So they've announced a few new Need for Speed games across multiple platforms. Each title is going to be different from the next, only sharing a few basic similarities (such as all including cars).
This got me thinking about the Need for Speed brand name, about the same name heading reasonably unrelated games.
This naturally led the thought process to other series that share only a name and not much else. Of course, the biggest is Final Fantasy, but there are certainly others. Shining Force is another example, as is Phantasy Star. One could also lump the latest Prince of Persia into the mix as well, since it not only has nothing to do with the original game but also completely departs from the storyline and world of the Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time trilogy.
My basic thought is this: would the different games in these series have been the same if they didn't have the well-known moniker attached to them?
Let's use Final Fantasy as an example to help me clarify. The first game was a big RPG for the NES. The second game came out and, while still a turn-based RPG that shared a lot of similar gameplay to its predecessor it was a completely new story. Different world, different characters, different everything. There were no ties to the previous game aside from the fact that it was the same genre.
Oh, and the fact that it was called Final Fantasy II.
What if they had called it something different? It wasn't really a sequel, after all. It was a different game within the same genre. They could have given it a completely different name, but they attached the Final Fantasy name. Now there have been something like 80 Final Fantasy games, across several different systems, and each one is mutually exclusive from the next in terms of story and world. However, because each one is called Final Fantasy, there's a guaranteed fan base and interest.
The series has also branched off into very different territory. Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles has even less in common with the previous games, but it's not just called "Crystal Chronicles".
Are they afraid that the game won't sell on its own merits? If Final Fantasy VII had been called something completely different (even something lamesauce like "The Cloud Strife Chronicles"), couldn't it do well based on the previews, reviews, and gameplay?
They essentially guarantee themselves a fan base based on nothing more than a name. Great from one standpoint, of course, but just curious.
Phantasy Star did the same. Different story each time, same name. Shining Force not only had a different story, but when they jumped to the PS2 they completely changed the series from a strategy RPG to an anime-inspired action RPG. Prince of Persia started as one game, then took a completely new direction with new characters and settings. Then, again, the series restarted with an entirely new world and character. There are no ties to the previous trilogy (naming a donkey after a character in the first game doesn't count), so why did they call it Prince of Persia and not something else?
Need for Speed games, while all racing games, share nothing aside from the game. So why not give each game a different moniker?
Some games are legitimate series, and therefore would naturally use the same name. Fable 2 took place in the same world, and had a lot of common threads from the first. Dead or Alive shares characters, and their stories carry over from one game to the next. Something like Tomb Raider may be a different story each time, but carries over the same characters (and usually there's an overarching tale that works through the adventures).
I understand that, at its core, it's marketing. If a game like Phantasy Star has a huge following of fans, then adding the name to a new game guarantees interest from that following.
Though, on some level, are they assuming that people are kinda dumb and cattle-like, and are going to buy the game just because of what it's called (I suppose this has actually worked, since they're all still doing it).
Or is this more like the music industry, and the game title is like a band name? I'll pick up any new Alice Cooper album because I like the artist. His music changes frequently, and what I heard on one CD may be pretty different from the next. There are always some basic similarities, though, so I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy it sight unseen. Alice Cooper is rock, like Final Fantasy is an RPG. So is Final Fantasy a "band" name, and each game is basically the same musical genre but a different set of songs each time? So if you like the "band", you're more likely to follow that "band" because you know you're generally going to get something you like.
Ooh, I like that analogy. Let's go with that one.
Besides, if it's called Phantasy Star or Shining Force, I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy it.
Showing newest 18 of 23 posts from January 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 18 of 23 posts from January 2009. Show older posts
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
Friday Night Fail
So, I was a little bummed out that nothing in the gaming news jumped out at me and sparked a post for tonight.
Then, my friend Angela offered up a suggestion (be sure to check out Angie's blog at http://angiefrissore.com). On her site, she has a feature called "Sunday Morning Sketch Cinema" in which she comments on an appropriately deserving movie each week (and she has graciously invited me to contribute to her site and join the cause of discussing sketchy cinema on Sundays). So she tossed out that I should do something like that for games.
