Racing Realism

Realism in videogames has been an important goal for quite some time now, the chance to replicate the real world an enticing prospect for developers across multiple genres. It is most prevalent, however, in the racing genre, with simulations and even arcade racing titles -- now selling themselves on things like their accessibility for real world tracks and cars, rather than presenting, say, a fictional experience like Mario Kart -- aspiring to be as realistic as possible. It’s an interesting thing to observe as companies like EA and Codemasters fight over who has the most realistic looking game or who can deliver the best handling physics, but it is even more interesting to contemplate, particularly as we have now reached a point where games are (or can be) so good that the hunt for realism may be redundant. To understand this, let’s take some time to look at how racing games are marketed, and what developers do during development to ensure authenticity.

On the development side, more and more these days the various racing game developers out there -- Codemasters, SimBin, Polyphony, Bizarre (RIP) and etc. -- will take the time to visit locations they may be using as settings for their tracks, taking thousands of photographs to ensure that every last detail can be replicated authentically. While they are all aware of how gameplay (IE: the racing) is the absolute most important thing -- and they are prepared to take liberties where necessary to ensure that -- the more realistic these locations can look in a game, the better they feel the final product will be. This is true to some extent: racing around the Nürburgring or Silverstone is great in theory, but it is not going to feel like you, the player, are doing so unless it looks like you expect it to, be that impression from something like TV footage or an actual visit yourself. This means ensuring all the corners appear to be angled correctly, reproducing the ‘flow’ of a circuit and correlating that with the image you might have of it in your head; that undulations and bumps are simulated as they exist in real life, lest your track feels flat and, by extension, dull; and making sure that buildings, pitlane and the general environment looks like it does at the real venue because, otherwise, you’re not racing at that track, are you? Such attention to detail coincides with some developers’ strong desire to make everything perfect, such as Polyphony, and the result is the highly competitive, high fidelity graphics push for (or towards) perfection that defines, in some respects, titles like Forza and Gran Turismo. But that’s appearance, just one aspect of the equation -- audio and, most importantly, feel are significant too, particularly if a game is purporting to be a simulation.

Real or in game? You decide.

The aforementioned developers also allocate time during development for “track days” or “recording days” to try and capture (both literally and figuratively) the realism of racing cars in real life, focusing on things like engine notes (sound) and oversteer (feel) in order to accurately reproduce these elements in the final product. On the sound side of things microphones will be attached to a variety of vehicles as they are being driven around a track, capturing the melody a car makes as it brakes for corners, accelerates out of them and even when they lose control or crash. A car’s engine sound is, obviously, the most important noise that has to be captured, but these sessions also record everything from the tyres to track ambiance and a car’s various clanks and clunks as it rides over bumps and bounces off of curbs. Cars will be also put on Dyno machines so an engine’s revs can be recorded at ranges that mightn’t necessarily be reached out on track, and so things like gear changes can also be reproduced as accurately as possible. A racing game just isn’t going to feel right if a Ferrari sounds like a Corvette (IE: using generic sounds because a budget doesn’t allow for the real ones to be captured) and, as such, this practice has become common for realistic racing games over the years. Less frequent amongst the industry is developers attending track days or visiting real world circuits in order to get a feel for how cars behave on a circuit, and to understand what needs to be included in a physics system to ensure that, once again, it feels ‘right’ once it is integrated in the final product. The big names -- again, Forza and Gran Turismo -- have done it for years because their reputation and consumer respect rides on the intricacies and subtleties their simulations can deliver, but it’s still somewhat rare for other developers to do it, and that’s a shame. This generation has seen that approach change, somewhat, and developers like Codemasters* are now making the effort to attend rally schools for a game like DiRT 3, to make sure that their product delivers on the expectations created by their players. You don’t want a rally game to feel like you are playing Grand Theft Auto, after all, so getting a feel for how a car behaves as it slides on mud and dirt is essential to the kind of experience you can ultimately deliver. You can portray the general idea, sure -- as games in the past have -- but it’s simply not the same as going out there, on track, and understanding how a car behaves as it takes chicanes and hairpins at speed. In other words, any racing title that doesn’t make the effort to record sound and car behaviour, and capture the essence of a circuit’s appearance through photography, is selling its customers short, and offering an inferior product when compared to the competition as a whole. But such attention to detail isn’t necessarily going to sell your game; there are, indeed, other methods too.

