Chris Suellentrop -- self-proclaimed casual gamer and columnist for Slate Magazine -- tells why a derivative sci-fi gorefest, Gears of War, is deserving of 2006's best video game of the year award despite some calling it "more of the same." These few choice snippets sum up his reasoning nicely: "Gears of War isn't getting critical acclaim because it's unique or revolutionary. The game will be recognizable to anyone who's picked up a game controller in the past 10 years... Epic Games set out to make Gears of War as the gaming equivalent of a top-notch popcorn movie, and they succeeded. It's a blockbuster, not a revolution."

Are predictable blockbuster movies any less entertaining than fresh, new ones? Maybe... in abundance. But while Nintendo's marketing would have you believe nearly everything must be thrown out the window, Gears is a "gamer's game." You know, the kind most of us grew up on. That's not to say we don't embrace, enjoy, even encourage uncharted territory via Form Batons. But the idea behind discounting a single game's achievements for lack of innovation seems slightly flawed.

The New York Times dissed the PlayStation 3, and now Slate has dissed the Wii. What is this world coming to?

Highlights from Erik Sofge's "The Case against the Wii":

• Like many of us (self included), Erik "was in love" with the Wii before he'd ever laid a hand on it. You won't be able to pin the hater tail on him, because he was predisposed to want to like the console after "months of giddy anticipation."
• "The Nintendo pointer felt less accurate than even the light guns used in antique games like Duck Hunt. Every time I sighted down the controller at the TV, the crosshairs were off-center. This inaccuracy becomes a mini-game of its own: In order to kill the guy on the left, you need to aim left and slightly down."
• "... for the most part, the Wii compensates for its lousy motion detection by coddling users."
• "The Wii Remote is the most advanced motion-sensing device in the history of gaming, but in the interests of accommodating almost unlimited variables, from the size of the TV to the player's physical proportions, the Wii tosses out much of the data that are collected."
• "For a console that wants to start a revolution, making users doubt their reflexes is a serious design flaw. By playing fast and loose with motion detection, the Wii swings wildly between deal-breaking frustration and hollow victories."

You may now proceed to shoot the messenger...

[Update 1: It's worth mentioning that another Slate author posted a somewhat more favorable review of the Wii here. Thanks for pointing that out, NothingShocking.]

While there are indie game projects -- like that Indy point-and-clicker I wrote about earlier -- the industry continues on a path towards longer development time and larger budgets making indie gaming, as we've come to know it, largely inviable.

Luke O'Brien takes a look at the problem for Slate and ponders why, when some of the industry's earliest blockbusters were the product of independent development (think Ultima, Doom, Dune II), independent development is the rare exception to the rule. While mainstream publishers rely on sequels and updates, certain factions (like Costikyan's Manifesto Games) are trying to bypass the system by selling their games online.

One notable omission: episodic gaming. With companies like Telltale Games and Valve actively using technology to deliver their games directly to gamers and disrupt the publisher paradigm, O'Brien's piece didn't consider the effects of these (admittedly larger) independent developers. Can independent developers use technology to assume control from the major publishers, much like the early movie industry did?

[Thanks, Andrew]

Slate's Daniel Engber explains how it is we know that shady Gizmondo chieftain Stefan Ericksson's grand theft auto'd Ferrari Enzo was going precisely 162mph at the time of impact, ripping the car into two pieces. It would be difficult to condense the variables that go into this determination, but here goes:

• Inventory where the pieces ended up (like the gun ... or Dietrich?)
• Factor in the "coefficient of friction" of the surface
• Apply some rudimentary physics
• ?
• Voilá!

Investigators also use the level of damage from the impact and, using data compiled by manufacturers and insurance companies (who else?), they can extrapolate the car's speed. Oh yeah, and there's a black box whose information isn't always reliable or applicable, so investigators usually use a combination of all three techniques to triangulate a correct answer. In this case: 162mph.

Question is, how much--in Gizmondos--does an investigation like this cost taxpayers? Twenty Gizmondos ... fifty?