.

Calisthenics

swells moans thunderbolts

chassis geysers rocket

throttle honey hums

plume dewy with

hot dissonance joyous

fricative ersatz throaty

ribbons flailing red

palaver exceeds levers

feverishly furiously zeal

Oil Industry PR: Too little, too late?

I recently came across a commercial by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, in which the main message is that CAPP wants to listen to you, average joe, about your concerns about the oilsands development.

Sometimes people ask my why I haven't dived into oil industry communications and one response out of a variety of reasons, is that I feel that it's an industry dicated more by PR than actual action.

While I realize this isn't always the case, the CAPP commercial certainly demonstrates an organization clearly attempting to communicate to concerned publics well after a slew of damaging media coverage directly (National Geographic) and indirectly (other news agencies covering the fact that National Geographic covered the Alberta oilsands).

In the realm of public perception, how can something like CAPP's efforts looking nothing but as a reactive PR policy supported by an industry who's concern for the environmental stewardship of northern Alberta only becomes apparent when the negative publicity makes it possibly expensive not to do so....

While I totally acknowledge that CAPP has long existed before this whole controversy, the organization's communications effort regarding what concrete actions the industry was taking, certainly needed to happen a lot sooner than now...maybe it's just my uninformed opionion, but the CAPP commercial leaves me with the impression that the industry wasn't doing enough, until its publics told it loudly that it needed to...and where there's smoke, there's fire: something smells like a major failure in action or public relations by the oil industry in all of this...

ringtone

all along the watchtower
weaponed breaths beat rust
waiting exhale wails bullets

Crosshatch

I will be your father figure
linger in the leaves laced
black gloves eyeing wallets

The Best Overlooked Albums of 2008

I don't know what the best albums of 2008 are - that's hard to say without hearing everything. However, here are some great albums I think got a bit overlooked this year.

Punk(ish) and Metal(ish) Albums


Gaslight Anthem – The 59- Sound
Bruce Springsteen and punk make for a remarkably potent mix – one of my favorites all year.

Dance Gavin Dance – Downtown Battle Mountain
This is a ridiculous screamo album – but it’s also pretty irresistible.

Dillinger Four – CIVIL WAR
It only took seven years for a follow up but this album was totally worth the wait.

The Loved Ones – Build and Burn
An honest blue-collar punk album that just delivers.

Baroness – Red Album
It was a strong year in metal and I think this release is a contender.

Zozobra – Bird of Prey
Relentless and punishing, Zozobra steps up its efforts in a big way.

Krallice – Krallice
Something this intense shouldn’t be so constantly listenable.

Veil of Maya – The Common Man’s Collapse
One of my favorite bands last year continues its excellent streak.

Misery Signals – Controller
Ditto for this great band and release.


Rock(ish) Albums

1990s – Cold and Kind
Listen to “The Wool and the Lamb” and tell me that this isn’t a great record.

The Acorn – Glory Hope Mountain
This Ottawa band didn’t get any love, but they deserve it – this is an album album

American Princes – Other People
A solid and toe-tapping record from a consistently good American band

Born Ruffians – Red, Yellow and Blue
The Ruffian’s sound is jagged, but spiked with great melodies.

The Bound Stems – The Family Afloat
Everything is falling apart, but sounds so together on this album.

The Cansecos – Juices!
The Cansecos have a knack for delicious keyboard-flavored soul.

Dennis Wilson – Pacific Ocean Blue
Dennis proves that there was another talented Wilson in the Beach Boys.

The Depreciation Guild – In Her Gentle Jaws
Chiptune meets Slowdive in a gloriously great mashup.

The Dodos – The Visitor
This album just oozes the warmth and wandering of summer.

Evangelicals – The Evening Descends
A bent testament to widescreen cinema and horror-movie storytelling.

Foals – Antidotes
Battles meets British Rock in a furious blaze of songs.

French Kicks – Swimming
They dirty up their minimalist rock with epic results.

Headlights – Some Racing, Some Stopping
Every song on this compact pop album is superb.

The Helio Sequence – Keep your Eyes Ahead
Despite some stumbles this record is full of mind-blowing moments.

Hilotrons – Happymatic
Wobbly-legged melodies with a bright falsetto for a singer.

Mae Shi – Hillyh
They lost their lead singer and they persevered – good thing too.

Okkervil River – The Stand Ins
The last song on this album gives me goosebumps every time.

Passion Pit – Chunk of Change EP
This was the singer’s engagement gift to his wife – great gift!

Sun Kill Moon – April
Who needs the Red House Painters? Long live Sun Kil Moon

Two Hours Traffic – Little Jabs
The light on east coast can-rock hasn’t gone out yet.

The War on Drugs – Wagonwheel Blues
Music that sounds better in feedback – great album.

Wilderness – (K)now(W)here
They are consistently awesome in what they do.

Wye Oak – If Children
Both beautiful and anarchic, this is a great almost post-rock record.