Thus, welcome to the first (and quite possibly weekly) Friday Night Fail! We'll look at a game that deserves to be ripped apart, find any redeeming features (if any), and be generally petty and sarcastic.
Since I've been already poked fun at in a few posts, the first Friday Night Fail will feature Too Human. Released in 2008 for the Xbox 360, Too Human was one of the first video games ever conceived by man, predating Pong by almost 400 years.
No, not really, but it was originally planned for release on the Nintendo 64, then moved to several other systems before finally seeing the light of day. I played a demo of it at an E3 in 2006, and the demo kept crashing and freezing. At least they fixed that by release (mostly).
Too Human's story is based upon Norse mythology and features such characters as Odin, Thor, Loki, Hel, and the main character Baldur. Instead of the typical setting, though, the game takes place in a technological world. The "gods" are cybernetic beings that defend humanity from goblins and trolls and such, which are robotic monsters.
At its best, the story is an intriguing take on Norse mythos, keeping a lot of the original tale while adding a whole new element. At its worst, though (which is most of the time), the story is just convoluted and poorly assembled. It has always been said that Too Human is meant to be a trilogy, so a lot of threads have been started that weren't resolved over the course of the game. It opens a lot of doors, but generally fails to bring any closure over the course of the adventure. The voice acting is overdone, and the dialog isn't exactly Shakespeare, but that's not really surprising in this type of game.
The gameplay tries to be unique with an abnormal control scheme. You have jump and roll and such, but all melee combat is mapped to the right thumbstick (which, in most action games, would control the camera). This actually means that the player has no real control over the camera, as it is intentionally meant to be "cinematic". It works from time to time, but mostly just serves to piss the player off. When you're trying to see what's behind you, and the camera spins around to be "dramatic" and completely obscures your view... never a good time.
So when you tap the right stick, you attack in the direction you pressed. It has its moments. If playing a fast character like a Berserker, you can leap from enemy to enemy and take down dozens in a matter of seconds. The triggers control guns, and once you get the hang of everything the potential for insane combos is possible. The biggest issue is just caring after you've been plowing through hundreds of the same 4 basic enemies for hours. The game never deviates from the "kill hundreds of enemies, lather, rinse, repeat" concept.
There are 5 different classes, but if you're not playing multiplayer you can forget about 3 of them right off the bat. Only the Champion and the Berzerker are at all useful for single player. The Defender, Bio-Engineer, and Commando are more like support characters.
The game had so much potential, and I was pretty excited about it prior to release, but the game just has a lot of little flaws that add up to an overall disappointing experience. The gun targeting is screwy, and you'll often be firing at a wall while being attacked (or start firing at an enemy across the room when the one you're trying to aim at is bearing down on you). The death/ resurrection animation is too long and can't be skipped, so you'll see it every time you die (which is pretty often). You can't store any form of healing items, so you're dependant upon random drops. The game suffers from slowdown and hiccups, and the action just gets very repetitive very quickly.
Every now and again, you can see elements of coolness. The inventory system is neat, and I like the fact that your armor and weapon choices are represented on your avatar as well as the fact that you can just sell whatever you don't need at any moment without needing to find a shop. You can add runes to armor and weapons, adjusting their powers, and as you get more powerful the enemies do too, so you're always challenged.
Too Human has multiplayer, 2 players over Xbox Live (though it really should have been 4). This works pretty much like single player, but with 2 of you sharing in the pain. I do applaud the decision to cut the cinematics out, though, to speed up the multiplayer sessions.
I will say that Too Human is one of my guilty pleasures, and I have put quite a few hours into it. When it all comes together, it has an almost Diablo vibe: grinding through hordes of monsters in the search for cooler loot, getting stronger so you can take down stronger enemies and get even cooler loot. Its mindless and goofy fun, when you're not swearing at it for being stupid in so many ways. Every time it starts to come together, something insipid rears its head and throws the cool right out the window, ultimately meaning that only the very brave or self-loathing will ever see it through to the end.
