So what?

Modern Western society (defined in this context as being North America, the UK, and likely Australia and New Zealand as well) has become obsessed with the idea of inclusivity, or the quality or state of being inclusive.  Thousands upon thousands of people get spun about the idea of anyone being excluded from anything, and so take it upon themselves to march against exclusion in modern society.

Beyond the obvious issue that we’re going to such lengths to protect and shelter our children that we’re building an entire generation with no emotional resiliency or ability to overcome any kind of adversity, all I want to do is ask these people who crusade against exclusivity, “Why do you care?”

Apparently, the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch is a Grade-A douche.  To anyone who has been anywhere near an A&F store, this can’t be much of a surprise.  However, it’s pissing people off left and right that A&F doesn’t make women’s clothes in large sizes, and that it’s part of their corporate strategy to hire exclusively young, sexually attractive men and women (Source).  Again, why do you care?

I personally hate A&F.  When I was at prep school and those hideous A&F cargo pants and plaid shirts were all the rage, I actively swore never to place either on my body.  Guess what?  I didn’t.  And I agree that hiring a young woman born without an half an arm and then forcing to work exclusively in the back where she wouldn’t be seen is truly heinous.

But is moral indignation really the answer?  I mean, personally, I find it hilarious and somewhat fitting that “a leaked company email revealed that employees at the chain’s Milan store were made to perform military-style exercises, such as push-ups and squats, in order to maintain their toned physiques.”   Ultimately, I choose not to shop there.  And if you have a problem with their corporate ideology or marketing practices, well, you can choose to do the same.  And eventually, if enough consumers do the same, the company will be forced to either change its practices, or it will go out of business.  It’s rather simple.

Instead, people get on soap boxes about how A&F “should” make clothes for all shapes and sizes.  Why can’t a company serve a niche demographic?  Why must they build something for everyone?  It’s entirely their right to only make clothes for a certain demographic.  All of Under Armour’s male models an muscular, powerful athletes with low body fat percentages.  Does that mean UA needs to develop a line for chunky, hefty men also?  So why do you care that A&F features skinny, pretty people in their stores and designs their clothes for said people?  Attempting to force them to include everyone just makes you look insecure and childish.  They’re actually doing their competitors a favor and leaving large percentages of the consumer market untapped.  Why not start up the company that fills that big hole and steal sales from them?  Fashion is notoriously fucked up and vain, so why are so many people horrified and offended when the truth is revealed?  There are thousands of companies, brands, and labels out there on the market.  Stop pulling your hair out over this one and just shop somewhere else.

Greg Plitt is one of the most prominent male fitness models on the planet.  Should I complain that he’s sets “unrealistic” standards for young men, that his physique makes me feel less adequate and manly, and therefore advertising companies shouldn’t use him?

Greg Plitt Ball Toss

Similarly, what about Melanie Iglesias?  Should she be banned from modeling because she features an “unrealistic” physique likely out of reach to most women?

Melanie Iglesias

I would argue, “No,” in both cases.  The greater issue is insecurity and emotion.  No one likes feeling “left out.”  They get upset when they’re told they don’t fit in to certain demographics.  They feel shame when they’re told they’re too fat, too skinny, or not perfect.  Well, grow the fuck up.  It is not the job of any model, company, government, or person to make you feel better about yourself.  If you’re insecure about the way you look, do something about it.  And instead of trying to fit in to certain cliques or groups, go find the ones that suit you.  Part of life is coming to grips with the fact that you’re imperfect, that life is unfair, and that there will be people stronger, faster, better looking, and better paid than you.  You have two options.  The first, you can act like a sore loser and whine about it.  The second, you can strive to accomplish all you can with what you’ve got, and blaze your own trail, or find like-minded individuals and stop worrying about the rest of it.

All through high school, I felt I didn’t fit in because I listened to house and trance, and all the other American kids listened to Top 40 and hip-hop.  Did I force myself to start listening to their shit, or whine that school dances didn’t play any electronic music and were therefore discriminatory?  Hell no.  I went and hung out with an international crew that included a Mexican, a Jordanian, a couple Turks, a cute Spanish girl, and some a German.  Why?  Because we all dug BT and Sasha and Massive Attack and Nick Warren.  In the end, it worked out OK.

