Anyone who's been a faithful reader of Level Up knows we have some pet themes to which we keep returning. Among them: games are not a fundamentally narrative medium; we all "see" games with our hands; we videogame journalists need to develop a critical vocabulary that will enable us to better explain the unique qualities of this art form. This week, we managed to smuggle some of that thinking into the pages of NEWSWEEK by means of a page-long essay on Grand Theft Auto IV, in which we wrote:

When I write a post about videogames on my NEWSWEEK.com blog, Level Up, my target audience is the sizable one that's already knowledgeable about the medium. The real challenge, however, comes when I return to the pages of the magazine. It's not easy to explain a game like Grand Theft Auto IV to an audience that's not native to this art form. Yes, I said art: to draw an analogy or three, Grand Theft Auto is to videogames what "The Sopranos" was to television--a sprawling, operatic crime series that has elevated the genre and made its creator very rich in the process (Rockstar Games took in more than $1 billion in the United States for the last three GTA games alone). But on the TV show, you only watch Tony and his minions kill their enemies. In Grand Theft Auto IV, you also direct and star in a story that unfolds over as many as 100 hours, depending on your skill as a gamer.

The experience is hard enough to sum up that I'm tempted to put novices at ease by writing something like this: a first-person, here's-what-I-did-in-the-game introduction, followed by a colorful précis of the Grand Theft Auto IV story and characters, then a recitation of the numerous landmarks and radio stations that give this skewed facsimile of New York City--called Liberty City in the game--its authentic flavor. The problem with this approach is that it doesn't begin to give you a feel for what it's actually like to play the game. Just as the majority of movie reviewers still struggle to find a meaningful critical and technical language with which to discuss actors' performances, we who write about videogames have yet to find a vocabulary that enables us to thoroughly engage the medium. One that will allow us to examine the mechanics, visuals, sounds and narrative elements of videogames not in isolation, but in concert.

When we wrote those two paragraphs, we did so specifically in response to several reviews of GTA IV that we'd read in the mainstream press, where the need to distill a game's essence for non-initiates is the most acute. Take, for instance, the ecstatic review that ran in the New York Times. Only two almost-throwaway sentences--"The point of the main plot is to guide Niko through the city’s criminal underworld. Gang leaders and thugs set missions for him to complete, and his success moves the story along toward a conclusion that seems as dark as its beginning"--describe the main thrust of the game. The rest of the review, though artfully written, starts with that "here's-some-of-what-I-did" intro we mentioned in our excerpt, and then follows it up with a laundry list of adjectives, characters, locations and narrative elements.

To read the rest of our post, click on the link below.

 

When the CEO of the world's largest videogame publisher takes repeated shots at the runner-up, even a journalist must eventually take note and seek comment. That's exactly what we did after noticing three separate statements in which Activision CEO Bobby Kotick had taken a dig at Electronic Arts, including an accusation that EA has been "taking the soul" out of a lot of the studios it purchased. To address this string of criticism, we sent some questions over to Jeff Brown, EA's vice president of corporate communications, for the company's official response. Here's what he wrote back:

In a recent Q&A with Portfolio, Activision CEO Bobby Kotick had the following exchange with the interviewer:

Is there a key to Activision's growth?

It's about really being considerate of the culture in the game studios that Activision buys. That's the biggest difference between us and any of our competitors. We built a model that celebrates entrepreneurial, opportunistic, independent values. It's almost the opposite of Electronic Arts, which has commoditized development. It did a very good job of taking the soul out of a lot of the studios it acquired.

What was the reaction of the executives at Electronic Arts when they read that quote?

The truth is, everyone laughed. In the past year EA has made radical changes to decentralize the company and put creative control back in the hands of development teams. It's too early to declare victory but if you talk to people like Patrick Soderlund at dice in Stockholm, Mark Jacobs at Mythic in Virginia or Josh Resnick at Pandemic--they'll probably tell you that it's working. They get a lot of resources and creative freedom. That freedom has already contributed new start-ups like Dead Space, Mirror's Edge and Boom Blox and there's a lot of others to be announced soon.

EA CEO John Riccitiello has made numerous recent remarks about EA's shift away from a command-and-control model towards a city-state model, in which individual studios and teams have more control over their own destiny. Do remarks like this suggest that he has more to do to change the perception of EA among his peers, or is something else at work? Which studios would you point to at EA that still have their souls intact?

