News and notes from around the world of sports video gaming:

• Madden's play-in round of voting lasts until next Wednesday. Right now, last year's finalist Michael Vick is losing to teammate LeSean McCoy; two guys (Brandon Lloyd, Brandon Marshall) who won't be on their teams when the game releases next year, look to advance, and Las Vegas has Victor Cruz (?!) as the fourth favorite to win it all. Rob Gronkowski, a 13-2 shot, made that video above. Bonus points for the Zubaz, but I think he goes out early once the anti-Patriot hate machine fires up. I think Calvin Johnson is a great value at 18/1. Go put some money down on him and you can get paid like Megatron, too.

• UFC Undisputed 3's "Fight of the Night" DLC extension is available now. Get fighters Joe Lauzon, Rory MacDonald,. Sam Stout, Charles Oliveira and Anthony Johnson. The cost is $5/400 Microsoft Points.

• Robert Griffin III will have 90-plus speed and throw power, and Andrew Luck should be rated about an 87 overall when Madden NFL 13 hits, according to "ratings czar" Donny Moore. [via Pasta Padre]

• I don't know how these guys make these videos, I can't even get 2K's replay cam to work right. But Shady00018 at Operation Sports put out this superb in-game recreation of this Kobe Bryant "Failure" video.

This Saturday was about as throwing-things livid I've been over a sports contest in a decade. The last time I was this angry was in 2003, when Jorge Posada doubled off of Pedro Martinez to tie the seventh game of the American League Championship Series. I kicked a trashcan across the newsroom of the Rocky Mountain News and cursed Grady Little and his mother. Brian Crecente asked the supervising editor to reprimand me.

This time, N.C. State, my alma mater, lost by two points in its conference tournament in a game heavily influenced by terrible officiating. Stoking the anger is the fact we—yes, I'll use "we," as I actually went to the school—lost to our most despised rival, North Carolina. And there is a wide belief among State fans that the ACC officiating is at least reputation-based in how calls are made. Others among us think it is as straight-up rigged as Serie A.

Some of our more analytical alumni (we have a mathematics college, you know) examined the officiating patterns and found North Carolina very much favored in fouls called for and against it in league games—and Duke with a stunning advantage in fouls called despite the fact a third of its shot attempts are three-pointers, which rarely draw a foul. Naturally, my thoughts turned to video games, and whether simulation sports titles would represent any kind of a control in the analysis.

This was a short-lived thought exercise because as any fan knows, video games don't. Not in terms of officiating.

The simulations I run in Biff Tannen's Sports Almanac, and Madden's remarkably successful prediction over the past eight Super Bowls, all leave out one important factor: How the game is called.

In football, Sunday staples such as pass interference and holding are rare. And any sports gamer knows that you often go an entire game in basketball—the most subjectively officiated team sport in the world—without either team reaching the bonus (shooting free throws, instead of a non-shooting foul stopping play and awarding possession to the other team if necessary.) Traveling, whether called or uncalled, is simply impossible to simulate, but it is a factor in every college and professional contest.

I ran two simulations in real-time within College Hoops 2K8, as its community still provides updated and edited rosters for the current season (EA Sports deactivated online support for NCAA Basketball 10, meaning others' rosters are now impossible to obtain.) In the first, a total of three fouls were called, all of them shooting fouls. UNC mopped the floor with us and won by 12.

In the second, I adjusted the officiating sliders to maximum to call every possible foul the game recognizes. State had 7 team fouls to North Carolina's one but, in fairness, most of these were intentional at the end of the game. UNC was not even in the bonus when it had the ball with 14 seconds left. State comically fouled UNC four times, intentionally, never put the guy on the line, and lost. And it's funny to me that officiating driven up to its strictest setting favored the Wolfpack, where a more casual affair resulted in a Carolina blowout.

This again speaks to the differing, even ironic expectations sports fans have of their real world contests, and the ones on their consoles.

In real life, we expect a perfect and objectively officiated game. In video games, we want to see the refs call ticky-tack bullshit and outright bias the affair in the favor of an elite team. That communicates simulation quality and for sure it would be praised. I've written about this before, and yes, I still play video game baseball with a variable strike zone, and I still get mad when someone whacks strike five for a go-ahead double.

Officiating, goes the old saw, is best when it is noticed least, and video games reflect this. Constantly calling fouls or taking the ball out of your hands by calling traveling not only slows down the game, it is simply unenjoyable.

But in both real life sports and their video game counterparts, we know that it is the on-field acts that summon the most excitement, while the officiating and the managerial decisions only deliver the worst outrage. This is a video game. It is supposed to be fun, it's supposed to deliver enjoyment, not heartache, not reprimands and trash cans kicked across the room.

