Car Racing POVs

I love racing simulators. Gran Turismo being my favorite (the first two screenshots are taken from that game). Don't try to explain why Project Gotham Racing or Forza is better. They aren't. And the 360 version of PGR is a massive graphical disappointment even while still being a quality racer. GTR2 looks very promising as a serious competitor, though.

Anyway (please kindly note the lack of an "s" at the end of that word), when I hop into one of these games and get onto the track, I always select the "behind the car" view that lets me see the car in action. Like this (I'm the blue car):

I mean, why would I, as a car enthusiast, opt not to see the kick-tail car I'm driving? What's the point of getting a color you like, etc., if you're just going to look through the windshield? I'm pretty sure I'm (strangely) the exception to this, as, from what I've heard, most gamers find it easier to drive using this view:

That's as good a reason as any for opting not to look at your sweet-blingin' car, I'll allow. I've tried it and I actually find it easier to drive with my choice, so I'm lucky all around, I suppose.

However, I would be more inclined to change to different views if they offered any options that were exciting. None of the others are, in my opinion. Usually, the only other option is the dash option (seen just above) with a view of the hood of the car thrown in for some kind of realism, I imagine.

What I want to know is, how in the world have we not seen a camera option like this:

This rocks. You want to talk about immersion? This has loads of potential for that that the other "dash" views do not. You get to see "yourself" shifting through the gears, steering wheel movement, plus some sweet interior detail of whatever creamy car you've chosen -- BMW M5, Lotus Elise, Ford GT, whatever.

I'd definitely have to try this one on if a game offered it (uh, a game I'd want to play in the first place, that is: I'm not going to play a crap game just to get this view). Car racing simulator designers, please, please, please, wake up and do a little more field work. You guys do a fantastic job as it is, but there are still some no-brainers missing from the games. This is one of them.

Barrier to participation -- No Bangs for Video Games, Pt. 2

In my last post, I introduced the idea of video games not being art as my first reason for the lack of serious video game criticism in journalism. Next, I want to explore a factor that gets intertwined with that idea: the barrier to participation.

This factor may prove, in a different sense, to be just as crucial a piece in this puzzle as video games' inability to achieve art status. The crucial thing here is that film, music, any art, has a drastically lower barrier to participation than video games. In fact, video games, again, are singular among their own ilk, games, in that they pose a higher barrier than traditional kinds of games like Boggle or Parcheesi.

Poor ROI
For you non-business attuned, that's "return on investment". In consumer language, bang for your buck. Simply put, the ROI for video games cannot compete with art or other forms of entertainment. Video games have certainly matured in complexity, sucking in older and older ages to the addiction, but it still has not reached the pitch of music or movies or television.

As long as this ROI cannot come into some kind of parity with film, at the very least, to say nothing of music or television, then I see little probability of there being any necessity for quality criticism. Despite the fact that its core audience now extends to thirty-somethings, and its annual revenue rivals the Hollywood box-office, it is still unequivocally a niche phenomenon. A very large one, to be sure, but still merely an oddity, nonetheless.

Here are a few things that make the ROI so poor:
***
1. Time
There is only one art form I can think of that requires near the amount of time a video game does: books. To put things in even more perspective, the only fair comparison is if we talk about the very shortest games and the most lengthy novels. If a game developer dares to throw a game on the shelf that can be finished in 10 hours, it better be prepared for reviewers' and consumers' complaints. There are games like The Sims, Grand Theft Auto, and World of Warcraft that consume -- and remember, these tend to be the mega hits -- hundreds of hours.

So long as this is the case (and it's a trend that seems only to be pursued with greater vigor every year), it will prevent people who want to live real lives from finding the motivation to participate. Investing a lot of time in something is far from being objectionable, but what it gives back is often far too little for many people who are not between the ages of 7 and 22.

Movies and TV don't necessarily offer so much more in return, but the time investment makes them far more accessible. (The convenient -- and insidious -- thing about TV is that you can quit after a half hour or hour...or the next...or the next...or the next. Oh, is it midnight already?). And, again, the difference between investing hours in front of the TV and hours in front of a games console or PC is that, with the TV, you can just sit there and "vedge". It wont piss you off by beating you three dozen times before you finally figure out how to get through this stupid boss fight.

