Review: Vanquish: How much awesomness can you fit in one game?

(If you wanna, subscribe to my Twitter page for instant updates for all this blog's reviews and posts:  http://twitter.com/NintendoSega54)

Vanquish is a game that reminded me how much I love Japanese games. If somebody walks into the room as you're playing Vanquish, the latest from Resident Evil creator Shinji Mikami, their first thought might be that the game looks a lot like a brighter Gears of War, and, both being cover shooters, they do share some similarities. However, whereas I couldn't stand Gears of War and quit after only the 2nd level, Vanquish is a game that grabbed me and pulled me into its craziness almost from the beginning, and kept me playing until I reached the end. Fun to play, challenging, and incredibly addictive, here's something that every action game junkie should have in their collection.

This is a game set in our world in the future, where robots have been developed as armed forces and are invading America. Russia is behind it, and the plot pretty much covers everything from futuristic combat suits to space colonies, to world-weary old marines and politics, not to mention smoking. Lots and lots of smoking. The plot here is deliberately over the top and quite convoluted, but it delivers some truly amazing cutscenes, some of which set the scene for great battles and enemy confrontations.

The real reason you play Vanquish, though, is for the gameplay, and this is the type of game that you need to play (and I'm not talking about the lame demo) to really understand. Once you get the hang of controlling Sam in his high-tech combat suit and discover which weapons work best for your style of play, Vanquish's controls feel like second nature, making the hours upon hours you'll spend gunning down these Russian robots incredibly fun and rewarding. Cover is there and it definitely plays a big role in battle; if you don't take cover at the right time, the enemies will wipe the floor with you. What I love so much about Vanquish, though, is that unlike Gears of War, it doesn't require you to constantly lug a slow-moving character from one cover wall to the next, and in fact gives you many incentives to hop out from behind your cover and take on the enemies directly. With the press of the left bumper, Sam is suddenly able to lie down and slide through the environments like he's on a motorcycle, definitely one of the cooler gameplay mechanics the 3rd person shooter has seen in some time. The feeling of zooming around enemies,dodging their bullets and powerful ray gun missiles, is pretty much second to none, and this becomes even cooler when in bullet time. In another cool feature, Sam's suit sends him into bullet time mode whenever his HP runs low, and as it regenerates, you have some time to either run for cover, or to absolutely wreak havoc on the enemies surrounding you in slow motion. Incorporate a slide into this and you have the recipe for absolute....erm.....badass-itude. I haven't even mentioned your melee attacks, yet another surprisingly satisfying gameplay addition that makes Vanquish feel not like "another 3rd person shooter" but like a game all its own.

The focus here is on its fast speed. Sam moves very quickly, and his ability to athletically hop over cover, the quick time in which the enemies' HP depletes, the short length you stay in each location before your squad moves on, and some of the seriously cool combat set pieces, make for an adrenaline-pumping experience that I found exciting in a way I've never found 3rd person shooters exciting before.  This game's all about the flash, it's all about the excess, it's all about the intensity and the action, but on the other hand, it's not a shallow game. Some of the massive boss fights and the more elaborate battle scenes you'll find yourself taking part in require a definite strategy, especially later in the game, and the weapons you pick up (you can carry 3 different ones at once, any of which you can swap out) are all varied and allow for a completely different combat experience. There are also robot mechs you can take control of and turrets you can hop into, both of which can do serious damage to surrounding enemies, though these have limited ammo so you can't make the game too easy for yourself. Vanquish does run on an ammo system but there always seems to be plenty of it around and you have other weapons you can switch to should you run out. You can also find weapon powerups throughout the levels to upgrade their ammo capacity and power.

It's all just really, *really* fun. I can't stress that enough. For much of the time, playing Vanquish is like getting to control the coolest action scenes in the most intense action movies. This is a non-stop thrill ride with a challenging (but reasonable) difficulty and tons of great action sequences, both playable and in cutscene form.

