The Kinect works better when it actually works

Nintendo:  First Attempt

Next, I headed for Nintendo, hoping to get my hands on the 3DS, or maybe even check out the demo for Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword or Metroid: Other M.  Again, I was disappointed.  No technical difficulties here, though…Nintendo had simply stolen the show on Wednesday and EVERYONE at E3 was in line to see if Nintendo’s games and hardware lived up to the hype.  I decided to check back in on Nintendo later, hoping that the mile-long line would eventually die down.

Sony

I made my way to Sony’s “booth” to take the Move for a test-drive.  RELIEF.  The line was only about ten people long.  I allowed myself to get excited.  Maybe the Move would be a game changer!  Maybe the Move technology would make Wii MotionPlus seem like, well…Wii MotionPlus.  Maybe motion-controls coupled with HD graphics and the PS3’s insane processing power would put Sony back on top in the console wars!

Then my excitement came crashing down to earth as an overweight Sony security guard who could obviously care less about videogames strolled by the line and demanded all eleven of us get in a single-file line or else we would not be permitted to test out the Move.  Dear reader, I assure you that all eleven of us were in a single-and-a-half-file line at worst.  Even if there had been ANY traffic near Sony’s Move demo area (which there wasn’t), we would not have obstructed the traffic in any way.  Did Sony really need to threaten us?  Of course not.  In fact, Sony probably should have thanked us for actually being mildly interested in their product.

Fat, useless security guards: great at the box office, not-so-great at E3

After shifting over a half-step to my right and waiting in the newly single-file line for another five minutes, I was led into a room where a well-trained — but not particularly enthusiastic — Sony rep led me through two levels of The Shoot, an on-rails, family-friendly FPS that took place on a movie studio lot, allowing for shootouts with a diverse selection of baddies, from cowboys to aliens to robots.

My impression of the Move?  Fairly underwhelming.  Perhaps it was a little more sensitive than the Wii MotionPlus, but the gameplay of The Shoot was less immediately intuitive than any Wii game I’ve played.  And sure, the HD graphics were nice, but The Shoot struck me as essentially providing a nearly identical experience to that of an on-rails arcade shooter from the 1990’s.  I left with a resounding, “Meh.”

Nintendo

When I returned to Nintendo later in the afternoon, the line had died down considerably.  I took my place in a stanchion-guarded line (eliminating the need for surly security guards) and was surprised to find a number of Nintendo reps walking around with 3DS-es strapped to their belts, letting everyone in line actually see the technology while waiting in line to see the technology!  Sure, the images on the 3DS-es amounted to nothing more than a slide-show, but I had seen the 3DS’s capabilities after waiting in line for only five minutes.  It only made me more eager to see what was at the end of the line…

Waiting to see the 3DS? Here, see the 3DS while you wait!

But while I waited in line, I looked around and saw people testing out the new Kirby game, the new Zelda game and the new Mario basketball game.  Nintendo didn’t simply stick people in a line, they used the line as an opportunity to expose fans to other Nintendo products.  And towards the end of the line, I ended up chatting with a very friendly representative who told me he’d been a repair technician with Nintendo since the GameBoy days!  So I nerded out about GameBoy for five minutes, making my wait just a little more entertaining than if the representatives had ALL been booth babes.

After about 40 minutes,the Nintendo reps began thanking everyone for waiting, then blocked off traffic and funneled us eager fanboys & girls to an upstairs area FILLED with 3DS-es.  They informed us that we had 20 minutes to try out the 3DS and as many demos as we liked.  I first made my way to a Paper Mario demo.  Then a Metal Gear demo.  Then a submarine sim demo.  Then Kid Icarus.  Then Nintendogs.  I felt like a kid on Christmas, each present leaving me more excited for the next one.  By the time my 20 minutes was up, I had had my fill.  My mind was blown.  I was ready to go.

Customer Service Is More than Window Dressing

After getting to try out the Kinect through a third-party publisher’s game, I never made it back to Microsoft’s official demo area.  It seemed well-laid out, with friendly, athletic representatives, but I had other things to see, other games to play.

Which led me to muse a bit on how important customer service is, especially at an event like E3 where people will be writing about products and — hopefully — generating buzz for upcoming product releases.  The customer service I experienced from the three hardware developers made me think that Nintendo will continue to dominate the console wars this generation…and probably through the next generation of hardware, too.  It’s more than just pretty girls with 3DS belts.  It’s the fact that Nintendo very obviously cared about crafting a positive user experience with their products.  This kind of care started when I got in line, continued as I waited in line and carried on as I was given freedom to experience the 3DS as I wanted to, with multiple game demos.  And if this much care and thought is put into simply DEMO-ing the hardware, I can’t even imagine how much effort is put into designing and testing the games and systems with a positive user experience in mind.  It’s more evidence that the Wii and DS are not mere “gimmicks,” but rather the products of an extraordinarily purpose-driven development strategy.