It essentially operates on the same phenomenon as any other narrative medium, that is that if you are enjoying it, you are compelled to press on to the end, but the trouble with video games is that this can suck so many more hours of your life than any other option, and at the end, you really have nothing to show for it (unless you're striving for a career in the gaming industry). Granted, you had a good time, but it hasn't helped you down the path of your life. Many books, movies and TV are no better (and TV is arguably at least as bad), but, again, they are more easily accessible and that's why more people choose them over video games.

2. Complicated engagement needs
What do you need to watch a movie, a TV show, read a book, listen to a song, enjoy a painting? These things are immediately and effortlessly accessible. Video games are a cantankerous bear in comparison, one from whose jaws you are asked to rip its only salmon in weeks.

"Now to do this sweet-cool backflip double blade overhead fire-slash, you push this button and then this one while keeping this one held down and then spinning the stick in, first, a half circle counterclockwise, then quickly press up, down, diagonal down left, diagonal down right, and finish by pressing A and B together.... Oh, sorry, you didn't do that quite right so you don't get to make the character do this really cool move I know you're dying to get it to do. In fact, you may never be able to pull the move off. So sorry. Enjoy your game."

My momma raised me not to use certain kinds of language (Welsh, for instance, but that's another story), but it is to language such as this which -- even as a seasoned gamer -- I find myself propelled inevitably toward when game designers insist on this sadistic, hateful madness. I paid for it. It's my game. Let me play the whole flipping thing. The checkout girl doesn't empty out a sixth of my cereal before putting it into my bag. Take the cue, game designers.

Take another cue from C-3PO, if you want more people to play your games, "Let the Wookie win." Do a better job of making games for novices. Too few games employ the option to set difficulty levels (though, thankfully, this seems to be improving). Even at that, programming should be getting very close to being sophisticated enough to make "smart" games, games that behave like a good sensei, learning the pupils expertise level and providing the challenge accordingly.

The constant refrain from gamers is that they want a game to be challenging. Personally, I've found life to be enough of a challenge without my entertainment being a bleeding so-and-so to me on the weekends. Unfortunately, game designers say, "Yes, sir. How high, sir," thus widening the gap they should be trying to close, leaving millions to decide that watching a fun movie or TV show or going to a concert is much funner and easier.

3. Anti-social
This is not meant in the typical negative sense, but merely descriptive, that it does not promote and is not a social activity.

"Wait a minute," Sims fans and Warcraft fans and Everquest fans object, "Our games are social." Funny, I wouldn't have thought you wanted me to slap you in your face, but you're talking like it.

Going to a movie with friends is social. Going out for coffee or ice cream with a cute girl or guy is social. Playing volleyball with your coworkers is social. Being the Druidic warrior Fontopolous Graithwhite on a quest with your merry band (Joe down the street, Amber in Biloxi, and Xing Chi in Taiwan) isn't social; it's fantasy. I'm not saying there's something bad about it, just don't confuse it for being social. It's not. ... And take those Spock ears off.

And that is the best case scenario. Many games are single-player stories. You sit by yourself in front of the PC or TV and play by yourself...for hours...by yourself. This characteristic simply keeps the gamers and non-gamers separated. The gamer becomes less social, the social people prefer to remain around their friends. Of course there are a handful games that are "party games" (the Mario game Super Smash Bros Melee probably being the best example) that do a commendable job of being social games in a limited sense, but as a medium, they are decidedly anti-social.

4. Cash
When you tot it all up, it actually isn't such an expensive hobby, unless you have other sort of expensive hobbies. It looks intimidating, with $300-600 systems and comparably priced "performance" video cards, $50-60 games (and now rumors of games approaching $75-$100 for the upcoming PS3), but think of going to a movie. If you're like most people, you'll go to a chain theater (suckers), pay at least $8 for the ticket and another $8 if you want a small drink and a small popcorn (Shylocks). Chances are you'll want a date, too, possibly doubling your spend. All that in one night for only two hours of entertainment. How many times a year do you plan to do that. It starts to even out.

Once you leave the theater, it's over. I can play Gran Turismo for hundreds of hours, virtually indefinitely. If I want to take a Saleen S7 around the insanely superb German Nurburgring a few times, I plop in my PS2 disc and get after it. Then maybe I'll switch to an Aston Martin Vanquish on the sublime Circuit de la Sarthe. Remember, too, I'm not just watching this, I'm driving the thing around the track. Get a bad game, and the price really stings, but a good game is worth every penny.

