Duke Nukem Forever: Press Censorship and the View from Above

Duke Nukem Forever: Probably the last outing for this iconic gaming franchise. RIP 2011.

For the past few days since the release of Duke Nukem Forever, the tweetosphere and blogosphere has literally been ablaze with postings from 2K Games/Redner Group/Gearbox Software and independent gaming media outlets; with both sides crying foul. In the process, what has been revealed of the dark underbelly of the gaming industry has given me pause to wonder exactly how much we can really trust the published reviews we use to make our purchasing decisions.

Caught in the Act: The post that started the whole ball rolling, courtesy of Ars Technica.

At issue are the poor media reviews for Duke Nukem Forever. DNF is certainly not the first game to ever get a poor review. This spot is also usually reserved for most movie tie-in games. However the level of vitriol leveled at Duke Nukem is rarely seen from the gaming press, more so that it has been unanimous across the board. In fact, the level of "venom," as The Redner Group puts it, was so great, they took the unusual step of publicly threatening to blacklist offending media outlets.

Admittedly, the level of hate for this game was pretty high. Just going by current Metacritic scores for DNF doesn't give the full picture of the reaction by gaming media. You'd have to read a few reviews to fully appreciate this. I'll get to the whys in a bit, but if I were to sum it up, I would say that everyone probably really wanted DNF to be good. While I believe expectations were kept realistically in check, everyone was pulling for the Duke and hoped he'd come through in classic underdog style. Unfortunately, DNF did surprise everyone and turned out far worse than anyone could have imagined.

To the dismay of the Duke Nukem fanbase, the classic mechanics of exploration and item collection along with rapidfire acton featured in past games were gone. Also, the humor in past Duke Nukem games were juvenile and irreverent, but never bigoted or offensive. Unfortunately, Duke Nukem Forever became an on-the-rails, corridor shooter  sandwiched between tasteless, in-game cinematic sequences. The game was dumbed down and the humor reached for the lowest common denominator. Many frankly found the game to be offensive and politically incorrect in all the wrong ways. This critical miscalculation on the part of Gearbox in terms of the tone of the game and the lowbrow humor was the final nail in the coffin.

A decade ago, these same reviewers might possibly have just laughed all of this off. But now among the target demographic, most are pushing their 40s, married with kids and are more politically correct. It's often said, "Timing is everything," and Duke Nukem Forever missed that boat 10 years ago. The lesson to be learned from this is that people's memories are sacred. Duke Nukem Forever is nothing like the classic games from the beloved franchise. Instead of reminding everyone again why they loved Duke Nukem, DNF instead reminded them of everything that the game was not.

Keep in mind DNF was a game that spent most of its 13 year development cycle in intensive care. Over the years, it got ported through several engines and eventually burned through nearly a half-dozen development teams in the process. The game was scrapped and restarted so many times the design document - if it exists - probably looked like Humpty Dumpty on a bad egg day. On the face of it, chances were pretty good the game had already lost its way long ago, certainly well before 2K Games and Gearbox got involved.

2K Games and Gearbox were probably not well prepared for the reception that DNF got. Granted, a lot of money got burned up in the development and marketing for this game but that sort of risk goes hand in hand with the potential rewards of a runaway hit for any game. Instead of taking the criticisms to heart and maybe learning something about themselves and their gaming audience, 2K Games and The Redner Group went on the offensive to defend the undefendable. In so doing, they very publicly threatened the use of blacklists against reviewers and review sites for future titles.

Publishers have historically taken a carrot and stick approach to gaming media. They reward journalists by using money to pay for them to travel, stay in nice hotels and get some nice meals as part of the process of reviewing games. Publishers also provide lots of nice free gifts. On the flip side of the coin, they use blacklists to let journalists know when they aren't happy with a review. This stuff goes on all the time, but nobody talks about it publicly. Let's just call this what it is - it is bribery and censorship plain and simple.

I'd like to think that most journalists and gaming sites have the integrity not to be swayed by these machinations.  But just as there are always those that value integrity above all else, there are also those that value the perks associated with being in the good graces of the publishers. As consumers, we have to make sure that the sites we follow are really on the up and up. Metacritic (www.metacritic.com) is a great aggregator of review information and is a good measuring stick to help us in that regard.

As gamers, we spend good money to indulge in our favorite pastime. We want to know what games are good and worth buying; and we need reliable and impartial reviews to make our purchasing decisions. Conversely, developers and publishers that make good games deserve to make money from their efforts, and those that create crap should face the consequences when consumers vote with their wallets.