After Too Human was released to mediocre reviews, its creator Denis Dyack came forth to gripe and say that those who bashed the game just didn't "get" the game.
Well, Denis, I do "get" the game. I see what you were trying to pull off.
It just doesn't really help.
Then, my friend Angela offered up a suggestion (be sure to check out Angie's blog at http://angiefrissore.com). On her site, she has a feature called "Sunday Morning Sketch Cinema" in which she comments on an appropriately deserving movie each week (and she has graciously invited me to contribute to her site and join the cause of discussing sketchy cinema on Sundays). So she tossed out that I should do something like that for games.
Thus, welcome to the first (and quite possibly weekly) Friday Night Fail! We'll look at a game that deserves to be ripped apart, find any redeeming features (if any), and be generally petty and sarcastic.
Since I've been already poked fun at in a few posts, the first Friday Night Fail will feature Too Human. Released in 2008 for the Xbox 360, Too Human was one of the first video games ever conceived by man, predating Pong by almost 400 years.
No, not really, but it was originally planned for release on the Nintendo 64, then moved to several other systems before finally seeing the light of day. I played a demo of it at an E3 in 2006, and the demo kept crashing and freezing. At least they fixed that by release (mostly).
Too Human's story is based upon Norse mythology and features such characters as Odin, Thor, Loki, Hel, and the main character Baldur. Instead of the typical setting, though, the game takes place in a technological world. The "gods" are cybernetic beings that defend humanity from goblins and trolls and such, which are robotic monsters.
At its best, the story is an intriguing take on Norse mythos, keeping a lot of the original tale while adding a whole new element. At its worst, though (which is most of the time), the story is just convoluted and poorly assembled. It has always been said that Too Human is meant to be a trilogy, so a lot of threads have been started that weren't resolved over the course of the game. It opens a lot of doors, but generally fails to bring any closure over the course of the adventure. The voice acting is overdone, and the dialog isn't exactly Shakespeare, but that's not really surprising in this type of game.
The gameplay tries to be unique with an abnormal control scheme. You have jump and roll and such, but all melee combat is mapped to the right thumbstick (which, in most action games, would control the camera). This actually means that the player has no real control over the camera, as it is intentionally meant to be "cinematic". It works from time to time, but mostly just serves to piss the player off. When you're trying to see what's behind you, and the camera spins around to be "dramatic" and completely obscures your view... never a good time.
So when you tap the right stick, you attack in the direction you pressed. It has its moments. If playing a fast character like a Berserker, you can leap from enemy to enemy and take down dozens in a matter of seconds. The triggers control guns, and once you get the hang of everything the potential for insane combos is possible. The biggest issue is just caring after you've been plowing through hundreds of the same 4 basic enemies for hours. The game never deviates from the "kill hundreds of enemies, lather, rinse, repeat" concept.
There are 5 different classes, but if you're not playing multiplayer you can forget about 3 of them right off the bat. Only the Champion and the Berzerker are at all useful for single player. The Defender, Bio-Engineer, and Commando are more like support characters.
The game had so much potential, and I was pretty excited about it prior to release, but the game just has a lot of little flaws that add up to an overall disappointing experience. The gun targeting is screwy, and you'll often be firing at a wall while being attacked (or start firing at an enemy across the room when the one you're trying to aim at is bearing down on you). The death/ resurrection animation is too long and can't be skipped, so you'll see it every time you die (which is pretty often). You can't store any form of healing items, so you're dependant upon random drops. The game suffers from slowdown and hiccups, and the action just gets very repetitive very quickly.
Every now and again, you can see elements of coolness. The inventory system is neat, and I like the fact that your armor and weapon choices are represented on your avatar as well as the fact that you can just sell whatever you don't need at any moment without needing to find a shop. You can add runes to armor and weapons, adjusting their powers, and as you get more powerful the enemies do too, so you're always challenged.