Meanwhile, Sony was arrogant and disappointing while Microsoft’s much-hyped product was hampered by malfunctioning equipment.  Just sitting here and typing this out, it’s difficult for me to believe that these three companies lived up to their stereotypes so perfectly, but that’s the simple truth.

If you haven’t done so already, take a look at the timeline and get your panties in a twist.  Then come back here for some (mostly) rational thoughts on the subject.

Read the timeline?  Great.  Now, I don’t care if you hate on Activision/Blizzard.  Hate on Activision/Blizzard all you want.  But before you go hating on Activision/Blizzard, I beg you to consider the following four important points:

1.  Most Entertainment Products Lose Money…a LOT of Money

Whether it’s music albums, video games, movies, or TV shows, entertainment products are not typically profitable.  A TV network, for example, will spend tens of millions of dollars producing a slate of pilot TV episodes, only a handful of which will appeal to advertisers enough to merit broadcast.  Then the network has to spend millions of dollars advertising those new pilots, and of those pilots that make it on air, only one or two will actually last long enough to be profitable through syndication.  So a TV network spends, say 50 million dollars up front, and hopes to make back 60 million dollars over the course of 10 years.  Pretty risky, and only financially viable if you have deep pockets and a willingness to make tough decisions.

Video games are somewhat similar.  A publisher like Activision/Blizzard pumps tens of millions into funding a slate of games.  Unlike TV, all of those games are likely to go to market.  Like TV, many of those games are not going to be profitable.  In order to maintain positive relationships with distributors like Best Buy and GameStop, a publisher like Activision/Blizzard has to buy back large portions of unsold inventory, or give the distributors enormous discounts on future purchases.  That can get pretty expensive.

So Activision/Blizzard does its best to maximize profits of those games that do make money, and Activision/Blizzard does so through some pretty creative ways.  They turn games into franchises, giving gamers MORE great Call of Duty, Guitar Hero and Marvel: Ultimate Alliance titles.  They offer gamers more in-game items and options in World of Warcraft.  They charge customers for services rendered and products sold.  And all that money gamers pay for “character recustomization” and Guitar Hero: Sixpence None the Richer doesn’t just go into Bobby Kotick’s pockets; it covers next year’s slate of games.

2.  Activision/Blizzard Is a Business

The author of the timeline includes the notable event that Activision acting CFO Thomas Tipple was named the COO of Blizzard, and implies outrage at the fact that Tipple’s contract is structured so that “Tippl basically gets paid more, the more revenue the company makes.”  At this point in the blog post, I will stop referring to the author of the timeline as “the author” and instead begin referring to him/her as HEY ASSHOLE.  HEY ASSHOLE, for your information, stipulating performance-based financial incentives in a contract is fairly standard practice for any management position in any company in any industry.  Now, HEY ASSHOLE, I see that you are posting from Germany, so let me see if I can put this in terms you can understand:  America is not full of socialist weasels, and you and everyone in your sausage-loving country are not so far removed from bowing to fascist and communist dictators that my American ass is going to passively listen to your abject inability to understand the way that capitalism works.  HEY ASSHOLE, read a book and figure out how the world works…or at the very least temper your idiocy.

Taking the moral high ground against these wall-building fucks is almost too easy. Almost.

You know how everyone in your country is pissed about Greece and Italy dragging down the value of your shared currency?  Part of the reason it’s easy for them to do so is because they are incentivized to take advantage of the system because they know that wealthy countries like you will bail them out.  Create a system that incentivizes people to work hard and earn money, and they are more likely to work hard and earn money.  Novel concept, right?

Activision is a business, and the goal of a business is to make a profit by providing a service to the general public.  Things like “incentives for employees” and “charging customers for services rendered and products sold” are ways businesses achieve their goals.  They’re pretty standard, be it at a mega-corporation like Wal-Mart or your local vegan coffee shop.

(Note that I really don’t have anything against sausage.  I had chicken-apple sausage with penne a la vodka for dinner last night, and it was delicious.)

3.  Until You Stop Paying Activision/Blizzard Your Money, Activision Is Right

So you’re pissed that Activision/Blizzard dropped Brütal Legend and Ghostbusters: The Video Game because they didn’t fit the Activision/Blizzard business model?  Yeah, maybe you should quit bitching about it and actually buy the damn games.  Both of those games under-performed and probably lost money, so it looks like Activision/Blizzard made a pretty good decision.  I actually bought Ghostbusters, I played it and I enjoyed it.  I’m glad it got published, but as a businessman, I can’t argue with the top line.  If every game company made games solely based off of what I wanted to play, the world would be a worse place.  (Without giving away too many details, I imagine every year would see a deluge of Kirby games, sex sims and sex-with-Kirby sims.)

So every once in a while, shut your mouth, check VGChartz.com and give ten seconds worth of thought to whether or not your unique tastes are appealing enough to a broad audience to justify tens of millions of dollars of development costs.  Don’t like the fact that Starcraft II offers players such an extraordinary amount of content that it had to be broken into three games?  Don’t buy it.  Don’t play it.  If enough people share your opinion, you can guarantee Starcraft III will be only one storyline with one point of view and one set of missions.  However, I’m going to take a wild guess and say that Starcraft II is going to be a monster success, both critically and financially.  Anyone want to put money against me?

