This past week has had what is without-a-doubt one of the biggest, most dramatic stories to rock the videogame industry in a long time. On Monday, Infinity Ward heads Vince Zampella and Jason West went to a private meeting with Bobby Kotick, CEO of Activision. They did not return to the Infinity Ward studios the rest of the day.

Instead the studio was visited by "bouncer types". These security personnel were from Activision and refused to tell Infinity Ward employees why they were there. It was later discovered that Activision, written in a 150-page report, was looking into "insubordination" and "breach of fiduciary duty" with two Infinity Ward employees. The LinkedIn profiles for the two heads were then changed to state that they no longer worked for Infinity Ward. It was then confirmed by Activision that they were no longer with the company.

The following day it was discovered that West and Zampella were filing a lawsuit against Activision for breach of contract. The two claimed that they are owed compensation for their work on the widely successful Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. According to their lawyer, Activision hired lawyers to look into their sense that West and Zampella were performing "insubordination" and "breach of fiduciary duty" a month prior to the IW heads' termination. The two also want the rights to the Modern Warfare IP.

An internal Activision memo was then leaked to reveal just what it is the security was looking for at the IW studios. They were looking for any documents regarding IW beginning work on a future project (e.g. Modern Warfare 3), documents that could hint towards West and Zampella or Infinity Ward in general leaving Activision to form an independent developer, or documents regarding any communications Ward and Zampella may have had with competitors, with Electronic Arts named specifically.

Activision then finally released a statement in response to the lawsuit. Taking what reads as a scornful tone, the statement said that the publisher was "disappointed" with both West and Zampella for taking this route and defended their actions for firing both IW heads.

With all of these developments the GN Q asks you this:

What do you think of the Activision/Infinity Ward situation?

[G4TV.com]

[LinkedIn - Jason West's Profile]

[LinkedIn - Vince Zampella's Profile]

I remember my first experience with a QTE (Quick-Time Event). I was playing Resident Evil 4 and had finally reached a break in the action. I sat back and believed that I could relax and enjoy the playing cutscene when suddenly a button, for almost no reason, flashed in front of the screen and before I could react, I was killed and given a giant game over screen. I got ticked, stopped playing, and began to resent every game since that involved QTE in any way, shape, or form. That was until last Tuesday, when Heavy Rain was released for the PlayStation 3.

To say it has QTE is doing Heavy Rain a disservice in a way. The way that these real-time action prompts, what I prefer to call them, are displayed is far different and superior to anything any game has done before. And because of the way that these actions and events are controlled and presented, I believe that Heavy Rain is a historic turning point in not just QTE, but quite possibly videogames themselves.

In most games that have used QTE systems, you are brought into a cutscene after a long sequence of tense action. You are watching the cutscene, punch by punch, kick by kick, until all of a sudden you are asked to press a button in order to prevent a killing blow, or something of that nature. The button will flash at the bottom or middle of the screen and if you fail, it's game over and you have to start again. This is far from the case in Heavy Rain.

The controls of Heavy Rain make you feel like you are literally controlling the character's movements. L1 will let you move your left foot when prompted, the controller as a whole can act as a steering wheel, the analog stick controls your body as it dodges attacks, etc. It immediately gives you this sensible feel to the real-time actions that really immerses a player and far exceeds the "press this random button right now" QTE systems of other games.

In these sequences, each button prompt also coincides with what exactly you are responding or reacting with. If you are about to be punched in the face, the button will show up over the enemy's right fist. This acts just like how your body would tell you to react in real life. If you are in the middle of a fight, your brain is going to predict the punch coming by seeing the fist, alerting you to react, and then leaving it up to your reflexes to react in time. This extremely realistic method only adds to that intense level of immersion found in Heavy Rain that is completely absent in other games.

There is also the fact that even though the characters you control are at risk of dying during these moments, the game continues to truck on as if it was part of the narrative all along. There's no "game over" screen that forces you to do it all over again and feel like a complete failure. The game simply branches off in different directions, creating different experiences almost every time you play, and can be a great topic of conversation with friends. It does what so many FMV (full-motion video) games tried to do in the '90s on the Sega CD and failed, which is to recreate the feel of reading "choose your own adventure" books.

I remember exactly when it hit me. I was playing as Scott Shelby for the first time and he got into a fight with one of main character's clients in an attempt to defend her. The way everything was presented, the way it all flowed, I found myself far more engaged than I ever had been by a QTE system. The feeling was amplified during the freeway sequence with Ethan Mars. I found myself jerking the controller left and right in response to the real-time actions as if I was literally gripping the wheel of this car. I was jerking the controller up and down with force to deliver headbutts and spear tackles. I even bobbed my head back and forth to avoid punches. I was completely sucked in. It was then that I realized, Heavy Rain was giving me an experience that no game had ever given me before. Videogames have been revolutionized.