Publishers and the media alike should think long and hard about the long term ramifications of the carrot and stick approach to business as usual.  Honest and impartial media helps everyone and will help the industry grow. It is the mechanism by which the wheat is separated from the chaff and helps to inspire consumer confidence. And in the long term, it will create a more healthy and vibrant gaming industry. That's a win-win in my book.

Sorry, Wii only allows U one controller

Recently, it seems the more that gets revealed about the Wii U, the less appealing it looks to me as a hardcore gamer. First, despite Nintendo's claims that this is a fully realized next-gen HD console, we see that the Wii U seems to lack an internal harddisk. Of course, the next ringer is that Nintendo says the Wii U won't play Blu-ray or DVD discs, because they don't feel the need to pay for the licenses required to do so - http://engt.co/jhOX3h; and since the Wii U doesn't play back media files, you didn't really need that harddisk anyway. How convenient.

Now, we get further information that the Wii U will only support one Wii U controller - http://bit.ly/iRhLbF. Hello. According to Nintendo CEO Iwata, while it is technically feasible to support multiple Wii U controllers, cost is the main issue. Of course, cost seems to be the main issue with everything related to Nintendo's decisions lately. I find this a bit disingenuous to say the least, because Nintendo is also the only console player to make big profits on their hardware. So who is all this cost cutting for... the consumers or Nintendo's bottom line?

Now this probably wouldn't have raised my hackles if Nintendo's online gaming capabilities were more in line with what Microsoft or Sony provide. But I sometimes have problems remembering friends' phone numbers, much less their friend codes. For better or worse, the Wii was a social gaming machine that you played together with people in the same room. Due as much for the lack of online multiplayer as for the casual party games that made up a large percentage of its content.

Now it is true that the Wii U will also work with Wii-motes. But that means most social gaming on the Wii U will be done from the standpoint of dissimilar competition. One person will have the Wii U controller, and their goals will be different from everyone else who is playing against him or her with Wii-motes. As casual party games go, this is ok. But do you see a problem with this picture?

Ostensibly, the Wii U is aimed at a more hardcore market and shooters are standard fare. How do you play split screen co-op or multiplayer with dissimilar controls? The answer is, you don't. And in the case of shooters, you really need two analog sticks which Wii-motes most certainly lack. So unless Nintendo allows more than one Wii U controller to be connected or gives the Wii U a total networking overhaul, you're not going to be playing co-op multiplayer with any of your friends, either together in the same room or online. What a friggin' mess!

Maybe it's because Nintendo has spent too much time making casual party games and not enough time with real hardcore, multiplayer titles; but I get the distinct feeling that none of this has been particularly well thought out. And all the stuff that's been coming out of Mr. Iwata's mouth lately is doing nothing to convince the hardcore gaming audience of the Wii U's credibility to go up against Microsoft's Xbox or Sony's PS3 anytime soon.

New Xbox due in 2012?

Stories are hitting the web today commenting on the possibility of the Xbox 720 coming out by next year's E3. John Carmack of iD fame, talks about next-gen consoles having 10x the compute power of current generation Xbox 360s and PS3s http://bit.ly/lAJJvb. The original news was broken by Website Videogamers.com when Crytek revealed that the CryEngine 3 was being used on TimeSplitters 4 and that the engine would also debut on the Xbox 720 during E3 2012. Crytek knows a thing or two about this new console as they are already working with a Microsoft development platform http://bit.ly/katn50.

If Microsoft really follows through, this could just be the single worst thing that could happen to both Sony and Nintendo. Sony's next console, the PS4, is nowhere to be seen as they continue to talk about their 10 year PS3 life-cycle. Nintendo looks to be ready to launch their Wii U during the next E3 show, but with Microsoft eclipsing them in the hardcore gamer segment, it's already old news before it comes out.

If what Carmack says about the processing power of next-gen consoles holds true, the Wii U is already looking like dated technology before it's even released. Given the vastly different requirements to develop for the next generation of consoles, both Sony and Nintendo could be in trouble as Microsoft takes an early lead with the hearts and minds of gamers and developers alike.

NGP morphs into PS Vita at E3

Sony's E3 conference gave birth to the new branding for NGP. It's now called the PS Vita. I can't help but think that Sony must be using the same guys Nintendo used to name the Wii U. In fact, I get visions of Dragonball dancing in my head as I just finished watching the original Dragonball anime and am now about 20 episodes into Dragonball Z. Kakarrot! Raditz! Vegeta! Vita! 

