Tim

I just read an interview with Atsushi Inaba, president and CEO of game developers Clover Studios, regarding his company's upcoming PS2 release 'Okami'. I've been pretty excited about the game since I first saw clips of it months ago, due in no small part to the art style. The game is meant to look as though the characters and environments were drawn using classic japanese sumi ink techniques (combined with CG, of course). Inaba said his main inspiration for the game was nature itself, and wanted to "make people feel joy and happiness deep down inside."

Videos of the game can be found online at various places, but let's just go with IGN for now---> http://media.ps2.ign.com/media/678/678618/vids_1.html

I was surprisingly enthralled by this article. Something I've been thinking a lot about recently is why most people can't get into abstract art, or rather what makes the abstract works they like more accessible. My running theory has been that regular people (i.e. those without degrees in fine arts) would be more attracted to works with "prettier" colors and unchallenging compositions, something I haven't dragged anyone to a museum to test yet. The article presented the idea that viewers need something to empathize with in works of art in order to appreciate them, and that since representational art gives them things they have seen or experienced before it is easier to get into than the unfamiliarity of abstraction. That made me think of what abstract artists are popular on a mainstream level and the first that came to mind was Georgia O'Keeffe, and while she wasn't a purely abstract artist by any means, her less than realistic works are appreciated at large because they give the implication of real objects and allow viewers an anchor in the real world.

Night of Bush Capturing

I'm not sure if it's been proven to be fake (i.e. not really made by militant Islams), but I hope not. And I'd like to say that the level of silliness surrounding America / Islamic Middle East has just gone up a notch, but this makes one game where they get to fight America versus more than a handful of games in which America fights them. It only seems fair that they get at least one game, right?

Joking aside, I read that the game runs off an old Wolfenstein engine and plays exactly the same, but with pictures of Bush, Tony Blair, and a few other enemies of Islam tacked here and there. In case you're interested, here are:

the trailer , and

the game itself

While I was screwing around on some video game news site I saw huge banners for this game Just Cause, which sounded really familiar as if I'd seen it advertised on TV or something, so I looked it up and here is what I found:

Just Cause

the Wikipedia description (since the official site assumes we know what it's about):

Just Cause is set on a fictional South American tropical island called "San Esperito", where the player works as CIA black ops agent Rico Rodriguez in a guerrilla war to overthrow San Esperito's dictator, who may be in possesion of weapons of mass destruction. The game draws its premise (and name) from the real-life United States invasion of Panama, code-named "Operation Just Cause", which involved United States military action to overthrow military leader Manuel Noriega.

When I first saw the big Che Guevara-ish ads, I thought for sure the game would be about playing as a militant revolutionist trying to topple his own country's evil dictator. Instead, we get the tried and true American soldier sent to topple some other country's diabolical regime. I think the game would be cooler if the main character was an actual resident of the country he was trying to overthrow, but I guess that would subconsciously promote thoughts of revolt in players and be less patriotic.

Not playing as your own country, less patriotic. Huh.