Even so, though, Vanquish isn't a perfect game, and one thing that holds it back is the story. I'm not sure why a game that looks as great as this does and that features cutscenes as cool and expensive as these were was given such bad dialogue. Almost every line, both during battle and during cutscenes, is so incredibly cheesy and campy that I actually felt embarrassed for the voice actors, (and this has some good ones too, like Final Fantasy 12's Gideon Emery and of course Steve Blum) who give bad performances as they struggle with an uneven script. It feels like it was Mikami's intent for Vanquish to replicate the feel of an "American Action Movie," with the problem being that "American Action Movies" haven't been this way since, like....the 80s. As a result, rather than feeling like the homage it was probably intended to feel like, the poor script and voice acting result in Vanquish feeling cheap and even a little dated. Which is too bad, because some cool stuff actually does begin to happen towards the end, but the under-developed characters and bad dialogue make it tough to take any of it seriously, let alone care much about these characters. The somewhat inconclusive ending might also rub a lot of gamers the wrong way.

On the gameplay side of things, Vanquish does move from being "challenging" to "frustrating" somewhere during the last hour or so, as some of the enemies you fight (the flying ones) can be unfairly difficult to see, and this, along with the game suddenly seeming to favor overloading the screen with enemies over real strategy and bosses who have moves that kill you in one hit, makes for a frustrating last hour or so. Thankfully, Platinum Games was more than generous with the checkpoints, so things never seem to be *too* frustrating, but there are definitely some moments towards the end that may send some controllers flying.

Verdict: Vanquish is actually the first effort from Platinum Games that I really enjoyed. I liked MadWorld but thought it ended just as it was getting good, and I couldn't stand Bayonetta, but Vanquish is something else. It's an intense, fun, challenging, nice-looking, and perfectly paced 3rd person shooter that just served to remind me why I still like Japanese games so much more than many of their Western counterparts. Vanquish isn't afraid to go over the top in the way that many Japanese games love to go over the top, and in an age when many games are taking themselves so seriously, it's refreshing to get to play one that's not afraid to push the boundaries of what's possible in a 3rd person shooter while completely destroying any sense of reality or believability. Still, one area I wish the game did take itself more seriously in is its storyline, as this is a world that's absolutely begging for a great story. Instead, Vanquish settles for action movie cliches, bad dialogue, and characters with very little in the way of personality. Don't go in expecting a well-written or acted story, and you'll probably love Vanquish.

Presentation: Top-notch cutscenes and high production value, coupled with enough style to fill two games, works to hide the groan-inducing dialogue, which does its best to cheapen the experience.

Graphics: Beautiful art direction, a vast cityscape, and so much happening on screen at once that it's almost unreal, Vanquish is without a doubt Platinum's best-looking game so far.

Gameplay: Delivers a fun and intense experience loaded with variety and style. Really pushes the envelope of what can be expected out of an action game. Words can't describe how fun this is to play, and the pacing is relentless.

Audio: Soundtrack's both subtle and epic at the same time, works well with the action. The voice actors do their best but still can't quite redeem the dialogue. Sound effects though are as crazy as the action.

Value: a "God Hard" mode is unlocked after beating the game, which I'm sure presents an EPIC challenge....can't even imagine. There are also some other challenge modes you unlock as you progress through the campaign.  Game could maybe have used a little more in the way of extra features with its somewhat short length, but the campaign's good enough to be worth it all on its own.

Overall: 8.5/10

Review: Red Steel 2. Surprisingly awesome game that Wii owners need to play.

(If you like reading the crap that I write, follow this blog on Twitter so you can see blog updates right when I post 'em!  :]  http://twitter.com/NintendoSega54)

--


Why is humanity here? What is the meaning of our existence? How do we solve the economic crisis? Why did Ubisoft name this game Red Steel 2?