Electronic-ish Albums

Autechre – Quaristice
Autectrhe always find a way to challenge and delight.

Azeda Booth – In Flesh Tomes
I would say that this was the best release from Calgary this year.

Belong – Colourless Record
Brief, elegiac and haunting drone(ish) record.

Clark – Turning Dragon
A chaotic, complex listen – just trying sourcing the samples

HEALTH/DISCO
A new movement in aggressive electro was born here.

Holy Fuck – LP
I saw them live this year – they can turn any source into something to dance to.

Kleerup – s/t
Not a lot of people can do heartsick with electronics – at least not this well.

Lykke Li – Youth Novels
Lykke Li is one of the reasons the Kleerup release is so good.

Mahjongg – Kontpab
Not quite rock, not quite electronic. All awesome.

Sian Alice Group – 59:59
Ditto.


Rap(ish) Albums

Black Spade – To Serve with Love
Such an effortlessly solid album – I highly recommend

D-Sisive – The Book
His story is heartbreaking, his return is incredible.

Del the Funky Homosapien – Eleventh Hour
Del does his thing and it’s crazy, but a fun listen.

eMC – The Show
This supergroup delivers one of the best rap releases of the year.

Invincible – Shapeshifters
Great female emcee with a decidedly political bent.

Jake One – White Van Music
This is an awesome mixtape with a great variety of guests.

Jean Grae – Jeanius
Some of the best wordplay I’ve heard all year.

Madlib – King of the Wigflip
Madlib has a way of creating the most oddly memorable beats.

Everybody is not an Expert: Leave PR to the Pros

As communications enters a variety of new mediums enabled by technology, we must continue to assert our expertise and ensure that what is communicated through these channels is managed, planned and developed by PR pros. Although traditional forms of communications continue to decline, there are plenty of opportunities rising up through the Internet’s ability to connect people quickly. Whether that’s simply making sure your organization is found online (Search Engine Optimization) or diving into the world of real-time communications (Twitter), it’s got to be managed by the specialists.

Particularly when it comes to communications mediums that are enabled by the newest of technology, there’s an ongoing debate about whose responsibility it is to dictate how to work within those mediums. Social technology with its empowering aspect brings a certain pressure on communications experts – that because as Shel Holtz points out – the argument is that social media is so widespread that it becomes the work of everyone. Similarly, communications via technology tools such as Content Management Systems, or other technology-enabled tools like Video Feeds or Podcasts come with a certain pressure from the technology experts who control them, whether that’s your internal Information Technology Specialist or an outside contractor.

Fundamentally though, what gets communicated should remain under the direct control of the PR pro; because while the technology behind the mediums might change, from newspaper to real-time chat, the strategy and the execution of communications stays the same. You might be talking through a different channel, but how you talk and persuade is static.

Why isn’t everyone an expert?

While everybody can use social media, that doesn’t mean everybody is an expert. Holtz points out that everybody can make eggs, but that doesn’t qualify them to be a chef at a high end restaurant. Additionally, letting technicians control the messaging is like letting your printer control the content of your print publications – as Holtz notes, the technician’s job is to make sure it looks the way it’s supposed to, and the PR pros job is to determine the content.

In a recent post by Kristy Scott at adliterate, she furthers the idea by arguing that just because everyone has feedback, doesn’t mean it’s valuable. Ideas can’t come from anywhere, and they shouldn’t. For the sake of focused and coherent communications, it’s best if the messages come from the people whose job is to craft them every day.

From my own personal experience working with a large marketing group and a larger group of technology experts above them, the most effective campaigns were the ones where public relations and marketing used the source information they received from the technology professionals and crafted it the best way they could to elicit the desired response from the key audience.

When this hand-off wasn’t so clean and feedback continued to be received from all parties, the results were often muddled, compromise-ridden messes – neither effective in communicating the right technical details nor emotionally resonant enough to reach people effectively. Sometimes a good communications idea can come out of a non-traditional source, but I would agree with Scott that the majority of time, the best communications are those crafted by the people whose career depends on them.

The key is to understand that a PR pro’s job is not limited to a few simple activities. To say that specializing in social media or any other technology-enabled forum (SEO or Online Community Management) is the role of people outside of PR is looking at things with too narrow a focus; in my opinion, PR as a skill set is not a concrete checklist, but a larger set of meta-skills. Whether it’s social media, investor relations, community management or technology PR - these are areas where PR pros can and should be responsible.

The true responsibilities of a good communicator are wide-spanning; that means we as communications experts need to learn and become experienced with these tools so that they become a part of our broad range of communications skills. When and if new mediums open up where communications can be established, it is the responsibility of the PR pro to manage and (directly or indirectly as often is the case in social media) guide them – because public relations is about managing relationships no matter where or how they take place.

3 Reasons Why Far Cry 2 Sucks - The Trouble with Realism

Far Cry 2 is not a bad game. But, it’s not a good game either.