 

To get some more information on tomorrow's announcement of the Rubik's World title for Wii and DS, which will be published in the fall by The Game Factory, we conducted two separate interviews. We spoke first with the game's Dutch developers: Two Tribes managing director Martijn Reuvers, and the company's creative director Collin van Ginkel, who also serves as lead designer on Rubik's World. We also spoke with with David Hedley-Jones, senior vice president for the Rubik brand at Seven Towns, which owns the Rubik's Cube IP. Here's what they had to say:

Whose idea was it to make a Rubik's Cube game?

David Hedley-Jones, senior vice president for the Rubik brand at Seven Towns, credits The Game Factory with the original vision for this licensed videogame. "Game Factory approached us," he says. "They were obviously aware that there's a whole new craze going on about Rubik, which has been building over the last four or five years, reaching a critical mass last year in 2007 and carrying on this year as well. It's a great time to get involved with a brand and an iconic image that's appealing to a whole new young generation."

I want to know more about the game, but this Rubik's Cube revival is interesting. Did Seven Towns drive that, or did it happen more organically?

"It was fairly organic, to be honest," says Hedley-Jones, citing the slew of programs at the turn of the century that looked back at significant pop culture events, many of which devoted time to the Rubik's Cube. He also points to the independent World Cube Association, which bills itself as an organization which "governs competitions for all puzzles labeled as Rubik puzzles, and all other puzzles that are played by twisting the sides, so-called 'twisty puzzles'." He adds: "It's also been featured a lot in movies and advertising in particular over the last five or six years, which obviously creates a great brand awareness."

Advertising? You mean like that Playstation 3 launch commercial?

Absolutely. "They came to us and asked us if they could use the Cube in their advert," says Hedley-Jones. And in a wonderfully recursive example of life imitating art imitating life, Game Factory publicist Damien Sarrazin told us that when his company and developer Two Tribes went to pitch the Rubik's World concept to Seven Towns, one of the pieces of video they showed was that very same PS3 ad. "The commercial with the PS3, where you see actually the Cube being deconstructed, is the ancillary idea of our game concept," Sarrazin says.

I'd like to hear from the developers now, thank you very much. Are they Rubik's Cube experts?

To read today's installment of Just the FAQs in its entirety, click on the link below.

At Nintendo's media event in San Francisco a few weeks ago, we made the acquaintance of The Game Factory publicist Damien Sarrazin. He was there to show off the first of an intriguing series of relaxation games for Nintendo's DS handheld. But as we chatted, Sarrazin casually mentioned another title that had yet to be revealed, this one involving the Rubik's Cube license. The combination of a mainstream brand and an unannounced title was too intoxicating for the Level Up staff to resist, so like Activision and Aerosmith, we locked up this announcement exclusively. We've also scored an interview with the game's developer (Two Tribes) and the owners of the Rubik's Cube intellectual property (Seven Towns), which you can peruse by clicking here.

To read the Game Factory press release that will be crossing the wires tomorrow, click on the link below.

 Aerosmith singer Steve Tyler in concert

With the rising popularity of rhythm games like SingStar, Guitar Hero and Rock Band, is it only a matter of time before some acts start going exclusive in exchange for more loot. Ever since Harmonix and MTV Games revealed last year that they would be offering full-length albums for download in Rock Band, followed by Red Octane and Activision's announcement that they planned to build an entire Guitar Hero game around a single band like Guitar Hero: Aerosmith, we've wondered whether the game makers were locking up exclusive rights to featured acts. It hasn't been easy finding out, because the relevant developers and publishers have been surprisingly reticent to discuss this matter.

Still, we persevered, and with an assist from NEWSWEEK business reporter Ashley Harris, we've learned that Aerosmith is indeed exclusive to Guitar Hero for an unspecified period of time. "It's an exclusive deal for this game," Aerosmith publicist Marcee Rondon told Harris. We confirmed this with Tim Riley, Activision's vice president of music affairs, who told us through Activision PR that "I can say that we do have the band exclusively, and their catalogue should be exclusive to us beyond the one or two tracks they had licensed out to Rock Band before we made our deal." (According to MTV's Rhythm Game Track Finder, it's one song: "Train Kept a Rollin'.")