Too Human has multiplayer, 2 players over Xbox Live (though it really should have been 4). This works pretty much like single player, but with 2 of you sharing in the pain. I do applaud the decision to cut the cinematics out, though, to speed up the multiplayer sessions.
I will say that Too Human is one of my guilty pleasures, and I have put quite a few hours into it. When it all comes together, it has an almost Diablo vibe: grinding through hordes of monsters in the search for cooler loot, getting stronger so you can take down stronger enemies and get even cooler loot. Its mindless and goofy fun, when you're not swearing at it for being stupid in so many ways. Every time it starts to come together, something insipid rears its head and throws the cool right out the window, ultimately meaning that only the very brave or self-loathing will ever see it through to the end.
After Too Human was released to mediocre reviews, its creator Denis Dyack came forth to gripe and say that those who bashed the game just didn't "get" the game.
Well, Denis, I do "get" the game. I see what you were trying to pull off.
It just doesn't really help.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
In the news
There are a few random news stories out there today that bear mentioning and, of course, grumbly ridiculing.
The first comes from North Carolina, where lawmakers are putting together a bill that would levy taxes on downloads. There is a similar bill in the works in New York.
Essentially they are trying to fix what they term a "digital property taxation loophole". As a North Carolina state representative explains to a local news station, "We used to think of everything in terms of being tangible. Nobody thought of how you could possibly download anything."
I suppose I'll give him that one. I doubt that the country's founding fathers were taking iTunes and Xbox Live into consideration at any point, and it makes sense that laws have to be modified as the world advances.
The rep goes on to explain that "If you buy a book in a bookstore, you're going to have to pay sales tax on it. If you're downloading a book from a book seller, you should have to pay sales tax on that as well."
Again, I don't think I can argue too much with the logic here, outside of the basic desire to not pay more for anything.
With the country in financial crisis, of course lawmakers are going to examine potential new revenue streams. North Carolina figures on bringing in an extra $12 million in taxes from downloads, and if that money is going to stuff like education and environmental concerns, then can it really be a bad thing?
What remains to be seen is HOW this gets put together. A couple extra cents for a Zune music download isn't a big deal to me, nor is an extra 50 cents for a $10 Xbox Live Arcade game. If I went to a store and bought a game, I'd be paying tax on it. I'm not downloading the game to try to get out of something, trying to "beat the system". Mostly I just want to play a game.
So, on paper at least, I'm not actually against the concept. I'm curious as to the execution, but understand the need not only for money, but the need to alter the way we look at everything as tech continues to hurtle forward.
What I am concerned about, though, is if politicians try to use this as leverage in their quest to crush anything they don't personally agree with. Will we see a higher tax rate on a download for Grand Theft Auto because it's M rated? Will certain mediums, like games, get screwed when they try to tax everything from Xbox Live themes to map packs?
It could quickly prove to be a slippery slope if the wrong people get the wrong ideas into their heads. On the other hand, if done correctly, it could offer a substantial financial boost to schools and communities that need it.
It should also be mentioned that Canada and the UK already have taxes on downloads, and it seems to be working out just peachy for them. Hell, tax downloads on a federal level instead and use the cash for free national health care like them Canadians. I think paying an extra buck for a new arcade game is worth that.
I'm probably in the minority of gamers who think that, too, but I think we have to look at the bigger picture here. Also, I think it would help if lawmakers earmarked the download taxes for a specific purpose. If they said that all revenue generated by download taxes went right into the school system, or law enforcement, I think people would be basically OK with it.
The next story comes from New York. A new bill has been introduced by some Assemblyman, which hopes to shield minors from games that contain profanity or racial stereotypes. Specifically, it seeks to protect the kiddies from games that glamorize "the commission of a violent crime, suicide, sodomy, rape, incest, bestiality, or sado-masochism..."
Let me first say that I think the good Assemblyman is playing seriously different games than I am...
The politician goes on, stating that retailers would be required to keep such games locked away in a separate area that is inaccessible by the general public, or locked away in a sealed container.