There are some questions that we may never know the answer to, and given the beating the original Red Steel took in the media and from gamers, why Ubisoft chose to revive the name "Red Steel" for this game is one of those questions. I was actually somewhat of a fan of the original Red Steel, mostly because I found it to be so entertaining, often in very unintentional ways. Any game where you put away your pistol in the midst of a deadly gun battle to draw a sword to duel with a samurai Yakuza member....in downtown LA, is a game that has at least some value......c'mon. That said, it wasn't exactly a game I was looking forward to playing more of, but Red Steel 2 surprises in a number of ways: the original Red Steel was funny and fun to play, but I would never call it a good game. Red Steel 2 is not only a good game but a great one, one that improves on its predecessor in every way and delivers a truly unique experience that makes great use of the Motion Plus. It's unfortunate that Ubisoft chose to name this Red Steel 2, because it's a decision that may have scared away a lot of potential buyers who would have loved this game if they'd given it a shot.

Visuals: One area Red Steel 2 amazes is in its visual presentation, which is, simply put, beautiful. The Wii is not an HD system but I can hardly tell when I have this game running in 480p on a 32-inch HD television. The visuals use a cartoony, cel shaded style that actually reminds me a lot of the film A Scanner Darkly, and that's a huge compliment. The setting's a bizarre fusion of Japan, cyberpunk, and the old West, going from Asian-themed city locations to abandoned desert towns, moving trains, dojos, and all that good stuff. It's all so pretty, and this make-believe setting makes the fusion of swordplay and shooting much more believable than it was in the original game. The characters look great in an over-the-top, cartoony way, and the story's presented in a mixture of awesome FMV and in-game conversations that are infinitely more interesting than the original Red Steel's comic book exposition scenes. It's not flawless, however. There's loading each time you open a door, which can feel a bit excessive at times. The game's effort to disguise these load times (with door opening scenes that make the old Resident Evil games' door opening load times seem subtle in comparrison, and *that's* an achievement) almost makes things worse. Aside from that, there's one bizarre choice that the developers have made: when learning your moves, the motions are demonstrated to you by someone (live action-style) who looks like she came right out of a Wii Fit video. It's distracting (in a bad way) and really took me out of the experience. But these are small marks on an otherwise brilliant visual presentation that sidesteps the system's limits to deliver what I think is one of the prettier games (artistically) this gen.

Gameplay: Red Steel 2 places a lot of its eggs into one basket, with the combat system (particularly the sword-swinging) being the main focus behind this game, and the Wii Motion Plus proves to be more than up to the task. When using the gun, the aiming feels fluid and natural, and when engaging in sword play, there's a number of different moves at your disposal, the amount of which increases as you unlock more of them. For the most part, this really works, and we have an experience that just wouldn't be possible (or wouldn't be nearly as fun) on a regular controller. You use buttons to dodge and to slide up behind your enemies, and you use certain motions to designate the way your character swings the sword. Some enemies require wider, more powerful slashes to remove their armor, some require you to slash vertically, etc. Once the enemy is dazed, you can pull off a finisher to get more points. The large emphasis on points and combos is a pretty cool feature and adds some replay value to the game, and though I found myself wishing there were a bit more variety in the finishers, they're all cool-looking and get the job done.

As far as the shooting goes, with the press of a button you can switch to your gun, and though guns definitely play second fiddle to the swordplay this time around, they can still give you a leg up in certain combat situations and they're essential to opening a lot of the game's "treasure chests." Ammo is plentiful and there are several different guns you can use. There are other motion-based sequences that come up, like an awesome QTE sequence involving a moving car, there's safe-cracking, there are certain dials that you use the controller to turn, stuff like that. Some of these of course come off as being a bit gimmicky but that's the Wii for you. I can never seem to get tired of this stuff.

Red Steel 2 also has a great upgrade system. Whenever you get to a new area, you're told to pay a visit to the "hub" of sorts, where you receive mission briefs (a couple are required, a couple are optional side missions that net you some extra cash) and can upgrade your equipment, learn new moves, gain more HP, and increase the strength of your armor. There's actually a lot to buy and it'll keep you busy until close to the end of the game.