The first of these uses everything I have just described above. You need to demonstrate, to your customers, that you are serious about realism and authenticity, and the way to do that is to provide proof. This can be achieved by, for example, showcasing some of the photos taken at the locations visited or posting up an audio file of a car revving its engine, or you could go deeper and actually document your visit to the track with developer diaries. The entire medium is accustomed to developer diaries these days and the reason for that is because it’s a great way to highlight your intentions as a developer, explain what it is about your game that makes it worth buying and answer any questions that may be frequently asked. For racing games in particular, it is also a great opportunity to show that yes, you did actually visit a city or circuit. Footage of designers hooning around a track, sound producers capturing audio and your development team explaining what you’re doing at these venues can go a long way in conveying how important realism is for your product and it also becomes, in some instances, a selling point itself. Evidence of your attempts to ensure authenticity -- or in other words, practicing what you preach -- is a big coup for people who want the racing experience you purport to be making, because you are illustrating to them, directly, that you get it and understand what it takes to make a game like this. Taking the time to explain what you’re doing in detail can also grab the potential customers who don’t understand the science of racing but want to participate in a game that replicates what it is like to drive around Le Mans, or what it’s like to be in Formula 1. In other words, showing, not telling can be crucial to selling your product, and does a much better job than the other commonly seen practice: borrowing the names of famous drivers.

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a real photograph.

Colin McRae (RIP), Mario Andretti, Ken Block -- these are all names that are synonymous with racing games, perhaps even more so than the sports in which they compete, and the licensing of these names can go a long way in selling a product. This is something that isn’t exclusive to videogames -- celebrities sell, it’s just the way it is -- but definitely suggests an authentic experience to those searching for one. If a racing driver is involved then, clearly, it must be realistic, right? Well no, money talks and no matter who you manage to obtain for an appearance in your game or, indeed, its title, it doesn’t mean a thing if the end product is poor. But the implication that comes with it is enough to make a game appealing to a wider variety of people and, generally, coincides with the effort I’ve described above. Enlisting a driver means enlisting their talents: getting them to test your game to see if it feels right or using their knowledge to improve accuracy drastically affects the game you are making in a positive way, and can be the difference between whether you nail it or fail it. It also means that you can capture details that your inexperience mightn’t have noticed, enhancing the overall experience even if the majority of its eventual players won’t pick up on them. This is the kind of stuff I’m referring to when I say, for example, that Forza 3 has more nuance than Gran Turismo 5, and while those two games don’t use real world drivers as a selling point, the information they can glean from people like Sebastian Vettel or Mika Salo certainly makes the difference. The combination of a real driver’s input and the data obtained at track visits can ensure that, yes, you do deliver on authenticity and realism, and demonstrating that you took the time to gather that information publically can guarantee stronger sales. That’s not to say that doing this can’t be deceiving -- some games do rely on a driver’s name or footage from a track day to sell a game even though the final product is still rather unrealistic -- but generally speaking if you take the time to do it, people will take the time to play your game.

Ultimately the push for realism has elevated the racing genre to levels that were unfathomable back in the PS1 era (for example), but that doesn’t mean the various racing games out there are perfect and there’s definitely a lot of progress yet to be made. Graphically, photorealism is practically already here so the graphics contest is beginning to slow down, but there’s still a lot that can be done with the way cars handle and how a track changes over time, so I look forward to a future where that level of realism can be parallel with fidelity and delivered confidently across the entire genre. In the meantime, what we have is already incredibly impressive and by writing about it here, I hope I have highlighted that because it is something, unfortunately, that is mostly overlooked. Happy racing.


*That’s not to say that Codies or anyone else hasn’t done it in the past, just that generally, such effort hasn’t been seen as being crucial to development and now developers are beginning to understand the impact such a practice can have on their games.

In Good Faith

Electronic Arts took a risk last year when they released Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, and while both divided the gaming community in some interesting ways, one can't argue that the risk wasn't worth taking. In releasing these games EA showed a different side of themselves to the industry, one willing to try something new and one that didn't want to just rely on the library of games we usually see from their stable. Both games were also interesting alternatives to the wide range of sequels that we see every year.