All of this boils down to an unwillingness to address problems head on, to accept responsibility for your decisions and actions.  Blaming the media, the fashion industry, or whatever you feel like blaming doesn’t change that fact that deep down you’re unhappy with yourself.  Your lack of self-confidence and self-worth is the problem, not A&F.  You feel as though you’re doing good by crusading against said industries, when in fact it’s all just a selfish effort to hide from a personal pain.  Want to do good?  Make the changes that will make you happy with yourself.  Be a strong role model for your kids and peers by being the kind of person you want to be around.  Stop trying to shelter, limit, force, and protect yourself or others from the harshness of life.  Instead of trying to be a dam, blocking everything, be a rock within the fast current, smooth and hard, and let the rest of it go, let it flow over and around you.

It’s better that way.

Buckle up

Buckle up, bitches. It’s been a while since I ranted on here.  I have a lot on my mind, and I’m going to try and unleash the majority of it.  With regards to topics, there should be something for everyone.  If you’re one of those people easily offended by just about anything, consider yourself warned.

Fat Shaming: Seriously?  This is a thing?  And we as a society are considering it bad?  Well, apparently.  Some overweight feminist Twitter fiend got butt-hurt over this sign, complained to the management, and got it removed.  Why?  Because it stated a nutritional fact that oatmeal contains fewer calories than a bagel.  Honestly, this stuff makes me livid.  “The last thing we want while walking down the street is to be shamed for our breakfast choices.”  THEN START MAKING BETTER FUCKING CHOICES.  Problem solved. Take some responsibility for your decisions and actions, like a grown human being, and use said process to make better ones in the future.  Eat oatmeal for breakfast.  Or don’t eat breakfast at all (I haven’t in two years).  I swear, however, if you want to complain about being made to feel “guilty” after you stuff a bagel and cream cheese down your throat, keep that shit to yourself.  It all boils down to this: Having excess body fat is neither natural nor healthy, and these weak-willed apologists need to stop trying to force fat acceptance.  I will not accept the additional healthcare burden, the additional fees on my airline flights (since more weight equals more fuel used), and frankly, I am tired of walking around the streets of any major city and seeing the majority of the population overweight.  At age 22, I was 245 pounds at a height of 5′ 11″ and around 30 percent body fat.  At age 28, I am 185 pounds and between 13-14 percent body fat.  I educated myself, started making better choices, and never looked back or felt fucking sorry for myself when I couldn’t have a bagel or slice of pizza six days out of the week.  Grow the fuck up, people.  The information is out there and the cost is low (a gym membership and a book or two).  You have no one to blame anymore but yourself.

Women Have Curves: Since we’re on the subject of fat, let’s talk really quick about the female body.  Females naturally carry a higher body fat percentage than men (scientific fact).  Thus, females have naturally more shapely, curved bodies (also fact).  This, however, does not give you excuse to walk around with your cellulite and abdominal fat spilling over and call it your “curves.”  Am I saying women should walk around like emaciated Holocaust survivors, as most runway models do?  No, not in the slightest.  I look at Victoria’s Secret models and the first thing that pops into my head is, “Chick needs to squat more and gain about ten pounds of muscle.”  Like Christine, who I am not ashamed to admit squats more than I do (for the moment…) and looks even better doing it (that’s probably permanent).  Every female that approaches me and asks me about weightlifting or losing weight gets a link to Christine’s blog and Facebook page.  Why?  Because she fucking rocks and is an outstanding role model for just about every single woman on the planet.  She trains like a champ, isn’t afraid lift heavy, and applies common sense to her nutrition and diet.  In other words, she doesn’t starve herself, whine about being hungry, gorge herself, and then whine about feeling guilty about it.  She is strong, feminine in the best sense of the word, and curvy.  Be more like her, less like pretty much any girl you read about in gossip magazines.

