AX and My First Public Lecture

Sunday morning, I went up on stage in front of a few dozen people and gave a lecture about interacting with professionals in the anime industry.

So that happened.

Yeah, Anime Expo wasn't as awesome as I would've hoped. The lecture went fine. People laughed, then asked questions, they learned a lot...I'd call that a success. Unfortunately, I was only able to attend Saturday and Sunday which limited my time. Plus a lot of the panels started late, the food was awful, and I was in pain both days during times I was just trying to enjoy myself.

One of the truly awesome things was getting to meet a bunch of friends I'd only known online. I really felt supported doing my lecture knowing that they had shown up to support me. Hopefully, I'll get a chance to give it again (many thanks to Matt to giving me a critique) or perhaps a different lecture next time.

Sadly, the person who was going to record it didn't make it until the very end, so it wasn't taped. Maybe next time.

Anime Expo Lecture Preview!

As some of you may have heard, I will be giving a lecture at the 2010 Anime Expo in Los Angeles! I'm very excited to "blah blah blah" at an audience for 40-50 minutes with NO POWERPOINT PRESENTATION! I considered one, but I don't want to stand behind a podium with a laptop. That's too dull for me. So here's some info:

When: Sunday, July 4 at 11am
Where: Los Angeles Convention Center, LACC 502 (upstairs by West Hall)

What: "Interacting with Media and the Anime Industry"

Wait...what?!: I'm dishing out the DOs and DO NOTs of dealing with industry professionals. The way you communicate with people can positively or negatively affect their desire to work with you. This talk will focus primarily on anime fans who are looking to break into the industry, have their own websites, or just want to have their voices heard. I'm going to give you an insider's perspective from both the fan and the professional side of the entertainment industry.

The lecture will be divided into six parts:

Making contacts at conventions - Tips on how to prepare to make contacts face to face
Online communications - How social media, blogs, and forums can help or harm your reputation
Reaching out to companies - Requesting materials, job hunting, and pitching
Celebrities - The little things you should know before you talk to one
The top 4 things to NEVER do - You want to piss someone off and destroy any chance of being taken seriously by the media biz? Here's how.
Q&A: With any leftover time, I will gladly answer questions regarding these topics

And yes, I will be cosplaying for the first section. Hope to see you there!

Playing With Myself

(not my Shepard)

Last week, I finished my first playthrough of Mass Effect. I had the option of starting a new character and class. I decided to make a different version of my my original Commander Shepard with slightly different features, hair color, class, and personality.

And yet...I found it difficult to let go of my heroic, plain Jane, good-hearted Shepard I had just finished playing with. That got me thinking about main characters in RPGs.

I noticed after playing Knights of the Old Republic, that I had a similar feeling. Leaving behind my character from the MMORPG Final Fantasy XI was hard to do, and often times, I miss playing her. But why? Why do we have such attachments to certain video game characters?

My own theory is that in RPGs where we fully customize characters and make decisions that affect the game, those characters reflect ourselves. We, the gamers, make the choices. From my own experience, I find that I choose to play female avatars with similar physical traits to my own, and usually play the "good version" first. So after investing hours upon hours playing my personification and making my desicions, I've become quite attached to my virtual self and find it difficult to play the game again as someone who is not "me." I like this person. I relate to this character. Why? Because they are a reflection of myself. And who do we know better than our own selves?

Then I consider RPGs where the main characters are not customizable. These are characters designed by someone else. Yes, we sometimes make decisions on how to interact, like in the Persona games; yet these non-custom characters don't feel like they are a part of our consciousness. Tidus is not me. Vyse is not me. Sora is not me. Nathan Drake is not me. Starkiller is not me. Even the nameless Suikoden heroes are not me (Then again, they have almost no personality anyway). When I finish a game with characters like those, I feel satisfied, like I put down a good book, but I never find it hard to say goodbye because it is someone else's adventure.

In conclusion, I believe that we take more personal pleasure in RPGs where the main characters is a personified embodiment of ourselves. Why? Because in doing so, we gain a genuine sense of accomplishement, as though we are personally performing these home/world/galaxy-saving feats. The heroes are ourselves, and in turn, we are the heroes.

The New Weapon of War: Free Stuff...But Not

The winds are changing my friends.

I always found it quite ingenious that Electronic Arts managed to find a way to make consumers want to purchase video games new instead of used. "Why is this important?" you ask. It's important because game developers and publishers don't get a dime on used game sales. Only the retailers do. This kind of sucks for those who work really hard to make games to earn a living.

EA first came up with the "Cerberus Network" idea for Bioware's Mass Effect 2, which added a one-time-use code in every box, granting them free DLC. Without the code, the DLC would cost $15. Making people think that they're saving money is always a good thing. Then they did it again with Dragon Age Origins. Yesterday, EA Sports announced plans to use the same unique code concept with all sports titles, starting with Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11; but this time, players will need the code just to play online.

