Define "Wasted Time"

Roger Ebert is in hot water with gamers for declaring that video games can never be art. On the surface, I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement. I've actually played games that I feel are more concerned with art than fun gameplay, such as Fable 2. Granted, I enjoy Fable 2, but the game definitely feels like it's more concerned with fulfilling Peter Molyneux's vision than ensuring fun times had by all. That alone gives it a snooty art gallery vibe.

The thing is, while I disagree with Ebert's statement by my definition of art, do I disagree with his statement by his definition art? Art is in the eye of the beholder, after all, and what his eyes behold as art may not be compatible with video games. Are we even arguing about the same thing if we aren't in agreement on the definition, and does the entirety of what we're arguing about wind up boiling down to that definition?

I hate to say it, but the infamous Bill Clinton line "define sex" has the right idea. People are capable of arguing for absurd periods of time without really understanding the other side of the argument because neither side clarifies what exactly they mean by a particular key term. My presence during debates has a tendency to shorten them because I make certain both sides are arguing about the same thing as it's strangely common that they're not and I find it insufferable.

So what is Roger Ebert's definition of art? No idea. Seriously, I stopped reading early on. I looked at the length of the article and the number of comments and reached these conclusions:

• Ebert's definition of art might not be compatible with video games.
  
  
• What he means by "video games" could be limited to the games as a whole while ignoring the individual components, such as the graphic design, writing, music composition, etc. He could also be referring to some other particular aspect of the games that keeps them from fitting his definition of art.
  
  
• Ebert simply hasn't seen the right video games needed to convince him.

None of the above are things I care about. If his opinionated view of what is and isn't art doesn't include video games, that's his right, and the amount of comments suggests a heated argument that boils down to semantics. The same applies to what is meant by "video games", and I would be surprised if there's actual clarification to be found either in the article or the comments. As for the last one, I have better things to worry about than whether Roger Ebert has played Fable 2.

I like Roger Ebert. I might not agree with him on many things and I avoid reading his reviews before seeing movies because I've found they're spoiler-tastic, but I like him as a person and respect his passion for movies. Nonetheless, I just don't care if he doesn't think video games are art. Our definitions differ, or he's an elderly gentleman who doesn't "get" video games, or both. It's ultimately not a big deal if we don't agree on this.

Fable 3: Most. Awkward. Game. EVER.

It's possible that Fable 3 won't be the most awkward game ever. Just because Peter Molyneux says you'll be able to do something in a game doesn't mean it's going to make it into the final product.

If what he's being saying lately pans out, however, you will be able to get it on with co-op partners.

Yikes.

Okay, this sounds cool and fun in theory. Friends can have a good laugh about it, couples can bring their romance in-game or use it as an unsatisfying substitute when one of them has had a long day, etc. It would also make Fable 3, as far as I am aware, unique among video games as a game where virtual sex with another player is actually part of the game and not simply something imagined via chat fields by people with a 30-day World Of Warcraft trial in the basement of Goldshire Inn.

Part of me wants to drop everything I'm doing and make an EGS:NP comic about it as the potential for jokes are astronomical, but another part of me is simply worried about this being included. I don't have any moral objections, but I know others will, and while the potential for in-game sexual harassment has always existed (I myself was harassed in Champions Online), the fact that virtual copulation could actually be possible in Fable 3 takes it to a whole new level.

Of course, Fable 3 will not be an MMORPG. If you're playing with someone, it's because you've allowed them to play with you. The game will no doubt be rated M, so in theory, everyone playing will be adults. Theory is a tricky thing, however, and I can guarantee there will be people below the age of consent playing this game. Does that become an issue? Wait, what am I saying? Of course it's an issue. It's one I haven't seen brought up, but it's definitely a huge frikkin'  issue.

What happens when an adult, knowingly or unknowingly, has a virtual affair with someone on their friends list who is underage? Is that a crime? Should it be a crime? Is the equivalent of "they were in a bar so I thought they were old enough" defense valid given the M rating?

What if someone asks for in-game gold beforehand? Is that prostitution? Can Microsoft points be gifted, and if so, can people effectively exchange real cash in exchange for in-game procreation? Granted, that seems like a horrible use of money given that the screen likely just goes to black with maybe a sound or two thrown in, but this is still one of those questions that will be asked by people other than geeky bloggers. Remember the turmoil over the Mass Effect sex scene? This entire concept makes that seem quaint.