I'm not sure if anybody is familiar with old video stores (a quaint concept in these ages of cable and Netflix), but many of them had that "separate room" that was blocked off by a curtain or saloon doors.
Is this the point we're reaching? Imagine going into your local Lamestop, and having to go back into the "special area" to buy a game. The lights are low, the room is populated by people with their collars up and heads down. Little kids are outside the saloon doors, trying to secretly score a peek inside to see what all the "bad games" look like. You'll quickly find your purchase, which will be put into a non-descript paper bag as mothers glare at you and pull their kids away as you walk by.
There's always the locked container idea. When you want to buy an M rated game, the clerk puts on a radiation suit and cracks open a metal drum, reaching in with tongs to pull out your purchase.
The problem with this bill, or any of this nature that has come before, is: who decides which games are offensive and why? Is every M rated game automatically going to be tossed into the "back room"? I seriously doubt that games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, or Fable deserve to be in there.
In Too Human, there is a cinematic near the end where the hero Baldur comes face to face with Hel, the Goddess of the Underworld. During the course of the exchange, Hel reveals the spirit of Baldur's dead wife, and explains that she killed herself when Baldur died (he was later brought back, for contextual reference). It's a short scene that is not only fully in context with the larger storyline, but I'm also reasonably sure it's accurate in a Norse mythos way, which is what the story is based on. Too Human is Teen rated for fantasy violence.
Based upon this NY bill, though, Too Human would have to be locked up in a sealed vault because there's a suicide reference.
Realistically, most of the offenses listed in the bill don't appear in games anyway. I have a near encyclaeopedic knowledge of games and have yet to come across one with scenes of bestiality (although Sonic the Hedgehog was awfully interested in saving the human princess in the awful next-gen series reboot). Rape and incest are also rare (coughRule of Rosecough).
The issue is that someone has to decide which games fall into which category, and that's never a good thing, especially when the people involved have little idea of what they're talking about and have an alterior agenda as well.
Plus, how long before the list of offenses gets addendums? Soon it's not just the naughtiness already detailed in the bill, but now all sorts of "bad things" are added until game stores become little more than porn shops with fewer mystery stains on the carpets.
So while we're on the subject of sodomy (and really, when aren't we):
Total Guitar Magazine, which I'm going to assume is some mag about guitars (totally!) recently interviewed Noel Gallagher of the band Oasis. During the course of the interview, Mr. Gallagher felt like offering his opinion on videogames, specifically Guitar Hero.
Now, over the course of the piece, it becomes clear that good old Noel is not a gamer, and he admits to never having played Guitar Hero. So I'm not sure what made him think he was qualified to say much of anything on the subject. I mean, I don't know jack about Nascar, so I'm not going to suddenly start spouting my opinions about that.
Anyway, Noel states that "playing guitar is not a fucking videogame".
Thank you for that heads up there, guy. While we're at it, eating a sandwich is not piloting a spaceship.
He does state that the music games are better than others. Specifically, "It's better than two goblins trying to fuck a donkey up the arse with a laser beam".
Ummm.... what?
He then goes on to gripe a bit more about how playing a real guitar isn't like playing a game guitar, and that in real life there are no levels to get to or whatever. He then switches gears a bit, and at least admits that whatever source kids use to get interested in music is essentially a good thing.
He states that if it puts a guitar in a kid's hands and fires his imagination and gets him interested in music, then it can't be all bad.
He also says, "I'd rather that genre of videogames than somebody getting their fucking head chopped off with a samurai sword while getting fucked by a goblin up the arse with a laser. Do you know what I mean?"
Sorry, Noel. I have no fucking idea what you mean. I have searched my vast mental gaming archives, and have not come up with a single game that comes close to what you are describing.
Although, wait... Too Human has these mechanized goblins, and they have lasers, and the main character has a sword. It's one of my guilty pleasures, but hardly qualifies as anything approaching a good game. So maybe the "fucked up the arse" is what I am for playing it in the first place.