 Electronic Arts' famed "Can A Computer Make You Cry?" print ad, which departing exec Bing Gordon helped create 

Once we got wind last week of William 'Bing' Gordon's impending departure from Electronic Arts, we quickly sought a pre-briefing, to which the PR teams at both Electronic Arts and Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers graciously assented. We spoke by phone yesterday evening with Gordon, whose laconic California drawl belies one of the industry's most colorful and outspoken characters. Last night's chat, however, found him in a more contemplative mood, as he looked back at his tenure at EA--where he's credited with everything from creating the EA Sports brand to founding EA's studio system--and forward at the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead as he enters the dizzying world of venture capital. To give you a sample of our conversation as quickly as possible, we've given Gordon the Just the FAQs treatment, but we plan to publish a more complete Q&A from our wide-ranging conversation in the days to come.

Why did Gordon decide to leave Electronic Arts for Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers?

Three reasons. First, he's comfortable with the partners at Kleiner Perkins. "I've known the leading partners at Kleiner since John Doerr and Brook Byers made a founding investment in Electronic Arts in '82," Gordon told us. "Then Brook went on the board, and Brook was kind of the cool guy on the board; deeply believes in entertainment and entrepreneurial possibilities. So he shaped my thinking about what a board member can be."

Over the last decade, Gordon has stopped by Kleiner Perkins from time to time to see what they've been up to. This, he says, resulted in him being invited to join the boards of such Kleiner Perkins investments as Amazon and Audible. "I kind of have 25 years with them. Like 'em; get my best reading list from them. So that's kind of the first thing: long experience and love for the Kleiner way of doing things."

What's the second reason?

With an empty nest looming as his daughters go off to college, he's been wondering about the second act in his American life. "I've got 15 more years to do something—might be cool to do something else" says Gordon of his thought process. "The first thing that popped into my head was Kleiner. Just unbidden, popped into my mind."

And the third?

To read the rest of today's installment of Just the FAQs, click on the link below.

 

Whether it's the Knicks and the Lakers, the Brooklyn Dodgers and the L.A. Dodgers or Biggie and Tupac, there's always been a rivalry between New York and California. But when it comes to videogames, NY might as well be bringing a knife to a gunfight. Sure, we've got Take-Two, or as we like to call it, The House That Rockstar Built. There's Vicarious Visions, those masters of handheld development. Kaos Studios, which worked on Battlefield for EA and just did Frontlines: Fuel of War for THQ, is also located in our fair state, as are smaller developers like Gamelab, which brought us Diner Dash.

But compared to Northern California (Electronic Arts, Lucasarts, Sega and Namco's U.S. HQs, etc.), which even stole 2K Games from us, and Southern California (Activision, THQ, Warner Bros Interactive, Disney Interactive, Brash Entertainment and more) and, well, it's clear where NYC's interactive inferiority complex comes from. So when we got wind that a brand new publisher was debuting not only in our adoptive state, but a mere subway ride away from Level Up's midtown HQ, we pulled out all the stops to bring you this news--and an exclusive interview with the company's CEO--first.

The publisher in question is GreenScreen Interactive. "It was initially founded by Ryan Brant, Mark Seremet and Susan Cummings," CEO Ron Chaimowitz told us yesterday during an exclusive interview at his SoHo offices. "Mark and Ryan were founders of take-Two Interactive, and Susan was at Take-Two and actually worked with Ryan to build the 2K label very successfully from zero to $400 million over four years." Chaimowitz is himself no slouch, having co-founded GT Interactive Software in 1993 and published such well-known titles as Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem and Unreal.

To read the rest of our post on GreenScreen Interactive as well as the full text of the company's press release, click on the link below.

 

As we said in today's announcement, former guest poster Justin Blankenship has graciously agreed to join Level Up's select stable of monthly columnists. In his first post, he applied the insights he gained during his 2001-2004 tenure in the Federal Trade Commission's Mergers 2 division in Washington, D.C., to suss out the antitrust implications of Electronic Arts' intended purchase of Take-Two Interactive. Blankenship declared that the the FTC would likely take a hard look at the deal, and while some were skeptical of his analysis, he was proven right last week when his former employer issued a Second Request for more information on the proposed deal. In his debut monthly column, Blankenship returns to the EA/Take-Two imbroglio to answer some questions that others raised in response to his earlier post and shed some light on the thought process behind the FTC's recent decision. read on.