Still, all the other factors considered, the financial price tag puts the nail in the coffin. You could take a nice little vacation on that cash.
***
The root of the problem is that games don't yet warrant that kind of criticism for reasons of content, design, accessibility, and lack of cultural saturation.

There may be a handful, maybe even a couple of handfuls of games since the industry's inception that would, if not warrant, provide sufficient material (ICO, Metal Gear Solid, Medal of Honor: Frontline, for starters) for a contemporary Pauline Kael or Lester Bangs to wax profound about what the game is about (philosophy, not plot), what it means, what it says about society or requests of it, how it reflects or tries to influence life, what profound beauty it tries to impart.

The problem is that, by design, it cannot tell a story or convey a theme in the way art needs to to illicit critical, perceptive observation. To try to extract such from this medium seems as shallow and fluffy an exercise as the medium itself.

I think a kind of bastardized form of the Kael/Bangs criticism that Klosterman refers to may emerge for video games, since they incorporate devices and elements of art, but it will never be truly akin to anything written for real art.

Whether a game like ICO is able to move you deeply, that is still, unlike a movie or book, incidental to its primary goal, which is to provide engaging gameplay. The deeply moving element of it may help make it compelling, but, as Hamlet said, the play's the thing.

The point of art is to understand it, appreciate it, and hopefully grow from it; the point of a game is to play it, and never the twain shall meet.

No Bangs for Video Games

No, not the hairstyle accoutrement that was meant to have died in the 80's; Lester Bangs, the influential American musical journalist. And as Chuck Klosterman points out in his ESQUIRE article, there isn't one for video games. He and at least one other person, blogger and Hugo-award nominated sci-fi novelist John Scalzi, have made impressive attempts at explaining why. They both make excellent progress at chipping away the marble to reveal the statue of why no great video game critics exist, but I think there is still more to it, and I'll take a few swings at it with my duller and less experienced chisel.

In a nutshell, what I think Klosterman and Scalzi are saying is that video games aren't yet, in a word, ripe for this level of commentary. (I'm not yet convinced they ever will be, but we can address that later.)

Being a huge video game addict and someone who also has more than an average philosophical bent, this issue interests me and I've pondered it and tried to arrive at its crux. This is how the situation presents itself to me:

There are two basic factors: art and the barrier to participation. The first I'll address in this post, the second in another.

Video Games need to be art
Very simply, movies, music, painting, sculpture -- these things are art: video games are not. Video games certainly incorporate artistic exercise and talent in their making and execution, but as the final product, they are not art any more than a NASCAR race is art. There may be an art to the way a driver handles the vehicle. It's difficult to deny there is an art to the way Tiger Woods carves up a golf course, but the final product is not art. That is not a complaint or denigration, it's a distinction. Life is full of necessary distinctions. I think it's necessary, particularly in this context, to recognize that video games are not art. Again, not a slight, a definition.

This is decisive, as to have the kind of criticism for which Bangs and renowned movie critic Pauline Kael became so famous, I think there needs to be art as its subject. Video games are not and may never be art any more than other games will ever be art. We wonder why there is no criticsm for video games, but we've never wondered such a thing when Monopoly or Clue or Chutes & Ladders failed to generate any profound literature on their significance.

The difference here, however, is also singular. Unlike board games or outdoor games like croquet or indoor games like Twister, video games have a unique ability to incorporate story into their activity. This is where the line between game and art starts looking blurry and smart people like Klosterman and Scalzi wonder, can and shouldn't someone be writing thoughtfully and critically about this medium?

There's little question that such writing can and should exist about the medium, the industry, the phenomenon, but I have serious doubts as to whether such writing will ever be warranted for individual games -- which is where the crucial difference lies between them and actual art.

I've played only a couple of games, like ICO, that make me agree with Klosterman and Scalzi, and think that the line between art and video games, someday, will get so blurred as to be effectively erased, and thoughtful game criticism will be commonplace.

Next post: the barrier to participation.

Lara on the 360 -- a gleam of hope

You can see my review of "Legend" just a few posts back, so I'll confine this post to how the 360 version fares in comparison.

After my last few posts reading the riot act to Microsoft for the pitiful debut of the 360, I'm very happy to say that it gains some ground in my estimation with "Tomb Raider: Legend". Where "Project Gotham" is almost completely devoid of any noticeable graphical improvements, it's very easy to see the TRL takes advantage of the increased power for the most part. Oddly, only Lara herself (and any other human) lacks the same leap forward in appearance to her last-gen counterparts and the PC.