Of the two, DICE's Mirror's Edge stands out to me as the more interesting experiment; it was unlike anything else we had seen before and featured a mechanic seldom explored (though now quite popular) in gaming, that of Parkour. The game featured a mysterious female character who wasn't overtly sexualized and it also had a unique presentation that stood out amongst the rest of the pack. Such a divergence against the norm had the potential to be overwhelming for potential buyers, seeing the game possibly tank at retail and as a result, an EA who wouldn't be so quick to try something unique again in the near future. Thankfully, the game didn't tank and went on to become a reasonable success. It did manage to polarize its audience, but for the most part developer DICE can be proud that it created an experience that was popular enough to make the risk worth it.

It's no secret that I found Mirror's Edge to be incredibly frustrating, but the thing I'm pleased to know is that the problems that annoyed me in the game are mishaps of a developer trying something new and different, perhaps even trying to innovate. They are examples of perhaps trying too hard to stand out and can be easily fixed with some refinement for a sequel. With this in mind, it's easy to forgive DICE for these problems and focus on the positives of the game, of which there are many.

Starting with the obvious, the game's presentation is gorgeous. Relying on a visual aesthetic that intentionally separates it from the crowd, it conveys a sense of wonder and beauty that few other games manage to achieve. The colour scheme, using deep blues, stark whites and vibrant reds makes the game's landscape unique and inviting, resulting in a city that is thoroughly enjoyable to visit. DICE wanted the game to stand out and as such the unique aesthetic wasn't chosen purely for delivering eye candy, it was also chosen to represent the city as seen by the eyes of the game's protagonist, Faith. In her eyes, the city is cold and brutal, the whites and blues demonstrating this almost sterile perspective. The reds show us another perspective; Faith is a runner and as such she must traverse the rooftops in order to deliver messages to and from civilians, the red 'Runner Vision' mechanic showing us routes across the various buildings as Faith spots them. It's an effective mechanic, aiding the player by showing them things they may not have seen beforehand whilst also working with the game's presentation to effectively communicate what it's like to see the city in Faith's eyes.

This convergence isn't just tied with the game's visuals, Mirror's Edge's soundtrack was also carefully selected to represent certain aspects of the game. Still Alive, the main theme song was chosen due to its gentle piano keys and the soft, alluring voice of singer Lisa Miskovsky. The game's chapters on the other hand, use more electronic tunes, complimenting the urgency felt by the player as well as Faith's heightened senses as she escapes from her attackers and chasers. Subtle sound effects such as Faith's paced breathing, the thud as she lands from a jump and the sound of rushed footsteps behind getting closer only further add to this sense of agency, making the experience all the better for it.

Unfortunately DICE also dropped the ball a little with Mirror's Edge. I've already spoken about my frustrations with the controls and I've also mentioned the dissonance seen in the presentation of the game's narrative and gameplay, but these aren't the only flaws. Combat is a common thread of discussion in forums and blogs because it is mostly unnecessary. I can understand why it was included, but it takes away from what the game should be about and its core mechanic, Parkour. While designed with a fight or flight mentality, some sections of Mirror's Edge essentially force you to fight due to their compact, constricted level design and the AI's quick reaction to shoot you on sight. This completely slows you down and makes you separate each enemy so they are easier to take down, as taking them on in a bunch will most likely result in Faith's death. This is the complete opposite to the main idea of the game and it breaks up the flow that is so integral to a game supposedly about Parkour. Whether combat and enemies were implemented incorrectly (having some chase you in later chapters added to the intensity and was quite thrilling) or their inclusion was a mistake remains to be seen, in the meantime it's an aspect of the game that hardly anyone enjoyed and is one of the key things DICE should focus on if they pursue a sequel.

The narrative is another thing that needs work, as I found it to be relatively boring. Don't get me wrong, it starts off decently enough with Faith and the other characters being intriguing and even quite mysterious. Unfortunately this soon disappears in favour of a plot that is quite cliché and predictable, a typical setup and revenge story that we've seen all too often in the past. Rhianna Pratchett's script does the job and mostly allows the game to focus on the important bits, running and jumping, but as it is it's also a massive let down. It has (had?) potential so this is disappointing. Faith and her associates are all interesting, believable characters, who seem real and are therefore easy to relate to, however due to the story being predictable and boring, interest in their lives wanes quickly. This is quite a change from what we're used to seeing in games, the over the top characters and generic stereotypes, so it is a welcome addition, but they're just not explored well enough. We barely get any background information on key characters and we get a brief insight into Faith's past before shifting focus into the present. Later on in the game a few events happen that had the potential to be impactful on the player, but unfortunately due to the lack of exploration of these characters and their personalities these moments don't affect us in any way and are almost meaningless. In a time where narrative possibilities in games are being explored by the likes of BioShock, Portal and Braid, this can only be disappointing, especially when it's easy to see the potential and where the game could have headed. Instead we have a predictable story that we already know the ending to and one we will probably forget about in the years to come.