Christine squatting like a boss

Christine squatting like a boss

And proves you don't have to be waif-thin to be a woman, or bulk if you lift weights

And proves you don’t have to be waif-thin to be a woman, or bulky if you lift weights

Cleanses and Metabolic Damage: There seems to be a lot of talk about this on the YouTubez recently, and rightfully so.  If you look at some of my ranting and raving above and take it out of context, it would seem like I might endorse extreme diets.  This, however, is the farthest thing from true.  Calories are important, but they’re only half of the equation.  The other half is the quality of the food you’re taking in.  1,200 calories of chicken and broccoli is not the same as 1,200 calories of pasta alfredo.  Or 1,200 of Cheetos.  I cannot think of a single situation that I would think it was permissible for a person, male or female, to drop below 1,200 calories a day.  Not only is it not needed, but leads to long term damage to your body’s metabolism.  I should note that this is NOT the same as intermittent fasting.  Intermittent fasting calls for controlled periods of caloric restriction followed by windows of healthy eating.  Choosing to not eat for 14-20 hours then eating packing in a full load of nutritional calories, is a completely different beast to trying to get by on 800 calories a day.  I personally have had tremendous success with IF techniques, particularly Martin Berkhan’s LeanGains program.  I used LGIF to go from 215 down to 195 while downrange in Afghanistan while simultaneously posting some of my best strength numbers.  In short, if it’s a short term “diet” and you heard about it from Dr Oz or Dr Phil, it’s fucking horseshit and you shouldn’t be doing it.  Period.  If you’re still not sure what I’m talking about when I say “metabolic damage,” then please see the video below from Layne Norton who is a lot smarter and more qualified to rant and rave about that particular topic than I am.  NOTE: Layne Norton, interestingly enough, is not a fan of intermittent fasting.  Neither is John Kiefer.  Both have their reasons, backed by their own investigative research.  Similarly, Martin Berkhan strongly advocates IF, based on his own investigative research.  Does this mean a deathmatch of metabolic researchers?  No, it just means don’t get too wrapped around the axle and take everything with an open mind.  All three men are brilliant minds in the realm of nutrition and muscular development, and while they don’t always agree, they’re much to be learned from all of them.

Modern Women: I believe in equality, including equal standards.  Women should be allowed to have any job they are able to do to high standards.  Men and women should be paid the same salaries for the same jobs (they are in the US military, and rightfully so).  That’s about where my agreement with modern feminism ends.  I’ve just heard too much hypocritical bullshit.  Women that want to serve in Special Forces, but don’t want to have to meet the male physical fitness standards.  I’m sorry, doll, the M240B doesn’t give a fuck about your ideology.  It weighs 27.1 pounds (unloaded), and is bulky as shit.  Until you can carry that effectively, you have no place in combat arms or SF.  I would even go so far as to say 80 percent of American men also have no place there, but that’s another story.  Oh you want the right to serve in the infantry?  Terrific, then you won’t mind if women become eligible for the draft.  Then we return to the civilian world, where I see nothing but nonstop complaining about how there are no “good gentlemen” left in America to date or wed.  Newsflash: There are.  They just don’t want to date you.  Why?  Because most young women these days act like drunken frat boys, because feminism has told them, hey, it’s okay if you want to act like one of the boys (something about shattering double standards and what not).  More power to you.  But don’t go act like one of the boys and wonder why no one treats you like a lady.  You want a gentleman?  Try acting like a lady.  You want to misbehave with the boys and play games?  Great, but don’t get offended when I treat you like the hot mess that you are.  Do you want a career and equal pay to men?  Terrific!  Go get it.  And guess what, since you make as much as I do, you won’t mind splitting the check with me.  Equality and all.  Oh, you want me to pay?  Why?  Because I’m the man, and I should be a gentlemen?  I’d call that sexist.  You don’t get to pick and choose your rights and privileges.  If you want the same socio-economic power, you must accept the same socio-economic role, which means possibly becoming a provider.  If a lady has a BA from Stanford, a JD from Yale, and a salary of $150,000 a year and chooses to date, say, a male teacher making $40,000 a year, why should he pay for all of their dates?   There are plenty of good men out there.  Women are just refusing to acknowledge them because they don’t meet their ridiculous, hypocritical standards.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too.  If you want to shake up gender roles and “level the playing field,” don’t then be upset, offended, or indignant when we pass you the ball and ask you to run it the last ten yards.