When game developer Chris Yee heard that Christchurch Cathedral was set to be demolished, he decided to rebuild it. In a video game.

The cathedral, which was partially destroyed in an earthquake that hit the New Zealand city of Christchurch on February 22, was then slated for demolition. To commemorate it, Yee decided to rebuild the landmark in the sandbox game Minecraft.

Yee writes on his blog:

Now, I'm not the first to actually try this. A team of NZ Minecraft enthusiasts did this about 11 months ago, the only difference it seems is that they did theirs entirely in survival mode. That means they had to make their materials. They took about 48 hours to finish and raised $1600 for the Earthquake Appeal, so props to them ^_^. Here's the site if you're interested to see their build.

I'm not looking to be recognised for this though. This is for the remembrance of an icon that has been a part of my life for the best part of… well, since I can first remember. I passed this place every day in my youth, when I walked through town, even at my last job when we were based in town. That day, February 22nd was a surreal day indeed, and when we all gathered in the Square, the realisation just hit, and hit hard.

Whether they manage to keep it and strengthen it, I don't know. A part of me wishes to keep it, but another says we need to bring it down. It's just not safe anymore, and will never be in her state. I do hope they preserve as much of the fascade as possible so that they can be integrated into the much stronger and stable design in the future. As long as we remember, then no catastrophe, no matter how large a scale will erase it.

Remembrance, Part 1 [WOFT via @jokay]

With the long-awaited Diablo III due out in May some 12 years after the release of Diablo II, we decided to take a look back at the release history of the company that puts out a new game "When it's done."

Aside for the Warcraft franchise, which has seen pretty regular releases since 2002, Blizzard's release schedule is a study in empty spaces. Even World of Warcraft's expansions are pretty staggered, especially considering the original plan was to release a new expansion pack every year after Burning Crusade.

Considering the company's track record of hits and misses, I'd say this timeline could serve as a blueprint for other developers; a prime example of how you don't need a new game every year to be a success.

Note that we also included games from before Blizzard was Blizzard, though we omitted Silicon & Synapse's ports, as they don't count.

Click here for a larger version.

You'll be able to buy a Ratchet & Clank Collection for PlayStation 3 this fall. It collects the first three games in the series, all wonderful, all from the PS2. It omits the fourth PS2 Ratchet, the armored-hero multilplayer-centric, more badass Deadlocked. We would like to commend Sony and Ratchet creators Insomniac for their good taste in Ratchet & Clanks. More details at the PlayStation Blog.

Welcome to The FP, Bitch!

At least, I'm assuming that at some point someone in this movie will utter that line. As they do, you will be welcomed to The FP, a new and absolutely ridiculous movie from Drafthouse Films, which comes out tomorrow in theaters nationwide.

Above, you can watch the first ten minutes of the film. You should. You really should. How can I describe it?

Two bros from a gang called The 248 (This is an Oakland county area code. So I guess they're in Detroit?) meet up to take on some jive turkeys from the rival gang, the 245. But here's the twist—in this super edgy and really tough version of America, gangs don't fight with guns of knives, they fight with a video game called Beat Beat Revelation. Which is basically Dance Dance Revolution.

Yeah.

There's also some weird stuff going on with Civil War iconography? The evil 245ers wear confederate gear, and their champion's screen name invokes the n-word. Even though as far as I can see, everyone in the movie is either white or Asian… And the "FP" here stands for Frazier Park, which doesn't appear to be a neighborhood in Detroit… but why else would they use numbers like that for their gang names? Would there really be two all-white street gangs in Detroit? Clearly there is a complex backstory going on here.

I can't quite get my head around whether I love this because it's so ridiculous, dumb, and funny, or hate it because it's such a blatant attempt to be "culty." (I'm leaning towards love.) It's narrated by James Remar of The Warriors. One of the bad guys carries a huge silver boom-box on his shoulder. The reluctant hero has an eyepatch. (!!)

The vibe reminds me of the amazing Foot Clan hangout from the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie. The tryhard gangsta dialogue is particularly amazing: At one point, someone calls someone else a "Trippin'-ass lip-smackin' pancake munchin' mo-fucker." Before going into "battle," the 248 champion gives the following incredible speech:

Don't let this shit put your brain on flips, you gotta think of Beat Beat Revelation like it was the civil war! Four score and a couple years ago, ma and pa fought for some serious shit! Ya heard??