So, it’s no surprise that the game didn’t sell the way Ubisoft projected – and despite a positive outlook from the company – I don’t think it will end up being a major success.

Despite spectacular environments, excellent persistent graphics (almost no loading) and a game that paints a realistic portrait of war-torn Africa, there’s one major flaw haunting the whole affair: realism.

The trouble with realism in games is simple: games are not real. They might be built on physics systems that operate like the real world, they might include real weapons, real environments and advanced AI – but in the end, they are not real – they are games.

So why doesn’t realism work? I’ve got three reasons:

Immersive versus Enjoyable

While many games strive for immersion, whether through environments (GTA 4) or narrative (Portal), the ultimate question that decides if players come back to a game constantly happens to be: is it enjoyable?

The immersion tactics of GTA 4 serve the gameplay – they are not the sole focus of it. All the sights and sounds of Liberty City are impressive, but it’s how you navigate that landscape in often unrealistic ways that makes the game fun.

Same goes for Portal with its strong sense of narrative that draws you in through a subtlety delivered story. The game makes you feel like you are part of the environment, but ultimately, its window-dressing to the gameplay mechanics.

Certainly, these games are successful at using immersion to portray reality – but the key is that the reality is the game’s own. It’s not real-world logic that the games are holding players to, but the internal logic of the game itself. The “reality” of the game works in harmony to how the game is played, further enhancing a player’s experience.

Far Cry 2 stumbles because the game’s dedication to creating a “real” environment goes against the internal logic of the game. To name a few, here are some of the “realistic” things the game does to create immersion:

1. Weapons can jam and break over time
2. Warring militias will attack you frequently
3. Outposts that you’ve cleared will have people in them again
4. Traveling to different places can take a long time

All of these things adhere to the logic of the real world. If you were to attack an outpost, it’s likely that if you came back later there could be people in it – and they wouldn’t be friendly. Same goes for weapons – they can break and jam.

The problem is, these mechanics don’t jive with the logic of the gameplay. Consider the premise of Far Cry 2 – you are a solider whose mission is to kill the Jackal. To accomplish your mission you must:

1. Kills hundreds of men who stand in your way over various missions
2. Trek endless miles either in a jeep, boat or by foot across the African Savannah
3. Negotiate between two dangerous militias
4. Find a way to constantly battle malaria during the whole affair

No matter what kind of elements that are added to make it realistic, such as giving the player malaria attacks, the fact is – the goal of the game could not be realistically achieved by one person in real life.

That said, these real-world elements make playing Far Cry 2 often excruciatingly frustrating. The game wants you to kill dozens of men to complete a mission (unrealistic), but then it hinders you by making your weapon jam (reality), and making you travel a long distance (reality) through countless hostile, respawning outposts (reality).

Games as escape from reality

So what could Far Cry 2 have done differently? That’s simple, remove weapons jamming and make it easier to teleport to the start of mission objectives. Is this realistic in the real world? No, it isn’t. But at the same time, it’s not unrealistic to the logic of Far Cry 2, which asks you to complete missions using a lot of weapons and traveling to lots of different locations.

The key is that games are an escape from reality – so while they might reflect elements of reality – they should not operate exactly like reality. The point of the game is to challenge and empower a player to do something they couldn’t do in real life. The trouble with Far Cry 2 is that it attempts to give you “real-life” challenges in a game that couldn’t possibly be replicated in real life. The result is that the realistic elements frustrate and limit a players’ enjoyment of the main mechanic of the game – planning and completing objectives using a variety of weapons, tactics and vehicles.

The sore thumb theory

As some reviews attest, another problem with trying to make a game reflect the real world is that when the game to do this with some component, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

With Far Cry 2, all of these pieces attempt to create a vivid picture of a real war-torn African landscape – except the day and night cycle happens faster than in real life, enemies don’t act like humans and sometimes when they are shooting at you, they are not even facing you.

The trouble with realism is that it demands complete loyalty. You can’t make some elements realistic and then shirk other things because they just stand out even more, doubly reversing the immersion you’ve attempted to create. Sure, my weapon jams just like a real gun, but why do the guards not see me when I’m standing right next to them? Why does it take five shots to knock down an enemy? The problem is, you can’t go for reality half-way because every element that’s not realistic takes game players out of the game, and gets them asking these types of questions.

The trouble with realism is that it’s not always fun – especially when it doesn’t serve the gameplay. Just look at the equally mixed-reviews of Mirror’s Edge, which attempts to portray parkour in a realistic way, but then makes design decisions that conflict with the internal logic of the gameplay.

With Far Cry 2, it suffers from the same problem – the balance between creating an immersible reality and delivering an enjoyable game experience is offset for the former.

So when you ask, is this game realistic: you can say “mostly, yes” but when you ask is this game fun:

I have to say “mostly, no.”