New Study: Enjoyment Over Violence

A new study by the University of Rochester found that "violent content was largely unrelated to need satisfactions," the Wired blog reported. In other surprising news, the sun came up this morning and pie tastes good. (Ba-dumpSH!)

But seriously, folks. The study, abstract available here, found that gamers value "enjoyment, value, and desire for future play," more than violence, even, significantly, those gamers who self-identified as liking violence in their virtual worlds.

While I think the study just confirmed what many gamers know already, that gameplay, play control, and world immersion are all more important than violence, I'm not sure I think it was done well. It was based mostly on surveys, after all, although some experiments were done. And while I don't think violence is terribly important, it can be effective if done correctly.

At the same time, I don't think I'll ever tire of using VATS in Fallout 3 to blow off a super mutant's head with a shotgun.

Composer, Musician, Game Developer?

It was reported several days ago that Andrew Lloyd Webber is in talks with some game publishers to develop a singing game based on music from some of his plays. At first I was unsure of how someone so associated with making middle-aged women weep tears of joy would do in the testosterone-driven world of video games, but the more I think about it, the more the idea's growing on me.

I've actually enjoyed much of Webber's work, especially Phantom of the Opera. That one, in particular, has a hard-rocky late-80s feel to it that plain out rocks. The title song was even covered once by prog metallers Nightwish. That version, especially, wouldn't be out of place on something like Rock Band.

Ugly tactics by Mirosoft

Destructoid's Conrad Zimmerman on a major problem he has with Xbox Live.

He describes a situation where he hadn't logged into a Gamertag for some time before trying to upgrade the account to Gold. He wasn't able to, and was informed by Microsoft that if you don't log into Xbox Live for three months, you aren't able to add MS points or upgrade to Gold, ever again, with that Gamertag. The only solution is to make a new profile, essentially losing any and all DLC purchases you've made up to that point.

I essentially agree with him that this is terrible business practice. I love my 360 and I've rarely had problems with it or the Xbox Live service, but I had not heard about this until now, and it sucks. You can understand MS's wanting to clear inactive accounts off the servers, but that should only be after, like, a year of inactivity, and with plenty of warning. To do it after only three months, and with no warning, is awful.

I think this is one reason disc-based games will only die after much kicking, screaming, biting, crying, and weeping. Consumers will always be wary of paying for something intangible. And there's always the chance of things like this happening.

A major, related problem I have with the service is its seemingly random denial of products or services to Silver members. I thought that you only had to have a Gold account if you wanted to play games over Xbox Live. Since I'm not much into multiplayer, I only upgrade to Gold periodically. But then, with just my Silver membership, I found out I couldn't stream Netflix. And I couldn't download "Charlene I'm Right Behind You," by Stephen and the Colberts for Rock Band. And on and on and on...

Well, what else would you expect from the company responsible for Windows Vista?

Fallout 3? Patched.

Everyone's favorite post-apocalyptic RPG, Fallout 3, has been patched. The patch, or "title update," (gag) was released on Tuesday. This forum post explains what the patch fixes.

Go ahead and hit that link, because it seems like it fixes a lot of stuff that should have been in the original game, like "Items now work properly," and "NPCs now don't randomly die." I fear this could resurrect the debate we've been talking about since this generation started: Are patches a good thing or a bad thing?

On the one hand, the argument goes, they're bad because they encourage developers to be lazy when testing the final product for bugs. It just leaves the early adopters of games as free beta testers. On the other, games would have bugs whether or not patches existed, and we should just be glad bugs can be fixed.

I suppose it's a moot point; patches are here to stay. They've been around on PC games for years, so maybe I should go ask a PC gamer. Oh, wait, I forgot; no one plays games on PCs anymore.

More nonsense about violent games

Sigh. Here we go again. A House representative introduced a bill that would mandate warning labels on all games rated Teen or higher. As the Wired blog noted, it seems kind of dumb to put warning labels on something that already has a clear rating. However, at least this is a step up from Congress' previous attempts to simply ban violent games altogether.

What is it with Congress and warning labels? First it was cigarettes, then it was heavy metal music, and now it's video games. Do they seriously believe that, say, there are people who were going to smoke a pack of cigarettes, noticed the warning label, and then decided to quit and take up eating celery instead? I suppose I shouldn't have a problem with this; after all, how would a label on a game hurt me? It wouldn't, of course, but it is kind of frustrating to see Congress waste time with fluffery like this.

Guitar Hero: Metallica hits March 29?

Everyone's favorite video game retailer, GameStop, is listing Guitar Hero: Metallica's release date as March 29. We all know how reliable the dates on GameStop's website are, but I see no reason to disbelieve them now. March 29 is a Sunday, which is quickly turning out to be the day music games are released. (Guitar Hero: World Tour, Rock Band 2)

I'm looking forward to this game - with vocals and drums added, it should be much better than last year's disappointing Aerosmith edition. The Metallica songs on Rock Band are a blast to play, and I can't wait to see myself rendered as Lars Ulrich in video game form.

Game Review: AC/DC Live Rock Band Track Pack

Let's be clear. AC/DC Live: Rock Band Track Pack, recently released for Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation 2, is simply a normal batch of DLC for Rock Band, but released on a disc, because that is what AC/DC wants. The band doesn't like their songs to be released as singles, so this track pack is taken from their 1991 concert at Donington Park, in England.

When you look at it from that perspective, the price seems a little exorbitant. They're charging $40 for 18 songs. When you notice the usual Rock Band track price is $2, you realize you're paying a premium for this, especially since you have to pay for songs you probably won't like.

That being said, it's AC - freakin' -DC. The songs are a hell of a lot of fun to play. "Dirty Deeds," "You Shook Me All Night Long," "Highway to Hell," and "Hells Bells" are among the best. The drumming is lean, pounding, and visceral. The vocals are screamy and larynx-shredding. And, of course, the guitar riffs are monstrously huge.

But there are some problems. Malcolm Young's rhythm guitar parts can't be played, because Rock Band doesn't offer the option to play rhythm guitar. The second guitarist always plays bass. And, it will always feel weird to me to hear Brian Johnson sing "Highway to Hell," or "Dirty Deeds," because those songs weren't written for him. Being that this is a live show, the outros can be pretty long, sometimes a minute or more, which gets irritating. And finally, not all the songs are very much fun. "High Voltage," for instance, is particularly bad.

If you think this will be similar to last year's Guitar Hero: Aerosmith and render the band members in video game form, or anything like that, you are mistaken. Like I said before, this is simply some DLC released on a disc. And if you look at it like that, you won't be disappointed. 4 out 5 stars.