The Biggest Loser: Man, fuck this show.  Seriously.  I watched a single episode only because I wanted to see the cameo appearance of Rich Froning, Jason Khalipa, and Camille Leblanc-Bazinet.  What I saw was almost an hour of sheer trash.  It was insulting on so many levels.  It was insulting to the contestants forced to run this rat race of shitty exercises and cardio while being fed idiotic dietary advice that is pretty much guaranteed to keep them fat.  Once you begin to understand anything about the human metabolism, you realize it’s not that hard to lose weight when you’ve got that much fat to lose.  These people were struggling to lose a pound a week when they should have been dropping weight like smart bombs during Desert Storm.  Why?  Because, again, they’re being fed garbage nutritional advice and forced to do nonstop cardio and other silly bullshit.  It’s insulting that so many fat Americans watch that shit, either to feel better about themselves (which they shouldn’t), or out of malicious enjoyment of watching the contestants suffer.  I hate obesity with a fiery passion, and accept no bullshit excuses, but even I don’t want to make people suffer or take pleasure in their suffering.  It’s truly the crossroads of everything that is wrong with reality television and America today.  Contestants who whine and complain about losing weight when given essentially a paid vacation and potential monetary prize in order to do so, and an entire populace that sits on their ass watching.

The Wolverine: Seriously, is it July yet?

T-Nation: Squat

I am a huge fan of CrossFit, and everything they’ve done to the fitness industry. But recently, I’ve been butting heads with CF coaches over squats. CF, as a general rule of thumb, tries force a “one style fits all” model, particularly with weightlifting movements. This annoys me, because while sound mechanics are important, we don’t all share the same physical dimensions, and that impacts our movements. I’ve got long, skinny legs, so naturally I take a slightly wider stance to maintain a strong position, and yet I get hammered for it by most CF coaches because it doesn’t fit into the singular mold of what they have been taught. I wanted to share this video because Thibs, while a bodybuilder, does a good job of pointing out that his squat isn’t necessarily going to look like the other guy’s (something Rippetoe touches on in Starting Strength as well). In short, find the width that feels natural and powerful for you while maintaining sound body mechanics (strong lumbar, weight in the heels, chest up, neck neutral).

Shit that has to stop

This post is a series of micro-rants regarding some major peeves of mine.

MANNERS: Recently, I’ve seen appalling displays of manners at restaurants and food joints.  Most shocking, the worst offenders are usually the elderly, especially if the server not Caucasian.  People, it’s not that hard.  You greet the server (“Good morning”/”Good afternoon”), wait until they’re ready, then order politely (“I’d like…, please.”).  Instead, I’ve physically seen old ladies completely fail to acknowledge the presence of their server, and just, “I want XYZ, no cheese, et cetera,” with no humility, respect, or even a “thank you.”  It honestly  makes me want to come across the room or table and choke slam you.  The service industry may serve, but the people that work in it are still people, and believe me, they have just as many issues and problems to deal with as you do.  So start treating your servers like they’re human beings, perhaps, and show some damn civility.