Thankfully the rest of the game stands out -- from the thrill of Parkour to the fresh and unique visuals -- making Mirror's Edge a game that will be memorable for years to come. It wasn't perfect, but for a first attempt it was worth the effort and thoroughly enjoyable to play. The risk was justified and that can only be a wonderful thing going forward in this industry.

EA: So misunderstood

People like to hate on EA. The gaming media stuck a target on their back some time in the last generation and the public have been taking shots ever since. "They're taking over the world!" "They're amassing an unstoppable gaming army!" "They're gonna release a console!" We've all heard these ludicrous claims from gamers we know and love, and I'm sure we've all nodded along without really thinking about it; why would we? Everyone else agrees - EA are the devil.

Here's a thought - what if they're not? What if EA have actually been kicking ass all over this generation?

Here's another thought - if it wasn't for the tireless perfection of Rockstar's development teams, Electronic Arts, with all their labels and studios, would be my favourite gaming company of all time. And I'll explain why; but first, the hate. The needless hate. Let's think where it all began.

I'd like to state at this point that I'm not an employee of EA, nor is this advertising, I'm merely explaining how I, as a dedicated hardcore gamer, have come to love EA.

It's hard to disagree that EA are primarily known amongst gamers both hardcore and casual as a producer. They've produced big titles for developers such as Crytek Studios, Harmonix, Valve and many more, gaining notoriety for essentially sticking their logos over other people's games. Or so people think. I stayed away from using Black Box, Criterion, or DICE as examples, as these are a few of the many studios which EA have bought but not absorbed. Assumedly as part of the deal when buying these companies, sometimes they will keep their original names, as Criterion have, sometimes they will be partially changed, as Digital Illusions CE became EA Digital Illusions CE, and sometimes they will be entirely renamed, seeing DreamWorks Interactive become EA Los Angeles. The example of the latter sets a precedent for the others; when EA absorbs a studio, they become EA. Whether it's them being kind enough to allow them to keep their name or a stipulation in the contracts that allows for the confusion, it seems to be irrelevant to the fact that EA mostly publishes their own games. This clears up what tends to be the #1 gripe people have with EA; sticking their logos and advertising all over other companies' games, because more often than not, they're publishing games they themselves developed.

What seems to spawn from this, however, is the idea that EA are taking over; more specifically, that they're running previously successful companies into the ground. This is a point I can understand and sympathise with, though it's not objectively true. The most common example is the spiraling downfall of the Need for Speed series, with people criticising that EA are churning them out year after year with an attitude of quantity over quality. In a nutshell, this gripe is with EA functioning like a business and it's something the hardcore gaming community aren't used to. We're used to developers spending years perfectly crafting their games like artwork, to be released to high acclaim, thriving sales and eternal love from the fans; this is rapidly changing. Perhaps thanks to Nintendo's efforts, the casual market has become increasingly more financially appealing since the very start of this generation and hardcore gamers are being neglected. We don't like how Wii Sports outsells No More Heroes, how Nintendogs sees more play than Ouendan, or how the call for gimmicky, pick-up-and-play gameplay is now more popular than an engrossing story, but what we forget is that we are now the minority, and we're just no longer the primary interest of the big, big businesses. I can't hold it against EA that they should seek to exploit the casual market, because it's simply the evolution of gaming, and I feel I have to step aside and think, okay, we've lost a couple of good franchises, but we're gaining force as an entertainment medium, we're being taken more seriously, and companies are getting more funding for future projects. The way I see it, EA has killed Need for Speed to allow for the growth of Skate; they've killed The Sims to allow for Spore, and I believe this to be the correct way to do things, as opposed to, for example, picking on Nintendo again, using the collective money from killing their core market to produce a third DS SKU costing 50% more with 50% less functionality (though this may be a topic for another time). EA's armada of studios strengthens the company as a whole, and we have to remember they have more fans than just those who want to see a stream of original IPs or generally detailed projects; there are millions of people who are blindly screaming "MORE!" and throwing their money around, which EA will take advantage of, and we'd be hypocrites to claim we'd act any different.