Fuck. That'd make me the donkey? Wait, I'm confused.
Either way, maybe it does belong in that seedy closed off room in the back of the game store.
The first comes from North Carolina, where lawmakers are putting together a bill that would levy taxes on downloads. There is a similar bill in the works in New York.
Essentially they are trying to fix what they term a "digital property taxation loophole". As a North Carolina state representative explains to a local news station, "We used to think of everything in terms of being tangible. Nobody thought of how you could possibly download anything."
I suppose I'll give him that one. I doubt that the country's founding fathers were taking iTunes and Xbox Live into consideration at any point, and it makes sense that laws have to be modified as the world advances.
The rep goes on to explain that "If you buy a book in a bookstore, you're going to have to pay sales tax on it. If you're downloading a book from a book seller, you should have to pay sales tax on that as well."
Again, I don't think I can argue too much with the logic here, outside of the basic desire to not pay more for anything.
With the country in financial crisis, of course lawmakers are going to examine potential new revenue streams. North Carolina figures on bringing in an extra $12 million in taxes from downloads, and if that money is going to stuff like education and environmental concerns, then can it really be a bad thing?
What remains to be seen is HOW this gets put together. A couple extra cents for a Zune music download isn't a big deal to me, nor is an extra 50 cents for a $10 Xbox Live Arcade game. If I went to a store and bought a game, I'd be paying tax on it. I'm not downloading the game to try to get out of something, trying to "beat the system". Mostly I just want to play a game.
So, on paper at least, I'm not actually against the concept. I'm curious as to the execution, but understand the need not only for money, but the need to alter the way we look at everything as tech continues to hurtle forward.
What I am concerned about, though, is if politicians try to use this as leverage in their quest to crush anything they don't personally agree with. Will we see a higher tax rate on a download for Grand Theft Auto because it's M rated? Will certain mediums, like games, get screwed when they try to tax everything from Xbox Live themes to map packs?
It could quickly prove to be a slippery slope if the wrong people get the wrong ideas into their heads. On the other hand, if done correctly, it could offer a substantial financial boost to schools and communities that need it.
It should also be mentioned that Canada and the UK already have taxes on downloads, and it seems to be working out just peachy for them. Hell, tax downloads on a federal level instead and use the cash for free national health care like them Canadians. I think paying an extra buck for a new arcade game is worth that.
I'm probably in the minority of gamers who think that, too, but I think we have to look at the bigger picture here. Also, I think it would help if lawmakers earmarked the download taxes for a specific purpose. If they said that all revenue generated by download taxes went right into the school system, or law enforcement, I think people would be basically OK with it.
The next story comes from New York. A new bill has been introduced by some Assemblyman, which hopes to shield minors from games that contain profanity or racial stereotypes. Specifically, it seeks to protect the kiddies from games that glamorize "the commission of a violent crime, suicide, sodomy, rape, incest, bestiality, or sado-masochism..."
Let me first say that I think the good Assemblyman is playing seriously different games than I am...
The politician goes on, stating that retailers would be required to keep such games locked away in a separate area that is inaccessible by the general public, or locked away in a sealed container.
I'm not sure if anybody is familiar with old video stores (a quaint concept in these ages of cable and Netflix), but many of them had that "separate room" that was blocked off by a curtain or saloon doors.
Is this the point we're reaching? Imagine going into your local Lamestop, and having to go back into the "special area" to buy a game. The lights are low, the room is populated by people with their collars up and heads down. Little kids are outside the saloon doors, trying to secretly score a peek inside to see what all the "bad games" look like. You'll quickly find your purchase, which will be put into a non-descript paper bag as mothers glare at you and pull their kids away as you walk by.
There's always the locked container idea. When you want to buy an M rated game, the clerk puts on a radiation suit and cracks open a metal drum, reaching in with tongs to pull out your purchase.
The problem with this bill, or any of this nature that has come before, is: who decides which games are offensive and why? Is every M rated game automatically going to be tossed into the "back room"? I seriously doubt that games such as Bioshock, Mass Effect, or Fable deserve to be in there.