This is not to say that games will now all include these kinds of sequences, or that all games will become just like Heavy Rain. But Heavy Rain has changed my opinion on just how a game can be played. Many critics out there seem to agree and praise the game for this as well.

It will be interesting to see what is to come in the aftermath of this achievement attained by Quantric Dream. Developers that look to use a QTE or real-time action system in their games can very well integrate Heavy Rain's method into them in some way or form that can make them that much more immersive than they already were. Perhaps Heavy Rain is the first of a new genre of videogames, which I personally would like to coin as RTA (Real-Time Action). Whatever happens, I await it eagerly.

As for anyone who may feel that Heavy Rain does not have the right to be called revolutionary because the game itself is not perfect, which it is not thanks to lackluster voice acting and some animation hiccups, consider this: Throughout history itself, revolutions have never been perfect. What made them revolutions was that they challenged the norm with something completely innovative and different. And in turn, they completely changed the masses' notions of what the norm is and what the norm can be. When you put it in that context, Heavy Rain is without-a-doubt a revolution for QTE and the videogame industry itself.

Eddie, Jason, Matt, and Kyle discuss the pros and cons of videogame DLC.

Kyle Stallock and Matt Erazo join Eddie Inzauto and Jason Fanelli to talk downloadable content in VS Node's 13th episode. The era of digital distribution is upon us, and more publishers are delivering DLC to consumers as a post-purchase transaction model to both profit from and provide for the gaming community. These passionate members of said community give their thoughts on which practices are actually good for gamers and which they'd rather see take a hike. They also examine a few specific examples to see if they're really worth the money, and discuss the player response to DLC and different ways we consume these products in general.

Intro: "You Pay For What You Get" by Dave Matthews Band, 1994. Outro: "Take Me Out to the Ball Game" by Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer, performed by Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, 1949.

Links:
GamerNode's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/GamerNode
Eddie's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/EddieInzauto
Jason's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/BigManFanelli
Matt's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/mattamusprime
Kyle's Twitter - http://www.twitter.com/coyotegrey
8bit Bar - http://8bitbar.com

Right click here and click "Save Target/Link As" to download

For a direct link to the podcast feed, click here.

I've been working in gaming retail for some time now. I see all that there is to see, from hardcore, passionate gamers to the sports-game-only crowd. One of the most interesting things about the job is this all-too-famliar scenario: a kid getting a parent to buy a M-rated game. Sometimes, my explanation of why the game is 17+ is met with thanks (and the loss of a sale, but that's preferred to the loss of my conscience). Other times, it's pre-empted with "He/she can play whatever he/she wants." Most parents, though, wait to hear exactly what is in the game before making a decision. It is these parents that are the most interesting of all, though, because it raises an interesting question: what is the make-or-break point of a parent's decision? What is it that has parents wary of what their children play?

Well, that's simple: sex and violence.

However, here's where the conundrum lies: what is the lesser of those two evils? Is a parent willing to let his or her child chop up everyone they see so long as there aren't any female parts? Will a mother allow her young son to view a portrayal of the sacred act, even if it's ABC-esque with no parts viewable, if it means he won't be shooting a gun?

Of course, before getting into a topic like this, there are a lot of different factors: age and maturity of the child, nature of the content in question, and how far that content will go. San Andreas's Hot Coffee is obviously worse than any of Mass Effect's scenes, same as how falling over from a grenade in Modern Warfare 2 is better than getting chopped in half by a Gears of War chainsaw-bayonet. A five-year-old might go try to punch his dad the same way Little Mac punches Bald Bull, just as 13-year-old Billy might try to pick up a schoolmate the same way ol' Leisure Suit Larry does. Also, this doesn't apply to just games, but media as a whole, but because of the nature of my job (as well as the nature of the site hosting this article), games will be my primary focus.

The question posed to parents in the store was simple: Which, to you, is the lesser evil: Sexual content or violence?

This is a subject that is quite the opposite of "black and white," and I've heard a lot of different opinions, all of which are merited. Some are rather direct: "I'm okay with the violence, as long as there's no sex" and vice versa. Others, though, have given a more profound and thought-out reason for their choice, the best of which will follow.

FIRST: The Case For Violence Over Sex -------->

What Makes Violence More Preferable to Sex?

It seems that here in the US, parents would rather their children be shooting a gun in their games than seeing naked bodies. If you went to Japan, it'd be a whole different story. Of course, there's more to this topic than just Puritan-influnced thought processes. I got a lot of different responses in favor of violence, but these are some of the more prevalent ones:

1. Potential Re-Creation of What Is Seen

A handful of people I spoke to said that they would take violence over sex any time, if only because of the ramifications of re-creating the circumstances. Basically, their stance was as follows:

If the child were to go and punch a classmate like he or she saw in Street Fighter, there would be consequences... but not nearly as bad as if he or she tried to slap another child's rear end or touch a sensitive area as some games show.