Though the regular enemies occasionally present a challenge, much of the difficulty comes from the boss fights, and though none are impossibly tough, there are a couple of them that actually required me to stand up and really put my effort into it. Surprisingly, I actually enjoyed it, and though I'm glad Red Steel 2 doesn't make you do this all the time, it was actually kind of fun to really "get into" the battles by having to stand up and really put my all into my sword slashes.

The minute-to-minute gameplay experience here is a blast. The combat's great, the character upgrade system works well, there are plenty of side missions available to take on, varied environments, and the story progresses pretty frequently. That said, there are a couple iffy design choices that I have to point out that didn't really occur to me as I was playing the game, but looking back, I can't help but wonder, "wait....wha??" First of all, the environments are all totally deserted. Aside from the enemies you fight and the characters you interact with in the hub stores/dojos, there is not a single person wandering through these environments. This makes sense in the middle of the desert but it's weird (and unexplained) that the cities you explore are all totally empty. If there's one thing that would have added some extra depth to Red Steel 2, it would have been NPC interaction.

Also, money. Everything in this game gets money. You shoot out anything in the environment, break any barrel, open any container, defeat any enemy, you get coins. For the most part, this works fine, as like I said, there's plenty to buy. However, barrels that you break open come back if the environment re-loads, and even item containers (this game's "treasure chests") sometimes refill themselves. The unfortunate result of this is that you get money so easily that unless you make it a point to avoid doing so, you can power your character and his weapons up to their max potential before the game ends, making Red Steel 2's final fights far too easy. The final boss especially comes off as anti-climactic.

So there are some strange design choices here, maybe due to the limits of the Wii hardware, but these are very minor in the grand scheme of things. There's still room for Red Steel 2 to grow into something even better, but for now, this is probably the best sequel I could have imagined for such a poorly-received launch game. Plain and simple, Red Steel 2 is fun, and it really demonstrates the type of action game that's possible on the Wii if developers really give it their all.

Sound: Tom Salta returns to provide yet another great musical score, this time delivering a subtle, and at times even haunting, soundtrack that provides the perfect backdrop to the game's setting. Great stuff. The sound effects are also excellent, and everything from the sword slashes to the sounds of the desolate wastelands, is done very well.

I wish I could say the same thing for the voice acting, but that brings me to...

Story: This is by far Red Steel 2's biggest weakness. No matter how great the world is, no matter how stylish the cutscenes are or how badass the main character is, this series just can't seem to tell a story to save its life. The writing's uninspired, with a plot and dialogue that feel like they were thrown together in an afternoon and submitted on a first draft. The voice actors all sound totally detatched and uninterested in the game's events, and there's really not much in the way of a strong villain. There were times when I thought that *maybe* the dialogue was purposely trying to be campy and over the top, but if it was, it doesn't take this nearly far enough. Ubisoft's told some great stories in many of their games, but this just isn't one of them. I wouldn't call this as bad as Red Steel 1's story and dialogue, and luckily this game doesn't take itself quite as seriously, but it's still a major weakness that needs to be addressed if this series continues.

Verdict: Red Steel 2, despite the name, is not a sequel to Red Steel, but an entirely new game that betters the original in every way and delivers a thoroughly entertaining action-driven experience with great motion controls, an awesome setting, immersive music and sound design, and a gorgeous visual style. What we have here is a game that's always fun to play and demonstrates so well what this system can do from a control perspective that it's definitely a must-buy for Wii owners, especially those who complain that there are no good games on the Wii. Here's one, so give it a shot!

Presentation: A great world with a lot to explore but with a radar that always keeps you on track. Plenty of sidequests to complete, and some stylish FMV cutscenes that blend in well with the in-game graphics. Story is awful, though.

Graphics: Gorgeous art style, varied environments, cool character design. Frequent load times are unfortunate but not a deal-breaker.