Ruh roh...

I'd say this is a sign of the times. EA has stumbled onto something pretty ingenious. It's not raising prices, but it's giving consumers real incentive to buy new. Do I think it's a douchebag kind of move anyway? Yup. For years, online access was included in the cost of the game. Aren't we already paying for internet service, and hell, sometimes even online gaming service (Xbox Live)? But it could be far worse. They could just charge you to play online anyway...

...which is a concept Activision has been tossing around with the Call of Duty franchise.

Will other game publishers catch on to this? Most likely. Prices on new games drop drastically after the first few months, so maybe you can just wait it out. Oh ho ho! Not so fast! Did you notice that taking advantage of the DA:O free DLC had a time limit on it? It ended April 31, so if you wanted to take advantage of free DLC, you had to buy the game new while it was still full price.

Genius. Is there a Nobel prize for this kind of thing?

Teggy's Anime and Manga Giveaway!

I have reached 1000+ followers on twitter! Yippie! In celebration, I am personally holding an anime and manga giveaway because I have tons of stuff piled up, taking up space in my apartment. I want to get rid of it! I have five boxes to give away:

3 Mixed anime and manga boxes
1 yaoi/yuri manga box (You must be 18 or older to enter for this one)
1 mixed box that also includes art and drawing technique books

If you would like to enter for a chance to win some, here's what you do: Depending on which box you want, tweet one of these three messages:

I'm entering @TheAnimeGoddess's anime and manga giveaway for the mixed box!

I'm entering @TheAnimeGoddess's anime and manga giveaway for the yaoi/yuri box!

I'm entering @TheAnimeGoddess's anime and manga giveaway for the art box!


I will randomly draw the winners from all the entries. You have until Sunday, May 2nd at 11:59pm PST to enter. This contest is in no way associated with G4, Comcast Entertainment Group, it's parent company, sponsors, or affiliates. No purchase necessary. One entry per person. Void where prohibited.

Are You Stupid, Deceived, or Both?

Video game companies are always trying to find ways to make money. One of the greatest difficulties for the industry is giving consumers incentive to buy new games instead of saving a few dollars and buying used. Why? Because publishers and developers don't earn a dime on used games, only the retailers do.

So the fine folks at EA put their heads together and came up with a brilliant idea: Include a code with new games that grants consumers the power to download extra content for free. The code can only be used one time, so once it's been used, that's it. Therefore, when consumers purchase a used game, they won't get this code and will have to pay for the additional content. This makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Then today I came across an article about one consumer who felt deceived by the practice. He purchased a used copy of Dragon Age: Origins from GameStop to save $5; however, the cover art advertised free additional content and characters. When he got home, he discovered that the code had been used and he would have to pay another $15 to access the downloadable content.

He has since decided to file a lawsuit against GameStop for "deceptively misleading" him to purchase the game used. By saving $5, he had to spend an additional $15 to get the DLC, and thusly spent $10 more for the same material buying it used. He could not even return the game because it was past the 7-day return limit on used items.

Okay, I understand that he feels mislead. The question here though is "who to blame?" Is it really GameStop's fault that the box art advertised free DLC? Should the employees be at fault for not making the "one time use" issue clear to him?

In this case, I'd probably have to say no. Take a look at the back of the box featured on GameStop's website. It explicitly states on the left-hand side, "Includes: downloadable character and quest/A $15 Value/One-time use code available with full retail purchase. Expires April 30, 2010." It's right there, on the box. Can he blame EA then? Well not really, because despite the small print, it's plainly there.

I suppose the only way his case could possibly hold any merit is if GameStop slapped on a sticker advertising the DLC on a used box or an employee explicitly stated that he would still get the DLC for free. That's just me guessing. I'd have to actually see the box in question.

Yes, I know I keep saying that "gamers are not stupid," but anyone can misinterpret the fine print.

Wine About It!

Dear Capcom,

I was playing Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth today, when I noticed that the passengers in Episode 2 were drinking grape juice out of wine glasses and wine bottles. Now, your game is rated T by the ESRB here in the States. Really now? Your games are chock full of murders, assaults, and kidnappings, yet you localized "wine" as "grape juice"?

Really now. Gamers are smarter than that. We're much more mature about such things than you think. Just because we see "wine" involved in a video game does not mean that we're going to want to go out and drink it (though I could go for some sparkling red grape juice about now...) after playing it. Teens are perfectly capable on making intelligent choices as well as separating fiction from reality. Give them a little credit.

Unless it's all just a jab at 4Kids, in which case, please disregard.

Lulz @ 1:30