This 1up.com review of Rock the 80’s reminded me of our discussion about men vs. women when it comes to loving Guitar Hero. The piece opens:

“Think back to when this whole Guitar Hero craze kicked off — that moment when, standing there in front of the TV, plastic guitar in hand, it hit you: This must be what it feels like to rock out. And suddenly, you transformed. Your jaw set, you took an aggressive stance with the guitar neck pointed right at the screen, and your head started bobbing back and forth to the beat.”

Maybe it’s just me and my own failed history as a guitarist (no big story, I just suck), but I’ve never felt this way when I played Guitar Hero. I liked the instant gratification of doing things well, and the connection between the screen and my body. Again, maybe it’s a gender thing, but I can’t help but asking, when you play Dance Dance Revolution, is it fun because you assume this is what it’s like to dance? Because hopefully, no one in their right mind dances like that…

So Boogie is apparently not only boring, it’s also practice for jerking (someone) off. That, of course, makes me giggle. At the same time, it makes me wonder whether sex game developers shouldn’t be looking toward the Wii as a medium for titles that allow you to act out sex acts. Of course, they’d never be allowed to release an official game for the system; even getting the development kit would probably be super hard and/or expensive. But watching players wacking away at their Wii mote, I can’t help but envision some sort of sex worker sim, or maybe The Opening of Misty Beethoven, the Game. Get men to come faster than your friends and win!

I was talking with a friend recently who not-so-lovingly described furries as “those freaks dressed up like the Philly Phanatic.” He also sent me a link to this photo, which probably pretty accurately sums up what a lot of people think goes on at furry conventions. (Then again, I’ve never been to a furry convention myself, so what do I know? Boy oh boy would I love to do to a feature on that…)

His analogy did get me thinking about the Philly Phanatic, though. As a Philadelphia native, I’ve grown up seeing his unnatural color, his strange fuzzy paunch, his round, fluffy, beak-like orifice–and I’d never thought anything of it. Then I realized he reminded me of another confusing character: Birdo. Am I making this up, or is this some sort of weird, bird-like conspiracy? It must be. And while we’re on the topic, can he catch baseballs in that “mouth”?

A friend sent me this Wall Street Journal article about a Second Life user who, much to the chagrin of his real-life wife, is married to another woman in-world. It seems Ric “Dutch” Hoogestraat has not only diabetes and some Mormon-style spouse balancing to do, but also a Second Life addiction. He started playing in January, and is now on for what seems to be more than 12 hours a day. Granted, he’s got in-world businesses in addition to his in-world wife. Still, his real-world wife says she feels totally neglected. (This all reminds me eerily of my surfer experience. “Oh no, my wife totally doesn’t mind…” Yeah, sure.)

Whether you think cybersex and cyber relationships are cheating or not, it’s clear that something is off here. For me, the biggest thing is the article itself. Part-way through it makes the claim, “A typical ‘gamer’ spends 20 to 40 hours a week in a virtual world.” I don’t know how they decide what counts as a “typical gamer,” but that number seems ridiculously high. Also, why can’t the mainstream media understand the difference between people with issues and the rest of us users? Still, the fast turn-around in Second Life does make me wonder what percentage are “full-time” players. It seems to be the kind of space where being a casual user is hard. But has it really come down to being obsessed or absent?

Maybe (probably) I’m taking this too far, but I’ve always wondered what theories we could come up with if we tried to analyze the Russian-ness of Tetris. Granted, this isn’t the first time I’ve tugged Tetris in a direction it was probably never meant to go. Still, there must be some just-for-fun connections we could draw between the gameplay and the culture and political climate from which it originated.

The best I can think of is the whole Soviet Block thing. The metaphor gets confusing though. You have to fit smaller blocks together to make one big row (i.e. joining smaller countries to form one big U.S.S.R.). That’s the only way to win, so it would seem to be a pro-Soviet message. Then again, once you form the rows, the blocks disappear, so maybe it’s actually some sort of prediction/visualization of the eventual fall of the U.S.S.R. I warned you, I’m taking things too far. Any better theories?

In case you missed it, be sure to catch the YouTube footage of game designer Ian Bogost on this Tuesday’s Colbert Report. Colbert, with his faux-Republican act, can be a tough host when it comes to letting guests speak their piece, however progressive. Bogost, however, does a more than admirable job of explaining the potential power of games with a smile on his face. His descriptions of how games can put us in other people’s shoes are approachable, but not dumbed down for a mass media audience. He comes off as smart, patient, and right. It’s enough to make this gamer proud. Good job, Ian Bogost, wherever you are…

P.S. Excellent image courtesy of Scott. Thanks!