Gameplay: A fun, always-evolving combat system with great shooting, all made possible by the Motion Plus. A little too easy at times on the normal difficulty and could use more NPC interaction, but otherwise, no complaints.

Sound: Great music, great sound design, bad voice acting. Come on, Ubisoft, you can do better than this...

Replay Value: With some sidequesting, Red Steel took me around 10 hours, which is a lot longer than I thought it would be. Once done, you can replay the levels and try to get score-based medals. Not bad.
Overall: 8/10
(My reviews go on a .5 scale)

Blog Post: 2 games I missed that you shouldn't

Follow this blog: http://twitter.com/NintendoSega54

Well, we're into the dry spell of 2011. Typically the first few months of the year are slow ones for video games, a fact that seems to be especially true this year. Thankfully, 2010 was such a great year that there are still plenty of games I've got lying around that I need to play. Two of these games are what I'm blogging about right now, because they're both awesome games that may have been overlooked by a lot of people.

First up, Vanquish, (360/PS3) the latest from SEGA and Platinum Games, this one being directed by Shinji Mikami, the creator of Resident Evil. I'm not a person who usually gets into shooters, especially those in the 3rd person. But I have to say, Vanquish is one of the most fun and exciting action shooters I've experienced in a while. Rather than being slow and clunky like Gears of War, Vanquish gives you the ability to do powerslides, awesome melee attacks that involve your character jumping into the air, and it goes into bullet time whenever your health is low and it starts to regenerate. I'm just having a blast with this. The visuals and art direction are pretty amazing, at times reminding me a little bit of F-Zero, especially when set pieces take you onboard a moving platform and you have to shoot pursuing enemies. The bosses are epic in scope and quite a challenge but the game never gets too frustrating, and despite the terrible story, dialogue, and voice acting (which is about as cheesy as cheesy can get) the cutscenes are pretty epic.

It's a lot of fun and definitely worth playing. This one, like the other game I'll be talking about in this post, would have been one of my GOTY nominees if I'd gotten to play it in 2010. Vanquish is around $40 now so it's a definite buy.

Screenshots really don't do this next game justice. Red Steel 2 (Wii) is a beautiful-looking game, with a visual style that reminds me of the fantastic cult flick, A Scanner Darkly. The gameplay's awesome too, making great use of the Wii's Motion Plus attachment for sword-swinging and shooting accuracy that I haven't seen yet in a motion controlled game. There's a pretty big arsenal of combat moves you can use against the enemies you fight, and you continue to learn more and build your skills up as the game goes. Like Vanquish, the story's pretty dumb, but like Vanquish, the cutscenes are stylish and end up being a lot of fun to watch. Games like this are the reason you bought the Wii: they're the reason the Wii was created to begin with. So definitely give Red Steel 2 a shot. Game's on clearance now for only $20 (and that's bundled with the Motion Plus) so get it soon before it's discontinued!
(review coming soon.)

Annoucement: Opened up a Twitter account

Yeah, it's been slow. Not all that much going on right now, these are the slow months. In an effort to make it easier to tell when I've updated this when something actually does happen, though,  I've gone ahead and made a Twitter for this blog.

http://twitter.com/NintendoSega54

So anytime I update this with anything you'll be alerted to it if you follow me on Twitter.

Some more stuff's coming, don't worry. I've been playing 2 great games that I can't wait to post about.
-nS

Blog Post: Nintendo, announce your Wii games!

Nintendo has always been a company that has kept their secrets up until the very last minute. Sometimes this makes sense: they don't want their secrets leaked. Other times, though, it's almost puzzling why Nintendo operates under a strategy that restricts the amount of hype and promotion their games receive. We have had them announce games less than 3 months in advance of their release dates. Anyone remember Excitebots? Game was apparently a good game but due to its rushed release and lack of promotion, nobody bought it, and they had to discontinue it. WarioLand: Shake It was the same way, it was announced right before its release, also failed to sell. This isn't new, in other words.