Vegas puts the over/under at 12 kafrillion dollars

4.  Gamers Are Nut-Jobs

When third party publishers NOT named Activision/Blizzard complain about Nintendo cutting them out of the development process for the Wii and blame Nintendo for lackluster sales on the consoles, gamers lambast Nintendo and rant about Nintendo’s supposed glory days…you know, those 10 years when nobody actually bought Nintendo consoles.

However, when Activision/Blizzard looks at a market made up of three different players – Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft – offering consoles with drastically different technological capabilities and suggests that, as the world’s dominant publisher who spends hundreds of millions on royalties simply to MANUFACTURE games for each system, MAYBE the console developers should include the publisher on the hardware creation process, gamers go ape shit and declare, “How DARE Activision BULLY those POOR console manufacturers?”

(Not like having more, better games for each system would actually be a good thing for gamers.)

Gamers, have a bowl of Grape Nuts tomorrow morning…you could do with a little consistency.

Delicious...and nutritious!

no
need to bait the
niggers and the spics, pimps and nips

they’ll get what’s coming, fuck yeah they’ll
get what’s due

but until that eventually i’ll keep the code, let the
heroin flow
and the coca leaves grow

no need to show my hatred
if my hatred can’t have its way with the world

i’ll just keep it inside
and not quite alive, a beautiful
beast chained to my anger
and waiting…
waiting
in quiet anticipation, dangerous
in the corners of my shadows the shadows cast
by the unforgiving wings of a
dark, dark angel

let chinatown have its wars

let night have the whores

i will have my hatred as i ride

Damn, your body is criminal!
and I get animal the way
I can’t stand
not to run my hands all over you whenever you’re
near
by

Beautiful is not the right word
because beautiful
doesn’t PISS ME OFF and i can
never tell
which of your guns is the loaded one
(and which one you just
flash
for fun)

hush…

Stun me with your sly lips, illegal
hips and eyes that
never hesitate to
let me in
just for an instant
to glimpse all those terrible
things inside

You have no idea how many
men i’d kill, pills
i’d shill and
graves i’d dig
or days I’d live
behind bars
just to drive your
getaway car
and get you
to think those terrible thoughts
about me

hands in the darkness, motion over noise and
noise over noise.
it broke my bones and a guitar in hand.

now, on the verge of thirty, i
am lost. i can think of no
sweeter way of saying it. i’m
lost.
how
can a man work his way
towards death knowing
that he will never be the flag of a future
generation’s youth?
how can a man be satisfied with a retirement plan?
how can
a man live with
himself after
selling his anger for comfort, fever
for quiet, oceans for angels?
bad dreams for good dreams?
how does he learn to drive without being driven?

and fuck that theoretical man, anyway.
this is about me and how do i?
despite the fact that pontifications suit
an aging oncepunk about as well as a three-button,
100% wool shell, modern fit two piece
(i’ll bet jack white doesn’t have that in his vocabulary…or his wardrobe.)

and while i’m at it, fuck jack white.
All he knows is how to be a god, and
what good does that opinion do me?
if kids want to live out a fantasy for five
minutes, digital fame and actual fun, why
kill that party?

and while i’m at it, fuck rock band and guitar hero, too.
those digital fans aren’t real but my failure is.

i’ll dig out my soul if you’ll pass
me the teaspoon, please

I stand still for entire instants before
diving through fire and breaking my back
against metal enemies as fast as
lightning flashes, the day passes
and night falls
on casinos and sunshine spills
on emerald hills

snow always fails against gravity, and so do i
despite my
million attempts to defy it

time is not a blur but my reactions…

some nights I have terrible dreams
I am drowning
and I know that
I am dreaming that
I’m drowning but
I can’t wake up
…and so I drown
but I don’t wake up

(but) When I wake up I pray, “Lord, I do not fear my
enemies, endless and armored though
they may be.
Let death take my enemies
by surprise; let them go down alive to the
grave, alive.  But please
don’t let me drown.  I will stand on a cross, let them pierce me let them
crush me but when I pass through the waters, please be with me; and
through the rivers, do not let them overflow me.  Let me walk
across the water with my moonwalk shoes, blood red but never dying.”

5…
4…
3…
2…
1…

My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[*]

In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and the face of earth was chaos, her dark and emerald eyes dark and hidden.

And after deathbut but before rebirth I
I look for signs
in those cold eyes

Electronic emotions faded in the wasteland
of a young man’s desolate future.

What makes a dream
mechanical?

I begin, but
I begin in hope.
Home, a memory from a possible past, grass
fields and “I think want to be breathless next to you” as my companions.
I name myself something brave and shine like
a lightpost in the darkness at the end of the world.
Funny, I
always thought that the end of the world would be a bright rainbow,
a violent reaction,
spasms of energy
draining life from the universe and making something more endlessly powerful from the resulting destruction.