Yes, Lara isn't much better looking on the 360 than on the original Xbox, at least from a texture, and animation standpoint, though that does make up the bulk of the visual effect. The one thing that helps boost her appearance noticeably, and this only now and then, is the improved lighting effects we see on the 360, like when it's reflecting off a pool of water or a dark, slimy, interior ruin wall. When she's out and about in fairly normal lighting, she doesn't really look all that different from the other versions.

What's really odd, though, is that her "normal" appearance, without the extra environmental help, is actually even a bit worse, particularly in the face and "wet skin" departments. Her face seems just a little screwy on the 360 for some reason. Her face is positively gorgeous from any angle in the other versions, but you wont be too keen on holding a close-up on the 360, particularly when she has wet skin.

When she gets out of the water or out from under a waterfall, the water on her skin, while convincing on the other versions, looks just plain streaky on the 360 -- sort of like a subtle version of someone's mascara running, only here, the effect is on every bit of bare skin, and decidedly unattractive.

So, Lara on the old consoles has a bit of an edge in appearance, but where the 360 really shines on this game is the environments. Stone walls, boulders, grass, cliffs, ruins, any inanimate object gets a very respectable boost in realism in both textures and lighting. Vines, ropes, limbs -- there's no head-scratching here, as with "Project Gotham" -- the improvement is clear and undeniable. Water, whether still, running, or falling, looks fantastic -- perhaps not quite as real in some effects (like the secondary ripples when Lara is treading water) as one might expect, but overall, quite satisfying.

The last really irritating thing I'll mention is that I found it practically impossible to keep the game from being too shiny and washed out no matter how I tweaked either the 360's or my TV's settings. It's most certainly the fault of the game, because I've never had anything close to this kind of problem on any game of any of my consoles including the 360. Also, there are some glitchy sort of "shimmering" artifacts that are particularly noticeable if you swing the camera around to a closeup of Lara that you wont see in the other console versions.

Despite these flaws, for anyone wondering about a great first game for their 360, my best recommendation would be "Tomb Raider: Legend". It's a nice, even if yet modest graphical intro to the 360 that separates itself nicely, even if only selectively, from the last-gens. The environments can't be beat, but if you want a lot of close-ups of Lara, to see her face at her best, get any of the other versions.

If you're an RPG fan, you shouldn't really be without "Elder Scrolls IV" either, but as crazy as this may sound to those who've played ES4, I actually got a bit more enjoyment from the graphic achievements in TRL. ES4 is no slouch graphically, despite the very freaky look of almost any human in the game, and if you're mourning the all too poignant brevity of TRL, then ES4 should chew up quite a good chunk of your leftover time.

Grand Theft Auto jumping ship

Chalk one up for Microsoft. This is the kind of thing the Redwood braniacs need to do and what may keep me from selling my 360.

Memo to Microsoft

Like I said in the post before, you'll hear the stuff I said there from almost no one else. Here's a great article that echoes my reservations about and disappointments with not only the 360 but Microsoft.

Also, here's one of the more reasonable reviews you'll read on the grossly misrepresented Xbox messiah, "Halo".

Xbox 360: should you wait for the PS3?

Without question, the PS2 was the clear winner of the last console wars with nearly three quarters of the console market share, and Microsoft and Nintendo combined with not even half that. But in many gamers' minds, both casual and professional, the Xbox was the king, with a spec sheet that put both Sony and Nintendo to shame, and beating both to the HDTV technology punch.

What these Xbox fans seem to want to ignore is the inherent weakness in being the strongest kid in the classroom when the contest has to be tweaked to allow all the kids to play. The only time the Xbox's specs ever really mattered were in its own games, and even then it wasn't that much better a result than how dedicated and brilliant designers were able to "trick" the PS2 into performing.

People all over the industry were noticing the water effect Snowblind was able to give us in "Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance", and there was little debate that Polyphony Digital had our number with it's amazing cars and courses in its "Gran Turismo" series from the impressive "A-spec" debut to the GT4 letting us tool around the beautiful Nurburgring.

For so many reasons, despite much weaker hardware, Sony had not only better playing games, but often better looking games. Unfortunately, they had to live in the Xbox's overblown shadow ever since Microsoft released it.