First of all, thank you to everyone who read my piece about EA's potential acquisition of Take Two, and especially to those of you who took the time to cover the piece or otherwise comment on it. Now that the FTC has issued a Second Request to EA and is clearly taking a hard look at the merger, this seems like a good time to recap where this deal is, and follow up on some interesting points that were raised.

1. "What is a 'Second Request' and what does this mean for EA/Take Two?"

A little background on how the merger review process works is helpful here. Under a law called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (HSR), any merger or tender offer that exceeds a certain monetary threshold is required to file a Notification and Report Form with both the FTC and the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice. The Form includes a description of the deal, the parties to the deal, and attaches certain documents relevant to the deal for government review.

Most importantly, the HSR filing starts a 30-day clock running for the government to review the deal during which it is illegal to consummate the merger. The vast majority of deals go through after this 30-day period, or even earlier if the parties have requested an "early termination" of the waiting period.

A much smaller percentage of deals, however, present some competitive concerns that require that the government investigation extend beyond the 30-day waiting period. Those deals receive what's called a "Second Request"--which is what EA got on April 17th.

To read Blankenship's column in its entirety, click on the link below.

 DVD cover for the 1995 film "The Usual Suspects," courtesy MGM

Over the Christmas break, we took some time to reflect on what changes or additions we could make to improve the blog. One of those concepts was Page 110, which debuted today. Another, which has also been some time in coming, was to add monthly columnists. We've always done our best to incorporate other voices into the mix here at Level Up, whether it's people who work in the videogame industry in some capacity in Outsourced, or interested outside observers in P2P. But in those cases where our blog opened up conversations among ourselves and a handful of gifted, thoughtful writers, we felt compelled to expose those voices to our modest but influential audience--you.

Our first official column, titled The Law and the Short of It, is penned by someone who should be no stranger to close readers of Level Up: Justin Blankenship, former Federal Trade Commission lawyer and current stay-at-home father. From Fall 2001 until early 2004, Blankenship worked in the FTC's Mergers 2 division in Washington, D.C., which reviewed mergers in the chemical, technology, and entertainment fields for potential violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, in search of potential anti-competitive concerns that would hurt consumers. So as part of his division's jurisdiction, he examined similar mergers while at the FTC. Blankenship sent us an email expressing his opinion that the FTC would take a hard look at the EA Sports/2K Sports part of this deal for antitrust reasons; we requested that he expand his thoughtful email into a full post, and based on his superlative work, we asked him to join our first wave of monthly columnists. Click here to read Blankenship's debut column, and be sure to check back later today for the premiere of our second opinionator.

 

Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.
--Michael Corleone in "The Godfather: Part II"

For a deal that's yet to be consummated, there's been a whole lot of activity surrounding Electronic Arts' proposed acquisition of Take-Two. First came the news that the Federal Trade Commission had requested further information and additional time to complete its review of the deal--the "hard look" at the deal that Level Up's own guest poster and former FTC lawyer Justin Blankenship had predicted. Next, at its shareholders meeting last night, Take-Two's board continued to urge its stock owners to reject EA's tender offer.

Finally, this morning, EA announced that it had extended the deadline for its tender offer to May 16th--while reducing the value of its offer from $26 per share to $25.74 to reflect the additional shares of restricted stock that have been granted to Take-Two management. To make sense of all of the head-spinning feints and counter-moves, we shot an email over to the omnipresent Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter. Here's what he had to say:

What should we make of Electronic Arts' decision to extend its tender offer to Take-Two shareholders to May 16th, 2008?

They extended because they fully intend to wage a proxy battle over the next month. That will essentially involve nominating a new board and soliciting the vote of 50.01 percent ofall shareholders (including those who could not vote yesterday because they bought after February 19). If they win the proxy battle, they will take control of Take-Two.

Is there anything significant about that date?

 "300 patapon," by canecodesign on deviantART

In Round 1 of our Vs. Mode exchange with MTV News reporter Stephen Totilo (also featured on his blog Multiplayer) on Patapon, the Level Up staff struck first with our championing of the value of indirect control, feel and iconic design. Totilo largely sidestepped our talking points, preferring to focus on gamer guilt and control versus orchestration in games. For our second and final round, things get a bit more personal. We belligerently extol our superior taste in games; attack Patapon's leveling grind; and vociferously dispute Totilo's metaphoric interpretation of the PSP title's gameplay. Totilo, for his part, responds with a deceptively polite evisceration of our anti-grinding position--before charging that the last two Vs. Modes have been too chummy. Is he correct, or just dead wrong, as usual? Only you, Dear Reader, can make that call. Some excerpts:

N'Gai Croal: Back to Patapon: is the grind an imperfection? I say yes. It seems like an easy way to pad out a game that otherwise, as designed, isn't very long. Now, it's true that I could go back to any open area to mine it for the resources I needed, but it was still grinding nonetheless. And I'm not as forgiving as you on this point because while the songs are pleasant and memorable, they weren't so good that I would let it slide....A much better solution would have been to let me "sell" my warriors back recover part or all of the ka-ching that I spent on them so that I could use spend it on  a better warrior. But in fairness to the designers--and to return to the suspension of disbelief point I just raised--they seem to want to make a point about the value of your individual troops. Each class of warrior can only contain so many troops; when you get the ingredients to make a better soldier, you first have to clear a slot in its respective class. And when you clear that slot, the Patapon warrior in it dies, in a manner suggesting that the air was removed from its body. (Not to mention that with the death of your warrior goes all the ka-ching and experience points you put into it.)

Stephen Totilo: When we curse a grind, we're cursing a game for forcing repetitive gameplay, to block advancement without this repetition. But aren't all games, by their very nature, rife with repetition? Isn't Super Mario Bros. just a lot of repeated hops. Isn't Halo just a few specific styles of engagement repeated and remixed for hours on end? Sure. The grind, however, earns scorn because it forces too much repetition. It crosses a line. It registers an excess. The repetition often becomes too much and turns into a grind once the game has forced the gamer to go backward, to perpetrate the game's initially un-offensively repetitive gameplay in levels they've already run through. Gameplay repetition is changed to gameplay grinding. And that's when it's time to get angry. Except: it's all subjective, isn't it? Where is that line between fun repetition and grinding? Why don't God of War games get accused of forcing a grind? Because they don't? Oh, surely, they do. They require collecting orbs to get powers, some of which you need to advance. Does God of War get off because they just don't do it forcefully enough that it's bothersome?

To read the Final Round of our exchange in its entirety, click on the link below.

 

Here at Level Up, our inbox is chock full of press releases, PR pitches, notes from my editors, a fan mail or two, and the occasional bit of Viagra spam that slips through our email filters. But every so often, something genuinely compelling comes across the transom--so compelling, in fact, that we have no choice to share it with you. In February, we appeared on the G4TV show X-Play to discuss Electronic Arts' bid to acquire Take-Two. A viewer of the program, Justin Blankenship, is also a regular reader of Level Up, and he wrote us to share his thoughts about the deal. His words were sufficiently compelling that we asked him to shape them into a formal post, which we present to you following our introduction.

What made Blankenship's opinions particularly intriguing is that from Fall 2001 until early 2004 he was employed as a lawyer at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C. More specifically, he worked in the Mergers 2 division, which reviewed mergers in the chemical, technology, and entertainment fields for potential violations of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, in search of potential anti-competitive concerns that would hurt consumers. So as part of his division's jurisdiction, Blankenship examined similar mergers while at the FTC, and in his email to us, he expressed his opinion that the FTC would take a hard look at the EA Sports/2K Sports part of this deal for antitrust reasons. " Although you've yet to see antitrust law rear its head in a videogame merger, this is the best case I've seen where it could happen," Blankenship says below. Read on to find out why EA could have more problems on its hands than just Take-Two's wily CEO Strauss Zelnick and the merry band of arbitrageurs holding out for a higher sale price.

There seems to be a lot of chatter in the videogame industry about the inevitability of Electronic Arts' takeover of Take-Two. Although EA's offer may eventually prove too lucrative for Take-Two to pass up, I wouldn't assume that this deal will get a rubber stamp from government antitrust regulators. I'm specifically referring to comments by Wedbush's Michael Pachter, who stated: "Currently [EA and Take-Two] compete in pro basketball, college basketball and hockey. So by taking out all of that, EA has a monopoly in sports. If these guys have a monopoly, they're not going to cut pricing on sports games as quickly. We've been seeing sports games come down [in price] before Christmas the last couple of years. That'll never happen again."

Until 2004, I worked in a division of the FTC that spent a lot of time looking at technology-related mergers, and had at least taken a good look at mergers like this one. I also have every reason to suspect that my former colleagues would give this deal a hard look, especially in light of Mr. Pachter's comments, of which I'm sure they're aware.