Why is it that my eyes are dry?
I cannot cry at dying humanity, but the programmed replication of
companionship exploding sends
electricity pulsing across
my organic circuits.

Where is my animal?
Where is my darkness?
Where is my crossbow, my gun and my hammer?
Where is my honor, my ghost, or the shadow in my pocket?
Where is my fire, my Prometheus Eagle?
Where is my

drowned out of existence, lost in the fight.
remembered in ashes, the aftermath of loss.

The robot, an ocean of emptiness and nothing between the two.

When I was a kid, saying “damn it” would get my mouth washed out with soap.  I wasn’t allowed to watch The Simpsons because Bart said “hell.”  My friends and I were careful to keep our Megadeth and Pantera tapes in our backpacks or sock drawers because, well, if Mom saw skulls or the phrase “Trendkill” on an album cover, you can bet those tapes would go straight into the trashcan.  Mom might grudgingly allow time spent with Mario, Kirby and Tetris, but Doom?  Close the bedroom door.  Put on my headphones.  Have my finger hovering over the “Esc” key at all times.  And if she comes in and asks what I’m doing,  I am “working on this thing for school.”

When I was a kid, entertainment wasn’t just entertainment.  Entertainment was how you defined yourself.  You couldn’t play football and skateboard.  You were a jock or you were a freak.  You couldn’t like Tupac and Biggie.  East Coast and West Coast were mortal enemies; we all knew this.  You couldn’t have a Super Nintendo and a Sega Genesis.  After all, Genesis does what Nintendon’t.  And these distinctions were important.  They drew clear lines around our identities.  They were how we labeled ourselves and how others labeled us.

When I was a kid, Entertainment was the flag American culture waved at the rest of the world, far more powerful, alluring and intimidating than any stars and stripes.  Entertainment was how American society defined itself.  Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie were offensive because they weren’t simply a cartoon, but rather a representation of the American nuclear family, and many American nuclear families didn’t enjoy looking in a mirror that made light of child abuse, of religion, of responsibility.  Sure, everyone’s kids cursed.  Sure, every parent lost his or her temper from time to time.  But that was best kept behind closed doors.  As a culture, we wanted to put our best foot forward.  We wanted to show up to the job interview in a suit and a freshly pressed Brooks Brothers button-down, not in torn jeans and a t-shirt.  And our culture was collective; how one group presented themselves reflected on all of us.  If you were lucky enough to have cable TV, you might have 30 or 40 channels, but most original programming appeared on the networks, so we all watched the same shows.  What was on those shows stood for your values.  What was on those shows stood for my values.  What was on those shows stood for our shared values, and we all had to agree on what was programmed on those channels because we were all exposed to and affected by what was on those channels.  We were deeply, personally invested in what Hollywood and Madison Avenue sold us, and we fought to ensure that what we were sold closely resembled what we wanted to be.

Well, I’m not a kid anymore.  I’m 29 years old and on Thursday, March 15, I went to go see Kick-Ass on opening night.  And when I walked out of the Arclight Sherman Oaks two and a half hours later, I was a little bit dizzy because I had just witnessed something amazing.  I had just witnessed Kick-Ass, and Kick-Ass is amazing.

What’s so amazing about Kick-Ass is the way it treats narrative structure as fluid, effortlessly shifting from explicit first-person omniscient to implied third-person limited to first-teddy-bear limited.  What’s so amazing about Kick-Ass is that despite the inevitable comparisons to Tarantino films, Kick-Ass is not really Tarantino-esque so much as Kick-Ass arrives at the exact same destination as a Tarrintino film but by a much more intelligent and technically adept process.  What’s so amazing about Kick-Ass is that director Matthew Vaughn could give aspiring videogame directors a master-class in how to create a compelling first-person shooter.  What’s so amazing about Kick-Ass is the savvy way it acknowledges that we live in a post-post modern society where quoting other works of art and/or entertainment – whether it’s a 13 year-old posting his latest fanfic video to YouTube or Seth MacFarlane making James Woods jokes on FOX during prime-time  – is art and/or entertainment in and of itself.  What’s so amazing about Kick-Ass is that it paints entertainment as entertainment’s subject matter, deconstructing and flat-out demolishing the ridiculous morals our comic book heroes purport to represent while giving us the care-free, surface-deep, confectionary enjoyment we get from those same comic book heroes.  What’s so amazing about Kick-Ass is its ability to be rebellious and subservient, arrogant and self-effacing, self-aware and careless…all at the same time.