While not re-living the games at all is preferred, this thought certainly makes sense. In a school setting, especially for the 12-16 crowd, violence is considered a less serious offense than any kind of sexual misconduct. News media stories prove this day after day; for example, "sexting" has become a common story at 11:00, but you hear more about schoolyard fights on Facebook than Fox News. With this reasoning, though, violence should still be monitored; I'm sure no parent would be fine with a child bashing another with a stick while pretending to be Frank West in Willamette Mall.

2. Parental Responsibility of Sex Ed

Another group based the decision on their responsibility as parents. The idea was simple:

Parents have to have the 'birds-and-bees' talk with the kids in order for them to truly understand sex. It's not something that should be taught in a game.

This is quite the admirable stance, though it becomes a bit of a catch-22. Yes, it is good to want to teach your child about sex yourself, but do you do that at the risk of desensitizing him or her to extreme violence? Of course, the people in this group might not let their child play the really violent games either, but the stance against sex was much stronger than its counterpart.

3. The Idea Of Violence As Fiction

I know that I said that these ideas would be "the more prevalent responses." There was one person in particular, though, who I thought gave me a great example of why violence would be preferred. It was not an instant response, the question was mulled over for about a minute, but the answer was worth the wait:

It's a lot easier to pass off violence as fiction than it is sex. Not everyone is going to rip out someone's heart, but most people, if not everyone, are going to be involved with someone physically eventually.

Out of all the responses I received, this was certainly the best. It's a fantastic point: it's a whole lot easier to tell a kid that ripping someone's head off isn't something that happens all the time. Of course, the child doesn't know what's going to be in the game to begin with, so using this thought process, a parent could separate sex from games completely until the child was already familiar. Sex is a natural part of life, extreme bloody violence isn't, so why not use that as a parental advantage? Brilliant.

Next: The Case For Sex Over Violence ----->

What Makes Sex More Preferable To Violence?

I will admit, the amount of responses in favor of sex were less frequent than the pro-violence ones. Perhaps this may have something to do with the cultural influence that I spoke about earlier, but that's a different story. The fewer numbers, however, does not mean that there were no responses worth sharing.

1. Violence Is Just Plain Disgusting

This seemed to be one of the most common answers I was given. Many parents have a very simple stance:

Violent games, with all of the blood, gore, and dismemberment, is gross. Why would anyone enjoy them?

I can't say I can disagree with this idea. It is rather unsettling to see the Predator in the newest Alien vs Predator game casually rip the head off of an unsuspecting Marine. One parent even referenced the many gruesome deaths of Dead Space. A lot of those who responded with this, however, were more worried about the next point...

2. Violent Games Are Desensitizers

This idea was a major concern for some parents, saying that they didn't want their kids to not feel horror or disgust when violence was shown. In a more direct sense:

Violent games can desensitize children into thinking violence is commonplace, when it isn't. Violence should be horrifying and undesirable.

This is a stance that anti-violent videogame soldiers have been holding for years. While it is true that repeated exposure to violence could make a child more immune to it, there are parts of this argument that I don't completely agree with. As long as the person playing the game knows the difference between reality and fantasy, this point could be considered moot. I know plenty of people who play Call of Duty almost every night who would be sick to their stomachs if they ever found a person shot dead. Not only that, but sexual themes can be desensitized just as much through constant exposure. Watching the sex scene in Heavy Rain or seeing the strippers in Grand Theft Auto could skew the idea of sex just as easily as constant violence in games can desensitize.

3. Sex Is Natural, While Violence Isn't

This is the direct opposite to one of the points made in favor of violence. I had a couple of people answer like this:

Sex is a natural thing, and as such, it's something that should be made more familiar. Violence, while seeming commonplace on the news, is not nearly as prevalent.

There's a lot in this argument that makes sense as well. Since sex is something most people will experience, why not make the child familiar instead of sheltering him or her from it? It's not exactly replacing the "birds-and-bees" talk that was mentioned earlier, but more of a learn-through-example approach. Of course, there's just as much of a downside to this kind of stance too: leaning too much toward the act could cause a young teen to want to try it, and we all know where that could lead.

Sex, Violence, Both, or Neither?

With a question like this, a middle-ground response is also allowed, which some parents were quick to give. I had a hand ful of people simply tell me neither for many reasons. One parent went so far as to only let her children play games rated Everyone or Everyone 10+, taking sex and (for the most part) violence right out of the equation. Others didn't care either way what was in the game, thinking their child was mature enough to play whatever he or she wanted. Some I agreed with (15-year-old wanting Battlefield: Bad Company 2 on Tuesday), others...not so much (6-year-old buying Grand Theft Auto III). 

So which is worse? Really, it depends on the specific case. To each his own, as it were. I'm not even sure where I stand on the whole thing... there are too many factors to count. Also, I don't have any children yet, so I can't exactly say it as a parent....

Any parents out there? Where do you stand? For those without children, where do you think you'll stand when the time comes?

Now, to get back to Heavy Rain, which...well, has both. Oops.