VEGANS: I don’t have a problem with vegans.  One of my closest friends is a staunch vegan.  I do have a problem with their sometimes idiotic logic.  Beans, rice and quinoa are carbohydrates, not proteins.  I don’t care if they contain a complete protein within them.  If you break them down based on their macro-nutrient distribution, they are fucking CARBS.  Eating one cup (cooked) of quinoa nets you a whopping 8-grams of protein.  To achieve the same level of protein as a single chicken breast, you’d have to eat three cups of quinoa, at which point your macros are now completely fucked because you just gorged yourself on carbs.  Yes, I am failing to take into account the rest of the meal, or even the day as a whole, but my point still stands.  I mean, a vanilla milkshake has protein (since it contains whole milk).  Does that make it a good source?  Fuck no.  Even worse, if you go check out this “resource” here, you can see that the author (PhD, RD!) argues that a vegan athlete weighing in at approximately 174-pounds requires only between 60-80-grams of protein per day.  Also, it is “easy for a vegan diet to meet recommendations for protein, as long as calorie intake is adequate. Strict protein combining is not necessary; it is more important to eat a varied diet throughout the day.”  So not only is he further propagating the idiocy that a balanced and varied diet is important (I’ll come back this in the next micro-rant), he’s basically saying that in order to hit your protein macros, just eat more, even if it completely fucks your carbohydrate macros and means you’re taking in 3,000-calories a day.  Sweet!  Again, I am not bashing veganism.  I choose not to do it, but I understand the animal abuse concerns, and respect the decision of those who choose a vegan lifestyle.  I don’t respect silly bullshit, however, and that is exactly what this is.  A vegan diet is inherently carb-heavy, protein-deficient.  As long as you acknowledge this up front and take steps to fix it, great.  What I dislike are people that try to pretend it’s not broken when the deficiencies are staring them in the face.  If you choose to be vegan, especially if you’re an athlete, watch your carb macros like a hawk, supplement your meals with protein smoothies made with vegan protein (yes, it does exist), and take vitamin B12.  Easy.

A BALANCED DIET: This is hardest battle to fight with my clients.  A lot of people have just been told for so long that they need an “even balance” of macro-nutrients that they just can’t wrap their mind around the idea that carb cycling might actually lead them to greater fat loss or performance.  Exchanges usually go something like this:

Them: Don’t I need more carbs?  Like whole grains and stuff?

Me: What do you do all day?

Them: Sit at a desk, pretty much.

Me: …No, you don’t need more carbs.

Them: :’(

Seriously.  People are so damned addicted to their carbohydrates that they seriously believe that they “need” them to function behind a desk.  It’s lunacy, and another reason why the western world is getting so friggin’ fat.  I’ll make this really simple: Carbohydrates should be adjusted and balanced to your total athletic workload, and not anything else.  If you do two hours of mixed martial arts every night after work, then, yeah, you’re gonna need some carbs.  Similarly, if you weight train like the Hulk, you’re gonna need some carbs.  If you drive from your desk to the elliptical machine and read Us Weekly or the Times while doing “cardio” then you don’t need carbs.  Kiefer wrote a good piece on this recently.

I can’t think of anything else that’s pissing me off at the moment.  So here is Mikko Salo being awesome, as usual.  Not going to lie, I am rooting for Mikko this year (and not just because he says some of the funniest shit in the most deadpan fashion).

Still alive.

A lot on my mind, a lot of things in motion right now.  Hope to have some answers in the next 60 days as to my future.  In the mean time, despite the fact that X-Men Origins: Wolverine was a complete and utter piece of shit, I am excited for The Wolverine.  I thoroughly enjoyed Mangold’s 3:10 To Yuma, and Jackman looks jacked.

Image

Microtransactions and the state of gaming

Cliff Bleszinski recently wrote an editorial pointing out what he viewed as hypocritical viewpoints within the gaming community.  It’s a good editorial, and certainly worth a read.  It’s also created quite a response within the community, as one would expect when a senior insider of the development world speaks out on a controversial subject.

I wanted to write some counter-points, however.  I should state before I begin that my position is purely rhetoric, purely speculative, and purely opinion.  I know nothing about coding, have never built or worked on a game engine or game, and have no experience in the industry beyond having played games since I was a little tyke with Doom shareware.  I should also state I don’t have a problem with Mr Bleszinski, so on the off chance that anyone actually reads this, don’t bother posting rude or vulgar comments about him because I’m after civil discussion.  I follow his Twitter, I thought he was extremely forthcoming and upfront about the Gear of War 2 multiplayer launch fiasco, and given his success in the industry, it’s probably safe to say he knows a thing or two.  All of that said, I think he makes some sweeping generalizations in his editorial, and if there’s one thing you know about nerds it’s that they dig into the details.  CB’s points are paraphrased and bolded, with my thoughts following.

Video gaming is a business.