Section 7 of the Clayton Act forbids the acquisition of stock or assets when "the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." (15 U.S.C. § 18) This case, like most merger cases in antitrust, would likely be resolved by the definition of the market (anyone interested in the details of this analysis can refer to the Joint DOJ/FTC 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines). If a given market is defined narrowly, it means there are fewer competitors, and concentration levels are consequently likely to be much higher. In a broader market, more competitors are included, concentration levels are lower, and competitive issues are far less likely.

 Mel Gibson as Mad Max in the 1981 post-apocalyptic film "The Road Warrior"

Coy time is over, Dear Reader. Yesterday, we told you that God of War II director Cory Barlog--who'd left Sony Computer Entertainment last November partway through the development of God of War III--had formed a creative partnership with writer-director-producer George Miller. Today, we can finally reveal what they'll be working on first: a "Mad Max" action-adventure game, inspired by the "Mad Max: Fury Road" movie that Miller had been preparing to shoot in 2003 before the war in Iraq forced him to put everything on hold. Specific details on the gameplay are still fuzzy, as Barlog and Miller are still early in the planning phase, but we can confirm that melee weapons, projectile weapons and vehicles will all be present, just as you would expect. We spoke with Miller by phone in January, who personally informed us that Mad Max would be his first serious videogame venture. Here are some excerpts from our hour-long conversation:

 

When news broke last November that God of War II director Cory Barlog was leaving Sony Computer Entertainment with God of War III, everyone wanted to know what he planned to do next. Thanks to a well-placed source, we knew half of the story, which we can reveal to you exclusively today: he'll be working with the noted Australian film writer-director-producer George Miller--the man behind such features as "The Witches of Eastwick," "Babe," "Happy Feet," and most notably of all, the "Mad Max" series of movies that starred Mel Gibson--on one or more videogame projects.

What we didn't know, even after an hour-long, previously unpublished interview with Barlog that we conducted last December, is what the two men would be collaborating on. That's because Barlog was being coy, so we held off on publishing anything until we could get more details. A January phone interview with Miller took care of that--as did a subsequent follow-up conversation with Barlog--but we're going to take a page from Barlog's handbook and be coy with you, Dear Reader. Why? To let you experience this epic series of wide-ranging chats as we did, in chronological order, and absorb the implications of this partnership and the potential for others like it as more top videogame creators consider throwing off the shackles of the employer-employee relationship for the promise and peril of the independent contractor.

So tomorrow, we'll publish our world exclusive details of the first collaboration between Barlog and Miller, alongside a Q&A with Miller himself. (Trust us--you won't want to miss it.) But today, we're going focus on our initial December interview with Barlog, which centered around his decision to break away from Sony after the success of God of War and God of War II. Some excerpts:

 Freelance journalist Evan Narcisse

It goes without saying that when we play single-player games, we usually do so by ourselves. But while staying at a friend's in Los Angeles over the Thanksgiving break, we were introduced to the singular pleasures of passing the controller back and forth so that two players can, um, jointly progress through a game's solo mode. Upon discovering that freelance journalist Evan Narcisse likes to indulge in the same recreational activity, we knew we had to persuade him to write about this phenomenon--and its implications--for Level Up. Narcisse, whose work on videogames appears in the Washington Post and Entertainment Weekly, also writes the Thought/Process cultural criticism column for Crispy Gamer and moderates the site's podcast, Blazing Prattles. Here's what he had to say.

Evan Narcisse: I started noticing that my experience of Portal differed from other titles I'd played recently. By my lonesome, I might've chalked up my occasional frustrations to poor design, frazzled reflexes or my own cognitive bottlenecks. Playing co-operatively with B allowed me to take some of the pressure off of myself and let the game seep in. The way I heard GLaDOS's snippy commentary changed completely. Were I playing Portal solo, I would've asked myself if I'd heard her snark correctly, shrugged and gone back to solving the puzzle of whatever room I was in. With B by my side, whoever was playing would pause, we'd look at each other and break out into guffaws when GLaDOS's dry condescension or blatant panic made itself known. By the time the camera careens through the underbelly of Aperture Science and the first gentle strains of "Still Alive" start up, we both were dizzy from flinging Chell through Room 17 and aching from laughing through GlaDOS's final rant. (For my part, I started to well up a little bit, too.)

To read Narcisse's essay in its entirety, click on the link below.