But for all the positive things that Kick-Ass does, what ultimately makes Kick-Ass so remarkable is the fact that the film is pretty much unremarkable.  Despite the critical buzz and fanboy acclaim, Kick-Ass is largely culturally irrelevant.  And that’s what makes it truly amazing, that Kick-Ass is not being discussed in the context of its relation to Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch or Warren Beatty’s Bonnie and Clyde, that the violence and mayhem that 11 year-old Hit Girl enacts on a bunch of gangsters while making her way down a hallway in the film’s epic penultimate scene is not being discussed as an interesting role-reversal of Travis Bickle’s famous hallway bloodshed in defense of 12 year-old Iris in Taxi Driver’s penultimate scene, that the title of the movie is Kick-Ass and yet there is absolutely no protesting from conservative parent groups, religious leaders or Fox News talking heads about the fact that the movie has profanity in its title.

Violence and pre-teen girls in film

The conversation has moved on.  As a culture, we’re more interested in important things like health care and the ongoing global economic recession than we are in any given movie’s impact on youth culture.  After all, just give the blogosphere 15 minutes and the hype will die down; Kick-Ass will be forgotten. Jonah Hex is due out soon, and hell, that has Megan Fox in it.  And if Prince of Persia isn’t the next Biggest Movie Ever, then Iron Man 2 certainly will be. Entertainment is not God, it’s just commodity.  It isn’t a flag that 300 million of us are waving; it’s a product that two million people purchased over the course of a spring weekend.  It doesn’t define you or me.  It isn’t a lifestyle.  Your opinion about it is just that: your opinion.

My opinion?  I liked it.  Some of my friends liked it.  Others didn’t.  But none of it matters.  For the first time, really, it doesn’t matter at all.  The reviewers gushing that Kick-Ass is better than The Dark Knight don’t matter.  The studio heads who refused to finance Kick-Ass because they thought that the subject matter couldn’t be made profitable don’t matter.  The people offended by all the violence and bloodshed Kick-Ass so graphically depicts don’t matter.  Because Kick-Ass isn’t a cultural phenomenon.  It isn’t a box-office smash, or even a failure.  It’s a small film with limited appeal, a film that will make a modest profit and launch the careers of a couple of kid actors.  Some people care about Kick-Ass.  Most people don’t.  Kick-Ass hasn’t changed anything, it’s simply another stone in the path of the continuing commoditization of art.  And it really doesn’t matter.

Nintendo planned to ship a whole lotta these.

Meanwhile, Nintendo sent a very clear signal to the world about its expectations for the Wii, publicly announcing plans to ship six million Wiis to retailers during the first six months of the console’s lifespan.  Six million!  In six months!  This in Nintendo, the company that barely managed to move 20 million GameCube consoles in six years.  To put that number in perspective, the PS2 – the biggest-selling console of all time – sold seven million units its first year on the market.  And Nintendo was saying, “Yeah, we’re going to pretty much do that in about half the time.”

Now, one might be able to forgive third-party developers for ignoring the marketing hype surrounding the Wii.  After all, hype is simply hype.  But Nintendo made a very large investment putting six million units into production, something no company would do without extensive market research to back up such an enormous – and downright ballsy – financial investment.  More importantly, retailers were making room on their shelves for all of these Wiis, something no retailer would do without the utmost confidence that the units were going to move.

Still, many developers ignored all evidence of market forces pushing the Wii to certain success, preferring instead to take an allegedly conservative approach and see how the Wii actually sold before beginning development on Wii games.  Those developers are idiots.

Developers Are Idiots

I probably don’t need to tell you that when the Wii hit stores, it sold out all across the globe, creating a shopping frenzy during the 2006 holiday season.  But you might not be aware of the fact that Nintendo eventually sold a massive 7.4 million units worldwide during its first six months on sale…1.4 million units more than its unbelievably optimistic initial projections.  And sales didn’t slow down, either.  Nintendo moved a staggering 14.3 million Wiis during its first year.

Three guesses how third-party developers reacted to this year-long clinic on how to attain total industry dominance.

Yes, many third-party developers continued to remain skeptical of the Wii’s longevity…and that’s putting it nicely.  Sega’s US vice president of marketing expressed concern about the Wii’s staying power and suggested that the PS3 would eventually win this generation’s console war.  The Chief Creative Officer of Insomniac called the Wii a fad.  The President of Epic compared the Wii to a virus.  Shiny Entertainment founder, legendary video game developer and games industry consultant Dave Perry expected gamers to “drop their Wii controllers” in favor of HD gaming experiences.

I guess it’s true what they say…denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.

Pictured: Video game developers, literally swimming in it.

What’s Next

Wrapping up “Third Party Poopers” with lessons learned…and lessons not learned.

Now, before you go on reading this article, I highly suggest that you read Ebert’s latest blog post, in which he discusses the cancellation of his landmark TV series and its implications on the film and film criticism communities.  I have no intention of demeaning Roger Ebert as a man, nor do i have any intention of offending any readers for the sake of shock value.  I wish for nothing but the best for Roger Ebert as he fights an indefatiguable foe.  I do, however, have every intention of tearing apart the out-dated and absolutely pompous viewpoints he shares with readers of his blog.  I intend to scrutinize his thoughts on criticism and his narrow and offensive opinions of what it means to be a “real movie lover” the same way he has scrutinized the creative efforts of thousands of writers, directors and actors.  And if you haven’t read his blog post, well…you might be likely to misconstrue some of my statements.