No disagreement here.  It’s a massive business, and one I work to support.  I want everyone to make a profit because I want to keep playing great games.  I want developers to be employed full time, with good salaries and stable jobs.  That’s why I don’t pirate, but have always purchased games new.  That said, I am also not going to take being jerked around.  Electronic Arts is seen as shit because they treat their customers like shit.  End of story.  As Eurogamer pointed out, EA had a bit of a renaissance when they debuted some kick ass new IPs (Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Dead Space, Mirror’s Edge) a few years back.  Players loved the titles, and supported them as a result.  The problem is that mojo has disappeared, and we’ve been left shit titles like Dragon Age 2 (which was a fucking disaster), Medal of Honor: Warfighter (annual military shooter!) and microtransactions in Dead Space 3.  Amazon, Zappos, Bodybuilding.com, and many others are top dogs because they treat their consumers well.  They take care and go the extra mile to ensure customer satisfaction.  EA does not.  EA customer support is a horrendous joke (something I can attest to from personal experience), and we notice.  No one expects EA to coddle or wipe our behind for us, or to ignore their shareholders, but the fact that they view their consumer base as disposable and more along the “suckers born every minute” is palpable.  I don’t care if EA makes a bazillion dollars a year.  What I don’t want is for them to throw constant dollar signs in front of my face in the middle of my game experience, or treat me like I’m a number with a credit card in a sea full of morons.  Sadly, they do both.

Vote with your wallet.

I agree wholeheartedly with this point.  It’s why I didn’t buy Black Ops 2, or any DLC for Battlefield 3 on PC, yet did buy the “season pass” for Halo 4.  I don’t want to support the annual military shooter cycle any longer, as I think it’s ruining the industry, and I am confident I will be playing Halo 4 until Halo 5 hits on the next generation Xbox.  Easy and done.  But it’s getting harder because the industry is pushing harder and harder.

Valve is just EA with better PR.

I disagree here.  I don’t view Valve as altruistic or incapable of doing wrong (I’m not an idiot), but Valve also doesn’t shit on consumers like EA does.  When Valve added hats and skins to Team Fortress 2, they made it free-to-play.  Additionally, the color or size of your hat doesn’t have an immediate impact on your ability to play TF2.  In contrast, with Dead Space 3, the microtransactions are NOT simply cosmetic, and they come on top of the $60 triple-A starting price.  THAT is why people are pissed, as there is a difference, subtle though it may be.  I don’t give a damn if someone wants to spend $1 to get a sweet skin, or armor, or paint job.  I do care when they can pay money to unlock better weapons faster (a la Battlefield) while I am left to “grind” away in an online shooter (something I STILL hate Modern Warfare for ever introducing).  Again, in a free-to-play environment like Tribes or Blacklight: Retribution it’s annoying, but understandable and part of the model.  If EA wants to take all their games F2P, like Crytek says they are doing, that’s interesting and out there.  But to charge $60, then also feature a F2P upgrade model, is just insulting.  I don’t want the world for free, but if I spend $60+ on a game, I am not going to then find it acceptable to shell out more.

As for the PR, it’s again not necessarily PR but rather being upfront and respectful towards your consumer base.  When Sony’s network and credit card servers were compromised, they kept it hush for well over three weeks before admitting that their customers’ financial information was compromised.  Needless to say, their devoted consumer base was pretty pissed off when this came out into the light.  When the same happened to Valve, Steam users were notified within 24 hours.  It’s about owning up to the people that pay your bills.  Doing so makes them like you, and more likely to continue to pay.

“Every console game MUST have a steady stream of DLC because, otherwise, guess what? It becomes traded in, or it’s just rented. In the console space you need to do anything to make sure that that disc stays in the tray.”

A more interesting point.  Does this mean that Sony and Microsoft should, like EA is doing with Origin, adopt a Steam-like model with digital downloads?  Digital rentals like iTunes?  Bill Gates once commented that physical media was a temporary solution until download could catch up.  Perhaps he’s right.  Frankly, I’d rather see Xbox Live turn into a Steam than see some of the current trends continue.