I assume there's already an effective ruling on these issues given that, as with my Goldshire Inn example, one doesn't need the game's consent to engage in such activities. I suspect one could give a specific "place vs. person" court ruling answer to most of these questions. That said, would Fable 3 treating the virtual procreation as an authorized game mechanic make them liable when lines are crossed? Will it need its own terms of service independent of XBox Live to avoid such liability?

The number of potential issues that go so far as to bring up questions of legality make me wonder if this innovative idea is worth having and if the world is ready for it. The potential underage issue also leads me to wonder if this could backfire in another major way, that way being the ESRB slapping the game with an AO, or "Adults Only", rating. Given that most retailers refuse to carry AO games, such a thing would be financially devastating to the game and effectively require the removal of said content.

Having to remove content and test to make certain the game still functions properly is a costly proposition in and of itself, but avoidance of an AO rating is pretty much a necessity. If this mechanic is effectively a guaranteed AO slap to the face, someone needs to spare the programmers and play testers some grief and break the news to Molyneux.

In spite of all this, I do like the idea of being able to do more in video games, and I would be thrilled if this feature could be included without it being a big deal. I would probably never use the feature myself, but its presence and lack of opposition to its existing would be a sign of progress and tolerance. I just don't think that's going to be the case. I think I'm going to see things like "FOX News chastises Fable 3 Sex" and "parents call for ban of Fable 3" in my RSS feeds.

What do you think? Are my concerns valid? Should this feature be left on the cutting room floor?

BEWARE, I LIVE!

Thanks for the intro, Sinistar.

I've been posting less the past week, and it's primarily been due to three factors: having a cold, finishing my taxes, and prep-work / script editing of the next EGS storyline.

Frankly, though, it was mostly the taxes. They were actually easy to do, but I have this stupid anxiety when it comes to filling out government forms that makes it way more of a hassle than it has any right to be.

Something else I'm up to is submitting more stock images to Shutterstock. I have some images on there already (hence the watermarked Sheep), but it's the sort of thing where it doesn't really pay off unless one submits a lot of potentially useful images. As such, my goal is to submit an average of one image per day. I say average because it's probably best to submit several related image at a time to increase their potential usefulness to people.

That said, it might be worth keeping an eye on my Shutterstock gallery. The images have to be watermarked due to the nature of the site, but I'd like to think that doesn't keep them from being amusing.

I haven't been doing much in terms of the Princess Bride review. With a cold screwing up my voice and other tasks of higher priority, I might do a written review and make the video when it's convenient. It's not what I want to do, but it is the most sensible course of action. Besides, there are a ton of other movies I have to get to, and at this rate I shouldn't work under the assumption that I'm going to make videos for all of them.

Bowser Bait?

Click image for 960x480 version. 1920x960 version on DA (download for full size).

I couldn't resist doing a followup image as it would give me an excuse to draw Bowser, and I love how Bowser looks and have wanted to draw him for years. I'm not sure why I hadn't. Come to think of it, I've barely drawn any of the Mario characters in spite of wanting to. Why was I depriving myself?

As a kid, the idea of transforming into various things interested me (shocking, I know). Thanks to the media I was interested in, a bizarre amount of time was spent imagining myself as a turtle-like being. Seriously, between the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Koopalings, it's surprising that turtle-like beings are so underrepresented in my current drawings and comics.

I'd also say it's odd that I choose Charmander over Squirtle in Pokemon, but dragons win over turtles. That's why Koopas are so cool; they're BOTH. That, and the Koopalings had magic wands in Mario 3, and I think I was simply born thinking magic wands are cool.

Which isn't to say I approve of princess-napping. As a kid, I had this annoying tendency of liking a lot of bad guys and imagining them being friends with the good guys, which would often include the Koopalings (this is how bad fan fictions are born, people). My action figures got along much better than they should have, though there was always some bigger threat they had to work together to beat so at least I had some excuse. It wouldn't hold up now, but dude, I was in elementary school. Cut past me some slack.

Of course, I didn't have Mario toys. There weren't any action figures of them to buy, at least as far as I knew. After learning how to make home-made clay in school, however, I tried to make my own Koopa figures. I made an acceptable Larry Koopa figure, a less acceptable Ludwig, and Bowser... let's not talk about my attempt at making Bowser. It... it did not end well.

Speaking of which, they have Mario figures now. I own some myself, but the only Bowsers I've seen have been stuffed animals. Are his spikes that hazardous? I'll wear mittens, whatever, just let me buy Bowser!

...Okay, wow. I thought I was gonna post the image, maybe have a paragraph and be done, but I guess I'm a Mario Bros fanboy. Who knew. I'm going to go save me some princesses.