The challenge is up in this motherfucker, J-Tro! Now is the time! All these carpet-baggin, fut-buckin bitches from the 245, and us from the 248 - we gots to be ready for anything!

That's why we gots to get each others' backs! To the end, aiight?

What follows is a tense, action-packed game of... Dance Dance Revolution... which ends in them kicking it into Omega Gangsta Mode and then with the guy from the good 248 gang dying.

Yes! He is defeated so hard at DDR that he dies from it. And that is where things get bro-motional. Hands are thrown up to the heavens. The phrase "Nooooo!" is uttered.

Look, I don't know whether this thing is good or bad, honestly. My sensors have been overloaded by it. All I can say is that I very much want to have some friends over (or head out to the Roxie in SF), crack open a six pack, and watch the entire thing.

The FP is playing in select theaters nationwide (link is below) starting on March 16th, and viewers can also set up their own screenings through a website called tugg.

The FP—Now Playing [Official Site]

Welcome back to the Kotaku Game Club's discussion of Mass Effect 3. We'll be covering the middle portion of the game's campaign today, picking up where left off last week, after the mission on the Turian Moon of Menae, and looking at everything through the mission on Thessia. It's a lot of material, but some of you thought we weren't covering enough ground last week, so taking a bigger bite this time.

Since we're discussing the campaign again, remember that today's discussion will be full of spoilers. If you haven't been to Thessia yet, I suggest doing so before joining the conversation.

First time participating? Here's the deal: The Kotaku Game Club exists because no one wants to experience a game alone. Even if we're playing individually, it's always more interesting to share our thoughts and hear other peoples' perspectives. The Game Club picks a different game every month to play as group so we can meet to discuss its narrative and mechanical themes and reactions to them.

We meet on Kotaku every Thursday at 4pm Eastern, and our discussions take place in the comments section of designated Game Club posts like this one.

Here's today's jump-off question:

Is deciding the fate of entire species more or less emotional than deciding for your own characters?

Mass Effect 3 is supposed to be about making tough choices: The decisions Shepard makes may very well define the future of every living being in the galaxy. The weight of the world is on his or her shoulders. The question is, are you feeling the pressure, too?

Mass Effect 2 built tension by putting the fate of individuals in your hands. These were characters who you could look at and talk to. Mass Effect 3 asks you to make decisions on behalf of billions, most of whom you'll never see, regardless of whether they live or die. Does widening the scope of Shepard's decisions make them more difficult, or are the consequences so unimaginably large that you emotionally detach yourself from the situation?

Next week we'll be discussing the last leg of Mass Effect 3, including the game's ending. It seems like everybody has opinion about how BioWare closed the Mass Effect saga, so there should be a... let's call it a "lively" event. We'll be meeting here on Kotaku next Thursday, March 22nd, at 4pm Eastern.

Microsoft's saying that the successor to the Xbox 360 won't be the star of the show at 2012's Electronic Entertainment Expo.

Speculation had been rising that Microsoft would be the next major platform player to show the successor to their current hardware. Rumors reportedly have the console code-named Durango , claim that it won't be a disc-based machine and speculate that it won't play pre-owned games. Expectations for a Durango reveal this year were running high but a tweet from Bloomberg News reporter Dina Bass quashed those hopes. Kotaku's confirmed that Microsoft's future hardware plans won't be the focus of this year's E3. Microsoft's full statement follows:

"While we appreciate all the interest in our long-range plans for the future, we can confirm that there will be no talk of new Xbox hardware at E3 or anytime soon. For us, 2012 is all about Xbox 360-and it's the best year ever for Xbox 360. The console is coming off its biggest year ever-a year in which Xbox outsold all other consoles worldwide. Xbox 360 didn't just outsell other consoles, it also outsold all other TV-connected devices like DVD players, as well as digital media receivers and home theatre systems. And in our seventh year, we sold more consoles than in any other year-defying convention.

This year, we will build on that Xbox 360 momentum. With "Halo 4," "Forza Horizon," "Fable: The Journey," and other great Kinect games on the way, our 2012 Xbox lineup is our strongest ever. This year, we will deliver more TV, music, and movie experiences for Xbox 360-as we'll make it even easier to find and control your all entertainment. And this year, Xbox games, music, and video are coming to Windows 8 so people can enjoy their Xbox entertainment wherever they go."

With this statement coming soon after Sony's declaration that they won't be talking about the PS4 (or whatever they'll be calling the follow-up to the PS3) at the upcoming E3, it seems that we won't be hearing about the future of consoles—aside from Nintendo's already announced Wii U—for a little while yet.