Before moving onto my justification of the good points, I will say I'm not a blinkered fan. I share a hate with many of you who enjoy a good anti-EA rant; I'll be countering your points until you bring up EA Trax, where I just have to concede. For a company with such experience in entertainment to create such irksome soundtracks confounds me. Burnout Paradise's selection of music is perhaps the one shining example amongst the quagmire of coarse, grating nonsense the Black Box studio seems to think is appropriate for a Need for Speed audience, though it's far from perfect; it's simply beyond me why they saw fit to include one emo track and one pop-punk track, and one single example from other genres just to pathetically pander to their respective audiences who have to wade through a 90+ list of mostly culturally-irrelevant music for a 4 minute respite of enjoyable tunes, which is then likely to either have DJ Atomica talking over it, be susceptible to various volume drop-outs due to crashes, or accidentally be skipped with an unintentional hit of the R1/RB button. EA's confidence in the Trax system is perhaps the most blind arrogance in the business these days, in that they don't provide a custom soundtrack option. 360 gamers at least have the option to mute the music and play some HDD tracks through the dashboard, but spare a thought for the poor PS3 gamers who have no choice but to rush through the streets of Paradise City with Avril Lavigne and Killswitch Engage blaring. And this was the most favourable example.

Claiming that EA are one of the world's greatest developers is not something that can be backed up by simply discrediting the negative points - I'm very well aware I have to bring something to the table. Exhibit 1: EA Sports. "Really?" I hear you say, "the ace up your sleeve is their sports games?!" Well, yes, it is, with very good reason. EA Sports is a label of EA dedicated, believe it or not, to developing and producing sports games. Their company motto is, "If it's in the game, it's in the game." EA Sports games are of the sports simulation genre, which is a very critical point: these games are developed for sports fans. The Fifa series is for football fans, the NHL series is for hockey fans, the NBA series is for basketball fans. They're not casual games for casual gamers, nor are they hardcore games for hardcore gamers; they're simulation games for sports gamers. The majority of criticisms over the label are due to them releasing games each year with, and I quote, "nothing but an updated list of players." To gamers, this is a valid point, we're used to sequels really adding to games, perhaps even changing the gameplay or engines and adding a brand new story to keep us hooked. For sports fans, this is an absurd idea. Between NFL 07 and NFL 08, the league didn't change the gameplay, they didn't decide to use bats and dress the players in leotards, it's still the same sport the fans have loved for years; all they need is the new players, the new subtle rule changes and the slight changes that are made to improve gameplay, usually in the form of more customisation and management options, or a more realistic AI, for next year's game to be worth a purchase. Up to the 08 series of the EA Sports franchises, this was perhaps an understandable gripe from the gaming community. Now, with the introduction of the 09 series, the point is simply moot. The gameplay mechanics of every sport have been significantly overhauled to provide the most realistic simulation to date, along with intelligent AI systems installed to have the opponent teams learn from your own personal gameplay style. Extensive new modes, top-of-the-line graphics and in-depth online play with individual player control has seen the entire genre improve more than any other over the course of this generation. The best example of this, certainly for me personally, is NHL 09; IGN voted it the best Xbox 360 sports game of 2008, Gamespot, GameTrailers and Spike TV voted it the best overall sports game of 2008, and it currently sits on Metacritic in the #1 and #2 spots for best sports game of this generation. Interestingly enough, the top 10 (and possibly more) sports games of this generation are all EA Sports titles, the top 4 of which are 09 series franchises, the other being Fifa 09 sitting just below NHL, and NHL 08 featuring twice in 7th and 10th. Now while some of that information is more generally regarding their success this generation, it's plain to see that EA's latest series of sports games have revolutionised a genre in a way that not many other developers have ever managed to achieve; Polyphony Digital did it with Gran Turismo, Epic Games with Unreal Tournament and with fanboy alarms ringing, Rockstar with Grand Theft Auto. I would class the new level of immersive realism and true simulation that EA Sports have provided sports fans across the world above and beyond these feats of revolutionisation, to a level where I can but urge, nay dare any naysayers to play NFL 08, then NFL 09 and tell me it's not one giant leap for gaming-kind, whether the hardcore gamers out there are willing to admit it or not.