As a counter, however, I would argue that games are rented and traded in because the overall value of a lot of them has diminished despite ballooning budgets.  According to GameLengths.com, the average play through time for Crysis was 11 hours 52 minutes.  Crysis 2?  8 hours, 41 minutes.  The general consensus with Crysis 3 is 4-6 hours.  That’s a joke, and the primary reason I won’t spend $60 on it.  I would have spent $100 on Skyrim, because I’ve already gotten over 40 hours of enjoyment out of it and it feels like I have barely scratched the surface.  According to GameLengths.com, Skyrim has an average “time to finish” of 182 hours.  Now, that’s not an entirely even comparison, as Skyrim lacks a multiplayer component.  Still, as Skyrim has illustrated, massive single player only games can be hits when done correctly.  Games should not rely on competitive multiplayer and DLC to stay relevant, or if they choose to do so, they should not charge a full fat triple-A price up front and include a shitty four-hour campaign on rails.

Think back to the previous generations.  Think about all of the hours of gameplay to be had out of Super Mario 64, or Crash Bandicoot, or the original Tomb Raider.  Think about the length and depth of the original Half-Life, the original Rainbow Six, or GoldenEye 64.  You cannot with a straight face say there hasn’t been a trend of increasing simplification, increasingly linearity, and decreasing length as games have pushed more into the mainstream.  Hell, the original Doom had more intricate and complex level design the most games today.  Are gamers really that much more stupid or ADHD now than they were before?  Or is the industry just focusing on the wrong things?

We are the minority.

He’s absolutely right about this.  And that’s what makes it hard.  I love id Software and John Carmack, but I ripped Rage right out of my Xbox 360 when I walked up to a sewer/cave entrance that was visibly right there in my game but demanded I buy DLC to enter.  It’s one thing to add DLC quests to your game, but don’t make it fucking obnoxious like that (or the vendor in Dragon Age: Origins).  It’s hard to make a philosophical stand, however, when your peers left and right throw millions of dollars of disposable income into the machine willingly.

Cost of development/marketing.

Metal Gear Solid didn’t need A-list Hollywood voice talent to have terrific voice acting and sell the story.  The voice of the Master Chief wasn’t Liam Neeson, but a radio disc jockey.  I love William Fichtner, but he really didn’t make Modern Warfare 3 that much more kick ass. Christopher Plummer didn’t make Skyrim that much more epic.  Mass Effect didn’t need a Hollywood screenwriter or A-list science fiction novelist to have an engaging story.

Where am I going with this?  A lot of the development and marketing costs in my opinion are self-inflicted.  Black Ops 2 has commercials that don’t feature a fucking bit of actual in-game footage, but instead a bunch of celebrities hamming it up.  I didn’t need to see Robert Downey, Jr in an F-35 to sell Call of Duty (though it was a clever gag).  It’s unnecessary and excessive, and it can easily go, along with all of its bloated costs.

You can’t get around the man-hours, the art needed, the programming, and so forth.  Higher resolution assets require more artists, more time, and more talent.  Creating huge worlds like Borderlands and Skyrim is massively time-consuming and expensive.  So much so that when Tim Sweeney of Epic’s main push with the Unreal 4 Engine is not the visuals themselves but the more efficient tools for helping developers (source).  Ultimately,if  some of that means that the price of games has to go up to $70 for triple-A titles, well, so be it.  But for fuck’s sake, if you are going to charge $60+ for a title, a shitty, linear, on rails campaign of 5-7 hours and a generic, COD-copy grinding competitive multiplayer will not fucking cut it.

Some costs are unavoidable, and we as the players will have to learn to understand that.  But some of them are just big publisher excess, and can easily be trimmed for millions in savings without fucking the consumer.

Regarding the saturation of the market, quality will ALWAYS trump the market.  Portal was huge, Day-Z sold copies of ARMA, Torchlight was a hit, and that’s just on PC (the “dying” platform).  Rocksteady’s Batman games kicked ass and took names not because they resembled any other known formula for success, but because they were superbly crafted experiences.  Is it hard to make your gritty, military shooter compete with Battlefield and Call of Duty?  Sure.  Maybe that means it’s time to stop trying to make so many goddamn gritty military shooters.