But all of that is behind us. When the new consoles were announced, I was more than willing to let Microsoft take the crown, but they had to earn it. Well, the war has hardly just begun yet, let alone been decided, but after having my own 360 for the last couple of weeks or so, my expectations are getting clearer.

You'll Only Hear It Here
Just like almost no one had either the guts or the perception to put Xbox in its place, almost no one is sounding the alarm on the 360. I'd seen quite a bit of game footage on the 360 that kept me wondering if I really wanted to spend the money on it or wait for Sony. Nothing I saw was at all convincing.

You'll read a lot about how fantastic the graphics are on games like "Project Gotham Racing 3" and
"Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" among others. In almost every case, it's as bloated as just about every word ever written about the original Xbox.

So why do I own a 360? Eventually, I did run into a game that resoundingly convinced me to spend the cash, and it's a game I'll never play: "Fight Night Round 3". I've never played a boxing game, and I doubt I ever will. It just doesn't interest me. But one evening I stopped by my local Fry's electronics store. Of course, I ended up walking by the video games section and passed by the 23" Samsung LCD they had hooked up to their 360.

I'd seen a number of games on that monitor before, but as I walked by this time, they seemed to be playing some boxing video. Then, I noticed a kid in front of the screen whaling away on a controller, and then I realized -- it was a game. I'd never really been stunned by graphics like I was that evening. If the 360 could capture that in every game, it would easily be worthy of the "next-gen" label.

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Elder Scrolls looks great. In many ways, it is next-gen, in others, certainly not (what kind of jump animation is that??). Gamespot.com has a comparison test between the PC version and the 360. Does anyone remember all the talk about how the consoles will be even more powerful than the strongest desktop PC? Remember all that rubbish when you read that comparison. There should be no comparison. That face-off itself is a failure for Microsoft. Asinine.

Project Gotham -- you really, really, honestly have got to be kidding me. Do yourself a favor: of you don't have a PS2, forget the 360 and grab one of those and GT4. Nurburgring looks better, the cars look and move better -- it's just a better game all around. What in the name of holiness is the design expertise that crafted those hideous N64 sparks when the car scrapes the road?? Don't speak! Don't speak! Go to your room!! Those were ridiculous to see in the non-PS2 versions of Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2. This is deplorable here. The cars and scenery look flat and lifeless. The original PGR games are better.

Kameo? Yeah, the graphics can modestly claim next-gen status, but after a while, you might just as well save the cash and stick with one of the current consoles. And it's very creative game design, but ultimately not that engaging.

As I said, the war has hardly begun, and I'm more than willing to praise Gates and crew if they can step up and show us what the 360 has promised, but at this point, not only have I not seen it, but most of what I've seen fails to earn the "next-gen" label.

I remember the reason I had to get a PS2. I'd played Gauntlet: Dark Legacy and was sold. Unfortunately, I didn't have that luxury with the 360. I had to buy on faith. The faith that, essentially, if the box can do that for Fight Night this early in the launch, then it should be able to do it all the time.

Lesson learned: unless you see a game (ideally, play one) that captures your imagination, then it's worth the money -- otherwise, no matter how promising it is, if you can get the games on other platforms (Elder Scrolls and Tomb Raider fans, you own a PC, right?) it wont be worth your time.

All of this makes me all the more eager to see the PS3. Based on Sony's creative success with an underpowered platform, I get almost giddy thinking about what they can do with what may be the most powerful console on the market in November.

Tomb Raider: Legend -- Lara still needs work

Almost all professional game reviews leave me with the sense that they are ultimately governed by something other than a completely honest assessment of the game in question. Occasionally, the slavering over a game coincides with actual quality, as in the case of God of War or Grand Theft Auto or Ico. Other times, the leash seems all too visible, as in Halo and more currently, Tomb Raider: Legend.

TRL and its predecessor Angel of Darkness are great examples of reviewers sounding like well-trained, albeit lucid, pupils. AOD was not nearly as bad as everyone made it out to be, and it irritates me more every time I hear someone now talking about how TRL is a fitting apology for AOD. First, AOD needed no apology, and second, if it did, TRL is a poor candidate for it.

AOD was not perfect or great, but it didn't nearly deserve the ignominy it will undoubtedly now have to suffer for eternity. AOD was a fun game (which I proudly and happily own) with its share of problems. Legend is much the same, but much, much shorter. It is not, in fact, as much better than AOD as most claim.