Ever the optimist, Ebert openly discusses his belief that “a market still exists for a weekly show where a couple of critics review new movies.”  Ebert goes on to describe his plans for a new series, a series which sounds identical to his canceled series except for the fact that Ebert will now “go full-tilt New Media: Television, net streaming, cell phone apps, Facebook, Twitter, iPad, the whole enchilada.”

In my house, "hype" is a four-letter word. So is "iPad."

Apparently, some MBA asshole in Biz Dev at one of the cable networks convinced Roger Ebert that regurgitating technology buzz-words is the same as having a cross-platform integrated marketing strategy.  He convinced  Roger Ebert that if the public can now watch an elitist gasbag vent about his personal fancies for 22 minutes ON AN iPAD, Ebert’s new program might actually gain relevance for a few weeks.  ‘Cause, you know…now it’s on an iPad.

Well, that MBA asshole in Biz Dev at one of the cable networks was wrong.  The reality of the situation is that the paradigm has changed, and professional movie critics have been made irrelevant.  Simply put, what Roger Ebert has to offer in the way of criticism no longer adds much value to moviegoers.

The Golden Age of Film Criticism

The 1970’s marked the dawn of “The New Hollywood” as the flailing studios gave complete creative license to a generation of directors with auteur mentalities.  Films like A Clockwork Orange, The Wild Bunch, The Godfather, Taxi Driver and Dirty Harry were more graphic and more offensive than anything previously put on film.  Yet these films were also intelligently and artistically crafted.  They represented a revolution not only in terms of what types of content were acceptable in entertainment and art, but a revolution in thought and the power of popular culture.  Professional criticism was a necessary beast during this decade, helping guide an ignorant public through an intellectually challenging library of work.

Intellectually challenging AND bad ass

In the 1980’s, cinema became more populist and the film industry expanded rapidly behind blockbuster film franchises like Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, Star Wars and Back to the Future.  The advent of the affordable home video market — thanks to the VCR — overwhelmed consumers with choice.  Faced with questions like, “Should I rent Chariots of Fire or E.T.?” consumers turned to film critics.  The local paper might feature a positive review from a well-known syndicated reviewer.  A blurb from a well-known syndicated reviewer might even appear on the box of the video cassette.  Consumers looked to these well-informed reviewers for insights, and two thumbs up from Siskel and Ebert played an integral part in many consumers’ decision-making processes.

The 1990’s saw the rise of independent film, a new wave of new wave auteurs like Steven Soderberg, Wes Anderson, Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino and Larry Clark who pushed crass, violent and self-aware subculture to the forefront of pop culture.  Critics helped bring these directors to the attention of the public at large.  But something else also happened in the 1990’s: Michael Bay.  Movies like Bay’s Bad Boys and Armageddon were critically panned, but proved to be huge box-office blockbusters…to say nothing of the huge amounts of money they earned from TV licensing, VHS and DVD sales.  Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever and Batman & Robin were two more movies that earned hundred-million dollar profits in theaters despite horrible critical reception.  And do I even have to mention Jar Jar Binks?

The four words that ruined my life: Meesa love you, Annie

Sure, film had long provided populist entertainment at the expense of intellectual culture.  Hell, the proliferation of nickelodeons and film in theaters during the early 20th century is due in large part to film’s ability to cater to the lowest common denominator of American society.  But the auteurs of the 1970’s had raised film above entertainment status and elevated film’s status as true art, worthy of intellectual discourse and study, worthy of celebration and preservation in museum halls.  Even a popcorn blockbuster like Jaws was well-received by critics for its character development, rich subtext and filmmaking savvy.  And the god-awful Batman movie released in 1989 (I dare you to go back and watch Jack Nicholson wearing pancake make-up and dancing around to Prince and tell me it is a good film) was praised for its film-noir flourishes and dark pageantry.  In the 1990’s, though, film critics were relegated to the role of overly intellectual outsider, more or less removed from the decision-making process.

The Business Model Is Dead!  Long Live The Business Model!

By the turn of the century, movie studios had developed a distribution system that maximized a film’s monetization at every stage of the distribution.  From beach towels and Happy Meal toys to DVD sales and foreign release windowing, films were no longer art; they were simply an IP that moved branded consumer packaged goods.  Demand could be forecast and films would be green-lit based off of expected sell-through of each phase of the distribution process.  Simply determine a weekend release against light competition, add the expected value of Tom Cruise’s name and face on the movie poster with the expected turnout of Tom Cruise fans in the relevant population segments, subtract marketing costs and production costs and you’ll know whether the movie will achieve the financial benchmarks necessary to support its production.  Who cares if critics think Days of Thunder is little more than a star vehicle derivative of Cruise’s earlier films with no interesting insight into the human condition?  We’ve got the NASCAR demographic and a tie-in with Hardee’s and Mello-Yello!!!