TL;DR

Cliff brings up a lot of good points, and understand the industry far better than I do.  However, I think he makes some sweeping generalizations, and fails to recognize that there are some startling trends in the industry that alarm the players, and there may be alternative business models that the industry and players would be willing to consider.

No amount of cost-cutting could save Ford or General Motors.  What saved them ultimately was a sharp increase in quality of design, reliability, and competitiveness of their automobiles.   I firmly believe the same thing applies to the video game industry.  Microtransactions, DLC, and so forth are all band-aids placed on a severe wound that is the focus on “franchises” and sequels versus just great gaming experiences.  Build great gaming experiences, and you won’t need a brand name above them.

Bungie’s new baby

Bungie has begun the reveal of their new project.  Originally thought to be code-named “Destiny” it now appears that the actual title is, well, “Destiny.”  Oops.  Since that “ViDoc” is utterly arrogant and pretentious and tells you absolutely nothing, here is Eurogamer’s only slightly less pretentious article.

When you start reading between the lines, things seem to get a bit more clear, and a bit more disappointing.  First and foremost, it sounds like a damn MMO.  I don’t care what they say about it “belonged to a genre we couldn’t quite pin down.”  That’s PR bullshit if ever I smelled it.  It’s an SF FPS MMO (science fiction first-person shooter massively multiplayer online, for you non-nerds).  Requires a constant internet connection like MMOs?  Check.  Big world that stays active even after a player leaves it?  Check.  Big hubs from which you venture out and slay shit?  Check.  Multiple “chapters” or quests to complete solo or with friends?  Check.  Co-op activity, like raids?  Check.  Loot and treasure to be shared and character classes to be upgraded?  Yup, it’s got that too.

In short, it sounds like a massively multiplayer Borderlands.  That’s not a bad thing.  I sank DAYS into the original Borderlands on Xbox 360, going even so far as I play with co-op with some random French dude who joined my game while I lived in Europe (Ironically, he was an outstanding teammate even though we couldn’t communicate worth a damn with each other).  Borderlands hit a fantastic nerve with it’s gameplay, and Bungie is wise to tap into that addictive style.

But then I read all the shit about ten year story cycle, and social platform integration and all that jazz.  And I’m just left going, “WTF, Bungie?”  I don’t need or want your game to integrate with smartphone, or my Facebook.  I want smooth Bungie move-and-shoot mechanics in a brand new science fiction sandbox with incredible vistas and new characters.  Basically, I want Skyrim meets Halo.  Ultimately, it’s a game.  It’s supposed to entertain me and let me kick ass, not change the way I look at friggin’ social dynamics.

I’ve been a fan of Bungie for a long time.  I played Marathon on the Macintosh back before I was old enough to even understand how good it was.  Halo: Combat Evolved sold me an Xbox, Halo 3 sold me Xbox Live, and Halo: Reach’s “Long Night of Solace” remains one of my favorite campaign experiences ever.  I have faith in Bungie that they’ll deliver a great game, no matter what.  I’m just not sure it’s the game I’ll want to play.

I want a Skyrim sized world, one I can get lost in for hours like Skyrim does for me, but with Halo-style action and science fiction vistas.  Like Mass Effect, if it hadn’t become so linear and focused on being cinematic.  There’s a lot of potential in that concept, and it’s one no one else has fully embraced.

I’m not sure it’s one you can do as an MMO or co-op though.  Part of what makes Skyrim so beautiful is the sense of immersion, the sense of isolation you as the player feel within that big world.  Having other people running about would pretty much kill that, as people would act like assholes and do stupid shit to try and be funny or break the game.  Co-op is fun, but it’s a complete immersion breaker, and always has been.  It should be an option, but I should also have the option to pursue my own path in the digital world free of racist twelve year-olds on Xbox Live.

I should be free from always-on DRM and forced constant internet connections too, but that’s a post for another day…

TL;DR

Bungie builds an MMO Borderlands, sans Gearbox’s insane humor, and makes me sad because I wanted Bungie to build a Halo/Skyrim hybrid.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.