What inspired this blog post though has been the large amount of discussion among the Wii's small hardcore userbase for two Japanese RPGs that Nintendo has released for the system in Japan: Xenoblade last June, and of course The Last Story, just debuted to reportedly strong Japanese sales three days ago.

[Xenoblade's huge, fully explorable world seems like a perfect fit for Western RPG fans]

Despite the fact that these are not cheap games to make, despite the fact that two of the RPG industry veterans (Tetsuya Takahashi and Hironobu Sakaguchi) were behind them, despite the fact that these were designed for a worldwide audience, neither of them have yet been announced for a Western release. There have been some promising info leaks lately that hint at a Xenoblade localization taking place, which definitely makes a Last Story localization look likely as well, but for the 7 months since Xenoblade was released in Japan, we have not yet even gotten an announcement that the game was coming here. Why is Nintendo doing this? It can't be about "keeping the game secret," since giant portions of it can of course be found on Youtube by this point. It's just...I don't even know.

[Western gamers were pretty unanimous in their opinion that Final Fantasy 13 needed interactive towns...looks like Last Story has that covered.]

[....and so does Xenoblade. ]

Are these games really being localized or not? If they are being localized, why not announce them for all regions at the start so that at least their Western Wii fans have a sure thing to look forward to? It's very confusing to me that in an industry that seems to be moving in a much more global direction, Nintendo continues to take such an outdated stance on the release of their games. What do they have to gain by being so secretive about these two games? Most big games nowadays are confirmed for worldwide release before they are even released, Xenoblade has been out in Japan for 7 months and nothing.

If Nintendo really is bringing these two games to Western audiences, and they're being localized as we speak, then what does Nintendo have to gain by keeping it a secret? How is this helping them to market these games? I can't think of why it wouldn't a better idea to announce Western releases early so that they can provide us with the same amount of trailers and bits of info that they've used to hype up these games in Japan. Wouldn't it help in keeping actual gamers interested in their Wii systems knowing that there are two potentially very high-quality RPG experiences on the way?

[Xenoblade's world exists on top of two gods who are battling each other. Maybe it's just me but I think that's pretty rad...]

What I think is going to happen is that, if we're lucky, Xenoblade will be announced for a Summer release in the West...but that will only give them a very small amount of time to promote it, and it won't sell, because Nintendo has done very little to get people excited about it. Because it's apparently a good game, as is Last Story, and the Wii can always use more of those.

And then Nintendo wonders why people claim there are no good games on the system. We learned about the upcoming Mario Sports Mix last E3, and that's releasing next month....and that's a far smaller game than either of these. But since it has Mario in the title and it resembles Wii Sports, they promote the hell out of it. And people say Nintendo doesn't have any new IP. Well, there you go.

[The action-heavy battle system from The Last Story. A very Western touch.] 

To sum up, not every game can be released in the West, of course. There are some Japanese games that are such niche titles that they can't possibly be liked or understood overseas...there aren't many, but there are some. My problem here is that we have two games that were clearly designed with the intention of appealing to a global audience, like almost all big-budget games these days....I mean these are not Japanese dating sims, these are legitimate RPGs from developers who in the past have had very successful RPGs in the West. And these games are either not being released in the West or they're (for some reason) going to be kept hidden until the last minute. Why Nintendo thinks that this is an effective way to promote a game is a mystery. Nintendo: If you're bringing these games West, announce them! Let people know about them, promote them, and that's how you get successful games.

Blog Post: Duke Nukem Forever releasing May 3, but will anyone buy it?

Well, it's finally happening. The game that was announced (this April) 14 years ago will finally be released this May. When longtime series developer 3D Realms closed last year, many had assumed the worst for this game, but as it turns out, Brothers in Arms developers Gearbox Software took over and finished the project, with collaboration from its initial developers. So this is sort of a big deal, I guess, as one of the longest-running jokes in the industry is finally about to come to an end.