A few minor improvements have been made, but the most glaring thing still in the dark ages is how Lara controls. She is definitely improved over her predecessors, but not by nearly as much as she should have been, and not nearly enough to warrant the praise heaped upon Crystal Dynamics. Where Core bore an ill-deserved amount of criticism for AOD, Crystal Dynamics reaps equally ill-deserved accolades for TRL.

CD did a nice job, but they are still playing catch-up, and Lara really needs to go to a developer who can find more imagination to devote to this series in all its facets. Looking at an old title like Drakan, which met an untimely demise after only two games, I'd like to see Surreal (The Suffering, Lord of the Rings) take it on, especially if they insist on keeping Rynn a thing of the past.

In many ways, AOD has the sort of imagination that is lacking here -- the variety of locales, more interesting secondary characters, more engaging character interaction, longer campaign, to name just a few. Core has no reason to hang its head over AOD, much as the industry seems to demand it should. AOD isn't the promised land for Lara, but TRL is only another small step itself in that direction, and not a glorious return to the promise that we all saw in the series from the beginning.

One of the great improvements in Lara herself is some new combat moves, a couple which look neat but ultimately take a back seat to one in particular where she can leap at a foe, give them a kick to the head which launches her into a mid-air, slow-mo flip that not only looks and executes in stunning fashion, but also gives her weaponry a boost that comes in handy for quickly taking out multiple baddies.

One of the areas that TRL regresses from AOD is in the supporting cast. AOD had a very nice sort of "Broken Sword" feeling to it that helped flesh out the adventure, where TRL drops back to giving Lara a more isolated feel, despite the attempt to alleviate this by adding her two ops helpers that talk to her occasionally over a headset. That can't make up for or hope to match the dimension that solid character interaction can bring, which AOD made a great first stab at.

In short, I echo to some degree the prevailing sentiment that TRL sports some nice improvements, but, contrary to most reviews you'll read, it is not the Tomb Raider we've been waiting for. Updated graphics, improvements in Lara's control and abilities, and some classic TR locales, are enough to tide us over until someone can really do this series justice. It's another barely respectable title (an adventure that was at least half again longer than it's 10-12 hours would edge it out of the "barely") in the series that will leave fans with a nice taste but a little empty -- sort of like eating half a doughnut.

Halo: Combat Devolved

Included with such contrarian opinions of mine as the PS2 is a better system than the Xbox is the idea that the original Halo (I haven't looked at the sequel yet) does not deserve its hype.

I must clarify again, as people seem to naturally look at only the negative implications of these types of assertions, that I am not saying (as the typical "haters" love to) that Halo "sucks". I'm saying I believe it is undeserving of all its hype. In fact, I'll probably post a dual list of which games I feel do, and which don't (I already have a couple short Amazon.com lists that take an initial stab at it).

For now, I want to throw megaprops toward GameSpy.com, the only big-name gaming website I've seen to audaciously post a review (2001, by staff writer Sal Accardo) that is along the same lines as the one I will eventually write. Good on ya, Sal.

Tommy Tallarico is a punk

Someday I will have a t-shirt with this indictment on it. Probably black with white lettering.

Do I really believe this? From time to time, yes. On the whole, no. But I so love the way it sounds and flows and rolls off the tongue, and it digs at a man who I think can handle it.

I actually quite like Tommy. I've enjoyed his reviews (even when I disagree and he is overly merciless to Victor) on the G4TV show Judgment Day, and I have a lot of respect for what he's accomplished as a video game composer and as a champion in the industry for his profession. He created the still struggling but magnificently conceived Video Games Live tour which I hope to see one day. He's one of the founders of the ambitious G.A.N.G. network to help unite his compadres.

They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but insult can't be far behind, at least in my book: Tallarico, you're a punk.

Spore: breaking the mold

More brilliance from the Einstein-like questioning mind of Will Wright. This appears to have been presented at a Game Developers/Designers Conference (to explain his comment about the group for which he says he has such affinity)

If there were no such things as video games (well, honestly, he'd probably invent them), he'd probably be a kick-tail anthropologist.

I haven't actually played any of his games, but I have a lot of respect and admiration for his intellect and ingenuity. Even if the game doesn't impress you all that much, I think you will find it mentally stimulating to listen to him talk about the industry and the things he and his team observed in it that brought about Spore.

As far as Spore goes, if you ever thougth video games were a time-suck...you ain't seen nothin' yet.