'Harry, you told me nobody passes on the outside in turn four!"

Now, because a movie’s success or failure no longer hinged on positive or negative reviews, film critics were forced to kiss ass to stars at well-rehearsed press junkets in a stupid and ultimately doomed attempt to remain relevant.  Intelligent and informed critique on acting styles, directorial influences and artistic statements through criticism gave way to teeth-bleached numbskulls asking, “What was your favorite thing about working with your co-star?” on shows like Access Hollywood and Entertainment Tonight.

The internet, of course, gave a voice to all those critics — both professional and amateur — who would champion pillars of artistic expression such as Y Tu Mama Tambien over triflings such as National Treasure.  Of course, this only further served to de-value the role of the critic.  Any asshole with a modem could publish his or her thoughts on any movie.  Any asshole with a modem could rank Godfather or Daddy Day Care or Funny Face on IMDB.  And you know what?  Consumers found the general public’s aggregate opinion far more useful — as opposed to some “expert” opinion — in their respective decision-making processes.  Moreover, the internet allowed individual consumers to cull the data to find sources that are relevant to them.

Sure, maybe Roger Ebert gave Chloe three and a half stars.  So what?  The NYT reviewer trashed the movie.  IMDB users give it a 7.2 out of 10.  And Rotten Tomatoes gives it an aggregate score of 51% fresh.  Which one of these sources do I trust?  All of them?  None of them?  The answer changes depending on who you ask.

Netflix

And then along came Netflix and rendered movie criticism absolutely, irrevocably irrelevant.  Those awesome computer engineers at Netflix created an algorithm that tracks consumers’ viewing patterns and recommends movies tailored to the individual consumers’ preferences.  And what’s Roger Ebert’s take-away from this amazing new piece of technology that allows millions of movie-lovers to enjoy movies more than they ever did before?

When the New York Times put an interactive Netflix map online, allowing me to search by zip code and see what my neighbors were renting, the top title was “Milk,” followed by such [sic] as the “The Wrester,” [sic] “Slumdog Millionaire,” “Doubt” and “Rachel Getting Married.”  Think about that.  Good movies.  “Transformers 2″ was nowhere to be seen.  (“Milk,” in case you’re wondering, was first or second in most Chicago zip codes, not just mine.)

Those are the kind of people who might want to watch a movie review program.  Our show will try to reach people who think before they watch a movie, and value their time, and their minds.  Does that sound like a pitch?  Probably.  I think it’s also a business plan.

Roger Ebert still doesn’t get it.  On the one hand, he sees technology as a way of perpetuating his elitist perspective on films.  He sees technology as a way of reaching snobs — via their iPads and Twitter accounts, no less — interested only in what he deems to be “good” movies.  On the other hand, Ebert blames technology for having ” fragmented the audience so much that [TV] stations are losing market share no matter what they do.”

Bravely fighting against cancer, but unfortunately fighting against the new review populism

Roger Ebert is right about one thing; technology has played a very significant part in making his elitist perspective on films a relic of a time long past.  Technology has opened up the general public to a wealth of films once only available to the art-house film aristocracy.  Technology has given a voice to people who want to argue that Milk was a shallow, manipulative, historically inaccurate and reality-defying awards-pandering piece of garbage and that Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen was an escapist delight, devoid of pretentiousness and enjoyable because of the spectacle it put on display.  Technology has led to a democratization of opinion, wherein everyone’s opinions have the potential to carry equal weight, where a film critic’s opinion is the same as a film student’s opinion is the same as a gas station attendant’s opinion is the same as a 13 year-old’s opinion is the same as a retired schoolteacher’s opinion.

In his heyday, Roger Ebert gave criticism that not only helped consumers decide what movie they should see, but actually helped consumers understand the maturing language of film, its historical context and its social impact.  He was the first film critic to receive a Pulitzer prize, and it was much deserved.  Roger Ebert is a cultural landmark, and will forever be associated with the elevation of film’s place in the Western popular consciousness.

But the old paradigm is no longer useful.  Film buffs are far more likely to trust an algorithm that evaluates their own personal tastes than they are to listen to some film school grad’s top picks of the week.  Casual moviegoers are far more likely to check out IMDB’s review scores than they are to wait for the Saturday afternoon movie review show.  What’s more, all cinemagoers are perfectly capable of arguing with their friends over whether Sandra Bullock’s acting in The Blind Spot was avoid-at-all-costs sentimental schlock or a must-see performance.  Ebert and the reviewers of his era taught the American public how to think critically about the different aspects of film, how to discuss our opinions intelligently and passionately.  And now…well, now Roger Ebert’s voice is just another voice in the crowd.  Perhaps more informed than many, but not any more prominent than anyone else’s.