I'm sure that with all the press the game has received over the course of its development, expectations are high for it to sell, but I honestly wonder if this type of game will be taken seriously in today's marketplace. Not that Duke Nukem demands to be taken seriously, of course, this character being a spoof of those "action hero" types, but I'm wondering if a lot of gamers today will care about this 1990s video gaming icon. Even the boxart just screams "90s!" and it looks pretty dated.

It's funny to think that we're only really talking about a little more than a decade here, but then again, it's amazing how much the times, not to mention the video game industry and its sense of humor, have changed since then. When Duke Nukem was first created, video gaming was still somewhat of a niche industry, more than willing to laugh at and make fun of itself, pretty different from nowadays, when it takes itself so seriously. These games were considered revolutionary at the time because of how they took social taboos and pretty much just threw them onto the screen for humor and shock value. Nowadays, though, will any of this be really shocking? Will anyone except the video game press and die hard fans of the series (those of them who are still playing video games, of course) actually care that this game is finally releasing?

Plus, the more important question: after the years of time this has spent in development, after the many times the game was likely scrapped and started again, after the developer changes, staff departures, studio closings, engine switches, and publisher conflict, will the game be any good?

I guess we'll find out for sure in May, and by June, we'll actually know how well it's sold. With the game's lengthy and conflict-filled development cycle, it's definitely been one of the industry's biggest myths/jokes, but I wonder if this will actually translate to sales. I can't help but look at the boxart and be reminded of Snakes on a Plane, a movie that seemed to have the internet crowd laughing at its trailers and Youtube videos based on its idea, yet, when the movie actually came out, evidently nobody felt like paying to see it in theatres. Another example, Guns N' Roses' Chinese Democracy album, which spent a similarly ridiculously long time being made and talked about, only to have it only sell "okay" when it was finally released.

Have video gamers really been begging for this game for the last 14 years? Or has it just been a fun thing to joke about? We'll find out in May. Unless, of course, it gets delayed again. Now that would actually be pretty funny.

Blog Post: A worthless study that blames society's problems on video games...again.

This is why I hate the news.

Earlier this week, health news source Healthday reported on the results of a study that was recently conducted on a correlation between video game playing and depression. The study was picked up by Yahoo News and was posted as a significant story, which you can read here.The study, which involved a survey of over 3,000 Singapore kids from grades 3-8, frankly doesn't say much of anything. As with any study of this nature, a large amount of this is all speculation and the "evidence" that ties video games to the onset of depression in adolescents is non-existent. Yet it's an article with a headline that I'm sure grabbed lots of parents and likely generated a fair amount of attention. Unfortunately.

The results of this study found that adolescents who engaged in what it calls "pathological gaming," developed social anxieties or had pre-existing conditions of social anxieties and depression worsened. Though the article isn't exactly clear about this, "Pathological gaming" seems to be defined as being the playing of video games for over 30 hours a week by kids this age.....which is of course a lot of time. What's so crazy about this article (and it's worth reading, if only to see how completely contradictory a piece of news reporting on one of these "studies" can be, especially when the 2 experts being quoted seem to be disagreeing with each other) is how little it actually managed to say.

The results are explained by Douglas A. Gentile, a professor at Iowa State University, who I guess oversaw or participated in the study.

Here's one of his quotes:

"What we've known from other studies is that video gaming addiction looks similar to other addictions. But what wasn't clear was what comes before what. Gaming might be a secondary problem. It might be that kids who are socially awkward, who aren't doing well in school, get depressed and then lose themselves into games. We haven't really known if gaming is important by itself, or what puts kids at risk for becoming addicted."

Which seems like a fairly reasonable quote. I imagine that it's fairly common for people with depression or social anxieties to busy themselves in something, to find something to occupy their time spent alone. This is not a difficult jump to make. What I guess is so amazing about this (and maybe it's just the way it was reported by Yahoo, or I really hope so, anyway) is that it doesn't seem to consider the fact that video games are just one of many ways that people with social anxieties can choose to distance themselves from the world. Why not books? Why not try a similar study with books? Force a kid with social anxieties or depression to read books for 30 hours a week and see how happy they are.