Stupid name aside, the new Playstation Portable (I refuse to call it Vita) looks to be a very capable piece of hardware. It features dual analog controls which allows for shooters to finally get the proper control scheme on a portable platform. Also included were dual touchscreens one each on the front and rear of the device with Sony showing off unique ways to interact with them. Also announced were WIFI and WIFI + 3G variants as this device will be more firmly tied to Sony's Online portal (for better or worse). UMDs will not be supported and the only way to get content would by purchasing them from the Playstation Store.

However, what Sony really stressed were the next-gen graphics capabilities and the very capable OLED screen used as the primary display. Sony claims their new portable will offer PS3-like graphics in a portable device... claims which aren't too far from the truth. A demo of Uncharted for the new portable wowed the E3 audience. However, given the obvious technical wizardy packed into the new handheld, I have to wonder what the battery life will be like. If Sony can manage 6-7 hours or more like on the current PSP's that would be great, but if it slides into 3DS territory, then you lose much of the advantage of a portable system.

It was clear Sony came out swinging for the fences. Their only real competition in the portable space has been Nintendo's wildly successful DS series of handhelds. Pricing for the WIFI unit was announced to be USD 249 while the WIFI + 3G unit would be priced higher at USD 299. This is on par with the 3DS, which would give Sony a much needed leg up in it's battle to gain market share against Nintendo.

However, neither pricing nor the technical capabilities have been the key drivers for the success or lack thereof of the PSP platform. The original PSPs had always been more powerful than Nintendo's DS series. It's always been the games that mattered. There was a distinct lack of compelling titles for the PSP, most titles being ports from the PS and PS2 throughout most of it's lifecycle. Original and unique titles were few and far between with most of the best RPG experiences being Japanese only affairs which didn't find release in the US.

The PSP suffered from a lack of identity. Sony used the platform to create PS2 like experiences on a portable device, instead of creating unique experiences for the device playing to it's strengths as a portable. So the messaging that the new portable will offer PS3 like power in a portable format has me wondering. Has Sony learned from past history or are they doomed to repeat it? Some of the demos shown at the Sony press conference and in their E3 booth are a step in the right direction. Let's hope that Sony has finally learned that it's all about the games!

The Wii for the rest of us.. Wheeeee!

Unless you've been living under a rock, then you've probably heard about Nintendo's Wii U announcement during the second day of the E3 show. In case you have been in dire need of sunlight, here's the snip of the Wii U announcement video from Nintendo's press conference http://www.g4tv.com/videos/53459/Wii-U-Announcement-Video-from-Nintendo-Press-Conference-E3-2011/.

The question of whether this would be the triumphant return for Nintendo to the hardcore gaming market segment was answered in parts by the independent testimonials from developers and publishers as well as the followup video montage showing current titles in development. The next generation Wii U certainly has the graphics chops to go head-to-head with the current HD heavyweights from Microsoft and Sony. But that by itself wouldn't be enough to set it apart from the competition.

In line with Nintendo's continued push to expand the gaming accessory envelope, they also debuted the much talked about new controller with built in display/touchscreen functionality. This new controller can be used in conjuction with your main display or in some usage cases, in place of the main display through wireless video streaming. It also offers new ways to interact with the Wii U in conjunction with the Wii-Mote - and we've all got a boatload of those. In particular, the new contoller brings DS-like dual screen funtionality for your large display.

As developers seem keen to support this new console, the inclusion of a BluRay player might be enough to allow the Wii U to displace the PS3 as the all purpose gaming and A/V console of choice for watching movies. Full third party support on the software side will negate much of the advantage that both Microsoft and Sony currently have over Nintendo for the hardcore gaming market.

The only nitpick I have with the new console is its name. Wii U seems to be even sillier than the initial Wii announcement from a few years back. If Nintendo wanted to convey inclusiveness for all gamers, especially the hardcore, why not call it the Wii-All? That would have automatically gotten most of the southern states in the US behind Nintendo 100%. Or for the more tech-saavy why not the Universal Wii, or U-Wii for short? This would also be popular with people who can't make up their mind what direction they're going. Alternatively, you could pronounce that "Ooohwee" as in WOW! Certainly, these names are much more catchy and display a bit of humor that would work great from a marketing standpoint.

Oh well, I guess you just can't win them all.