The mysterious Baldur's Gate countdown has ended with the bang of servers exploding, but not before an email arrived announcing something called Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition for release this summer.

The servers at BaldursGate.comare down, but I think I've got a pretty good idea of what the upcoming release entails. Officially licensed by Wizards of the Coast and built by Beamdog's Overhaul Games division, Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition should be exactly what the name implies, an updated version of the original Baldur's Gate with enhanced graphics.

Last year Overhaul gave a similar treatment to MDK2, releasing MDK2 HD exclusively through its digital distribution platform.

According to Beamdog's Trent Oster, spreading information via Twitter while the fires are put out, the enhanced edition will include new content from some of the team members that worked on the original Baldur's Gate.

We'll have more info once the servers stop being such little crybabies.

Update: The server came up! Looks like there will be enhanced versions of Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II, including expansions, lovingly enhanced by a team that includes folks that worked on the original titles. Both games will use an udated version of the Infinity Engine with "a variety of modern improvements".

And that's all we have. Now we wait.

Last night, Obsidian's Chris Avellone tweeted an interesting detail about his roleplaying game Fallout: New Vegas.

"[Fallout: New Vegas] was a straight payment, no royalties," he said in response to a fan question about the game's financial success. "Only a bonus if we got an 85+ on Metacritic, which we didn't."

Metacritic, an aggregation website that collects scores from selected review sites and compiles them as a weighted average, currently lists the Xbox 360 version of Fallout: New Vegas at 84 (out of 100). The PC version is also listed at 84. The PlayStation 3 version of the game is listed at 82.

In other words, Obsidian may have missed its bonus and lost out on a significant amount of money because of a single point.

We've reached out to New Vegas publisher Bethesda, the company that financed the game, to try to confirm Avellone's statement, but they would not comment. If the New Vegas designer's tweet is accurate, then Bethesda put a portion of Obsidian's financial fate in the hands of a select group of game reviewers.

Finances have been an issue for Obsidian—earlier this week, the independent studio had to let go of 30 staff because a game it had been developing for the next Xbox was cancelled. So a potential Metacritic bonus may have been no small matter.

I understand the logic used by publishers like Bethesda when they dole out bonuses based on Metacritic numbers. As an aggregation of critic review scores, a Metacritic average can be an important benchmark for the perceived quality of a game. And it certainly makes sense that a boss would want to reward its employees based on the quality of their work.

Except Metacritic scores are not objective measures of quality. The Xbox 360 Metacritic page for Fallout: New Vegas consists of 81 reviews. If Obsidian's bonuses were determined by this aggregator, they were not based on the game's quality—they were based on 81 peoples' opinions of the game's quality.

Look through Metacritic's list of critic reviews. The list of selected websites is comprised of both professional and volunteer reviewers. Some write for the web. Others write for print. Some scores are weighted more heavily than others (Metacritic does not publicly discuss the formula it uses to create its averages). Some scores are even treated differently than others—a 7 at Game Informer does not mean the same thing as a 7 at Edge, for example.

Many of the reviews attacked the game for its bugs and glitches, many of which were fixed in subsequent patches and downloadable content packs. While reviewers may have been justified in marking down scores for the buggy product, those scores may not have been relevant after a month, or even after a week. Most review outlets don't change their scores once patches have been released. Is that something Bethesda took into consideration?

There is no such thing as an objectively good game. Nor is there such thing as an objectively bad game. We all secretly hate some games that are beloved by the rest of the world, and everyone has their favorite black sheep. I've strongly disliked some highly-rated games, like Dragon Age 2, and fallen deeply in love with some poorly-rated games, like Suikoden V. Should my personal opinion really be condensed into a mathematical formula and used to decide somebody else's bonus?

At Kotaku, we don't use review scores. Metacritic doesn't count our reviews. What if that made the difference? What if an outlet's choice of reviewer changed everything? What if a developer's bonus was determined by a single person's arbitrary distinction between a 7.8 and a 7.9? What if a game studio faced financial trouble after it missed its bonus by a single point?

This isn't healthy for anybody involved. It's not healthy for a reviewer to have to worry whether his criticism will directly affect peoples' jobs. It's not healthy for developers to focus on pleasing reviewers, rather than pleasing consumers. It's not healthy for individual opinions to impact bonuses and salaries.

Publishers need a better tool for measuring a game's quality. I don't know what that tool is. I don't know that it exists. But using Metacritic to hand out bonuses is dangerous—for developers, reviewers, and, quite frankly, you.

(Disclosure: While working at Wired.com, I gave Fallout: New Vegas a 9/10. My review appears on the game's Metacritic page.)