And the truly sad thing is that where once Roger Ebert’s love of film led others to discover new films, this same love of film has led him to believe that he is more qualified than anyone else to render righteous judgment over what a “good” movie is.  Roger Ebert’s love of film has made him more than comfortable lambasting anyone interested in any new iteration of the Transformers franchise to be an idiot who values neither his time nor his mind.  And all of his complaining that “everything seems to be going to hell in a hand basket” makes Roger Ebert seem like a once-proud courtier desperately striking out to rally his fellow blue-bloods in some hope that the old emperor can be restored.  Sorry to break it to you, Roger, but Napoleon’s on Elba and he ain’t coming back.

So, uh…what does this have to do with video games?

What do Sword & Poker for the iPhone, WarioWare D.I.Y. for the DS, Perfect Dark for the 360 and Castlevania X: Rondo of Blood for the Wii virtual console have in common?  Apparently, the answer is not ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING.  All of these games scored a 9.0 on IGN’s review scale…that’s what they have in common.  Is WarioWare D.I.Y. as good as Perfect Dark?  Is Sword & Poker as deserving of a high mark as Castlevania?  These are stupid questions.  Each of these games offers a completely different gameplay experience.  Each of these games appeals to a different type of gamer.  And yet, they are all graded on the same, absolutely arbitrary and meaningless scale.

To IGN’s credit, their scores are theoretically aggregates of numerous reviewers’ scores.  A quick look, however, shows that Castlevania and Sword & Poker both have only one press review, compared to three reviews for WarioWare and 18 for Perfect Dark.  Awesome.  The most-visited video game review site on the internet uses an arbitrary and meaningless 100 point scale (masquerading as a 10 point scale), and aggregates an arbitrary amount of “professional” reviews to create its final review scores.  Really?

Admittedly, IGN also gives the games’ user rankings, which allows interested consumers to see that other consumers rank Sword & Poker considerably lower than Perfect Dark.  But it still does little to distract from the fact that these review scores add absolutely no value to the consumer whatsoever.  A video game consumer is not going to buy Zack & Wiki no matter how well-reviewed it is.  A video game consumer is not going to buy Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars despite critics gushing over it.  Bitch all you want about how crappy Sonic Unleashed was (IGN gave it a 4.5), it still moved more than 3 million copies (and IGN’s users gave it an average 8.0 ranking).

Sonic Unleashed

This is not to say that video game reviews can’t be a factor in a consumers’ decision-making process.  Reviews still play an important part in bringing independent games to light.  I never would have heard of ‘Splosion Man, flower or Braid if it hadn’t been for the legion of reviewers who championed these games.  Reviewers added value to the consumers’ decision-making process not by randomly assigning numbers to these marvelous, innovative games, but simply by being more informed about the games than the consumer could be.  The reviewers acted like a personal shopper, culling through the thousands of indie games begging for attention and telling the consumer, “These games are worth your time.”

The Future for Video Game Reviews

Video game reviews in the late 2000’s and early 2010 share a great deal of similarities with movie reviews during the 1990’s.  Just think about it.  No-nonsense businessmen have taken an entertainment-focused arts industry from enthusiasts’ living rooms and turned it into a massively popular, bottom-line-driven CPG business.  Mainstream review sites pander to big-name publishers, exchanging “10/10″ box art blurbs in for exclusive sneak-peaks at content while a small but flourishing indie scene relies on the grace of the indie-minded reviewer for a chance at being lifted out of obscurity.

Thankfully, there does appear to be a major difference between movie reviews of the 1990’s and current video game reviews.  Some of the best and most popular video game review sites prominently buck the rankings trend.  Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw is famous for his animated reviews which completely trash nearly every game released.  Unlike the elitist Ebert, however, Croshaw doesn’t believe his informed opinion and haughty attitude make his voice any more important than anyone else’s voice, as evidenced by the fact that he is constantly mocking his own bad attitude, sexual incompetency and general lack of friends.  More importantly, Croshaw adds value to consumers not simply by virtue of having an informed opinion, but because the way he expresses his informed opinion is unique, funny and entertaining.

FUCK YOU

Kotaku is another great example of pioneering alternative reviews, employing a number of different techniques to review games.  Kotaku’s basic review consists of listing “What We Liked” against “What We Didn’t Like” and allowing the reader to make a judgement on how worthy the game may or may not be.  But Kotaku also creates Frankenreviews, pasting together text from different review sites in order to create one coherent review from numerous sources and perspectives.  And then there’s Tim Rogers, who essentially wrote a novella on his personal insecurities with women and failures in office life as an exploration and review of music games from Dance Dance Revolution to Brutal Legend to Guitar Hero.

For video game reviews to have a meaningful impact on consumers in the coming decade, they will need to embrace a new paradigm.  No longer will a simple rundown of the game’s gameplay and design with a numerical ranking serve as a meaningful — or even adequate — review.  Reviews will need to either reflect the voice of the consumer or provide value through entertainment and/or unique insights.  Otherwise, it won’t be long before we’ll be reading Adam Sessler’s blog lamenting the decline of the video game review and wistfully thinking about those days on X-Play set with Morgan Webb, back when people still played “good” video games.