Here's my point. Sitting up in your room for 30 hours a week playing video games is no different from locking yourself in your room and reading books all day long. Or watching movies. Or using the internet. Or writing stories. Or drawing pictures. Anything can be done in excess, and excess is generally not healthy. Playing video games is not THE problem, it's a result of the problem. As you can see in the article, or the quote below, this study seems to attempt to prove otherwise by blaming gaming for causing or worsening these social problems, which is in my opinion, crazy, not to mention highly speculative.

Let's look at it this way. If somebody is depressed, and they spend 30 hours a week isolated and playing video games or any of the above activities instead of getting help from, say, a therapist, or interacting with others, or talking to their parents about their problems, then obviously, they're not getting help for their depression. And if someone who is depressed doesn't get help, it often worsens over time, and that's just a fact.

But this study, as it's presented in this article, seems to make the argument that perfectly healthy kids, who just happen to begin "pathologically gaming," develop social anxieties and depression. Which I think is insane. I can't think of any other way to put it. Check this quote out:

Gentile said the researchers aren't sure how gaming is contributing to depression, anxiety and other social phobias, but in this study, "the gaming precedes the depression. We don't know if it's truly causal, but gaming has an effect on its own, and you can't just ignore gaming and treat depression," he said.

"Over 30 hours a week," is a hell of a lot of time to spend playing video games; to even get 30 hours, you're looking at people who might be playing video games 4.5 hours every day of the week. (Which, by the way, is only 9% of the kids who made up this study. So again, what this study actually proves, I have no idea.) This study/article says to parents that if they're not monitoring the time their kids are spending playing video gaming, the kids could slip into "pathological gaming," which can "lead to depression"!?

I'm sorry but if someone at this age is spending 4.5 hours every single day of the week, at minimum, playing video games, there MAY be problems that should be addressed, and just taking away the video games are not going to address these problems. People who use anything as an "escape" from their lives are likely escaping from what they find to be unfulfilling lives, lives that may very well be impacted by social anxieties and depression. Kids this age who game for 30+ hours a week are at risk for developing depression and social anxieties? Seriously!? These kids probably already have it, get them help, and stop looking to blame everything on video games. If parents notice that their kids are "pathological gaming," they should get off their arses and do stuff with their kids, for starters. Take them to a movie, take them to Chuck E. Cheese's, bring them to the park, get them involved in other activities. Stop relying on video games as a babysitter. And if parents see their kids sitting up in their rooms reading books for 30 hours a week, or lifting weights for 30 hours a week, stop that too, because addiction to anything is a sign that something is "off" and probably needs to be corrected.

There is, of course, always a gray area. The human mind is a very complex thing and everybody's different. Is there a possibility that some kids who are leading totally fulfilling lives can end up slipping into "pathological gaming"? Maybe. I guess anything can be possible. A simple truth is that some people just have addictive personalities, and if it's not video games, it would be something else. People are always looking to blame someone or something for all of society's problems. Did going after Marilyn Manson after the Columbine shootings make society "better" in any way? Of course not. It's simply diluting the issue and overlooking the real problems here.

And I really think the medical community needs to be more responsible about releasing studies like this, because more often than not, it's delivered in the form of sensationalist news items like this, stories that are easily taken the wrong way by parents.

Here's the message that should be delivered to parents: If their kid is having social problems, simply taking away the one thing that's giving him or her happiness will not help them. If you just take the cocaine away from the addict, they won't get better, they'll just move onto something else. Getting to the root of why their social problems (or addictions) exist, and fixing it, should be the goal. And if parents have school-aged kids who have 4.5 hours a day or more to spend playing video games, then the parents are not doing their jobs, it's that simple. And maybe that's what this article should actually be reporting on.