EA are more than just their sports franchises of course. Their other major company label, EA Games,  invites you to challenge everything - well, challenged we were in 2008, bringing me nicely to Exhibit 2: EA's exceptional fourth quarter, 2008. The last few months before 2009 came rolling around brought a veritable avalanche of games, with the majority of killer titles coming from EA. To drop some names, here is what we saw, amongst plentiful offerings from Ubisoft and Activision-Blizzard, in such a short space of time: Skate It, Need for Speed Undercover, Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, BioShock (PS3) and Spore. Three brand new IPs, two continuations of series', one spin-off and one port, all in the space of 3 to 4 months. If this is the result of EA buying out companies around the world, then I hope they buy them all, because this cluster of concentrated Christmas awesome was an absolute gaming paradise. This isn't at all to say they burned out in time for the present-giving masses, as 2009 has so far seen the release of Lord of the Rings: Conquest, Skate 2, SimAnimals and the Burnout Paradise Ultimate Box, with plenty more to come. What we see here is a company so perfectly structured and organised, that we have studios within labels releasing games at such a quick-fire rate, without having to be rushed, due to the sheer number of people working on each project. This driving force of raw talent spearheaded by one financial body is intent on serving the public with what they want; what we wanted in 2008 was a body of quality gaming on which to sail into the new year with the knowledge that all is well in the industry, after months of accusations of dumbing down and pandering to casual markets, and this is exactly what EA gave us.

Now, not only are EA continuing their current output, and not only are they constantly throwing brand new IPs at us, but they're offering a level of online support unparalleled by any other developer. Exhibit 3: EA Online. Aside from the initial frameworks of the Playstation Network and Xbox Live, EA's online community is the brightest-shining example of exactly how to tackle console<->internet connectivity. A gamer playing a skating game can pull off an insane trick they never even thought possible and be astounded for as long as the memory remains. A gamer playing Skate can pull off the same trick, pause the game, check the replay, edit the video, save it to the HD, upload it to an online community where other players can comment on and rate your skills. Is this not exactly what we want from our consoles being online during our single player escapades? This level of connectivity is not as common as it should be, but EA is setting the standard with the skate.reel, the name given to the aforementioned community. Likewise with EA Sports, they have managed to create an environment wherein a sports gamer who may own NHL 09, NFL 09 and NBA 09 can check their overall statistics, season records, game summaries and so on, for each individual game in one single space, as the game uploads your results on-the-fly as you play. This is surely the pinnacle of seamless interactivity between one single player and the gaming community; it adds an entirely new dimension to the games when you're able to look through your virtual sports career recorded to fine detail. It enhances the simulation to a point where, when combined with the Be A Pro mode modelled to your face and statistics, you become one with the games. It's a level of interactivity so far unparalleled in the industry. As if this wasn't enough, EA continue to be one of the most active developers in terms of offering patches and downloadable content, bridging the gap between the developers and their fans. If we shout loud enough, they listen and they change. The best example is most definitely Burnout Paradise. It was criticised for being a bit too small, with the likes of GTA and Saints Row offering detailed environments on much larger scales; they respond with upcoming DLC of a brand new island. Criticisms of "samey" cars being too much alike rang out after release; they respond by constantly offering diverse new cars, including the recently released Legendary Pack featuring famous cars from films. People said it's too dark, they brighten it; people said they want a restart option, they put in a restart option. Evidence enough that EA care not only about their games but also the people who play them, they want to make sure we're satisfied. They don't release a groundbreaking game such as Paradise and stand arrogantly proud when the stellar reviews roll in, they continue to look for improvements and tweaks to make it that much better. EA's service to the fans is an incredibly commendable trait, particularly for such a huge company.

Which brings me to my conclusion really. I can see how aspects of what I've talked about come across as simple advertising, or apparent fanboyism, but honestly, if you told me this time last year I'd be praising EA's work I'd never have believed you. Their tireless efforts to provide gamers with some serious quality over 2008 caused me to look very closely at what they'd done; beyond the press' ideas, beyond the lies and beyond the cheap shots, what I've discovered is an undeniable truth. Even amongst EA haters, surely the releases of Spore, Dead Space and Mirror's Edge, three Game of the Year contenders that won many awards between them; the endless online support, both in terms of community projects and continued DLC; the torrent of this generation's quality sports simulations constantly being tweaked to perfection, all correct past wrongs. Whatever EA may or may not have done in the past, they have more than made up for it now and shown themselves to be a company for everyone, dedicated equally to casual, hardcore and sports gamers alike. They have bought themselves not power, not international fame, but a platform from which to serve gamers till the end of time. I'll be challenging everything 'till the day I die, because, well, it really is in the game.