In Too Human, there is a cinematic near the end where the hero Baldur comes face to face with Hel, the Goddess of the Underworld. During the course of the exchange, Hel reveals the spirit of Baldur's dead wife, and explains that she killed herself when Baldur died (he was later brought back, for contextual reference). It's a short scene that is not only fully in context with the larger storyline, but I'm also reasonably sure it's accurate in a Norse mythos way, which is what the story is based on. Too Human is Teen rated for fantasy violence.
Based upon this NY bill, though, Too Human would have to be locked up in a sealed vault because there's a suicide reference.
Realistically, most of the offenses listed in the bill don't appear in games anyway. I have a near encyclaeopedic knowledge of games and have yet to come across one with scenes of bestiality (although Sonic the Hedgehog was awfully interested in saving the human princess in the awful next-gen series reboot). Rape and incest are also rare (coughRule of Rosecough).
The issue is that someone has to decide which games fall into which category, and that's never a good thing, especially when the people involved have little idea of what they're talking about and have an alterior agenda as well.
Plus, how long before the list of offenses gets addendums? Soon it's not just the naughtiness already detailed in the bill, but now all sorts of "bad things" are added until game stores become little more than porn shops with fewer mystery stains on the carpets.
So while we're on the subject of sodomy (and really, when aren't we):
Total Guitar Magazine, which I'm going to assume is some mag about guitars (totally!) recently interviewed Noel Gallagher of the band Oasis. During the course of the interview, Mr. Gallagher felt like offering his opinion on videogames, specifically Guitar Hero.
Now, over the course of the piece, it becomes clear that good old Noel is not a gamer, and he admits to never having played Guitar Hero. So I'm not sure what made him think he was qualified to say much of anything on the subject. I mean, I don't know jack about Nascar, so I'm not going to suddenly start spouting my opinions about that.
Anyway, Noel states that "playing guitar is not a fucking videogame".
Thank you for that heads up there, guy. While we're at it, eating a sandwich is not piloting a spaceship.
He does state that the music games are better than others. Specifically, "It's better than two goblins trying to fuck a donkey up the arse with a laser beam".
Ummm.... what?
He then goes on to gripe a bit more about how playing a real guitar isn't like playing a game guitar, and that in real life there are no levels to get to or whatever. He then switches gears a bit, and at least admits that whatever source kids use to get interested in music is essentially a good thing.
He states that if it puts a guitar in a kid's hands and fires his imagination and gets him interested in music, then it can't be all bad.
He also says, "I'd rather that genre of videogames than somebody getting their fucking head chopped off with a samurai sword while getting fucked by a goblin up the arse with a laser. Do you know what I mean?"
Sorry, Noel. I have no fucking idea what you mean. I have searched my vast mental gaming archives, and have not come up with a single game that comes close to what you are describing.
Although, wait... Too Human has these mechanized goblins, and they have lasers, and the main character has a sword. It's one of my guilty pleasures, but hardly qualifies as anything approaching a good game. So maybe the "fucked up the arse" is what I am for playing it in the first place.
Fuck. That'd make me the donkey? Wait, I'm confused.
Either way, maybe it does belong in that seedy closed off room in the back of the game store.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
If it's really "final"...
So, my post earlier made little to no sense. I'm reasonably sure that it was, at least, basically written in English, but from there I can't offer much to help it make sense.
I think it made sense in my head. At least, the concept did. Somewhere between the original thought process and the writing process, though, everything went haywire.
What you have to understand is that my brain doesn't work in anything approaching a sequence. Usually I can take this jumble of crazy and work it into something resembling normal, but every now and again I just can't. Sometimes my brain just vomits words through my fingers.
I was actually going to delete the post, but changed my mind. First off, I do make a couple valid points amid all the randomness. Also, I think it will make readers appreciate the posts that DO make sense all the more.
So Squeenix spent the better part of a week building up to some "big" news for Final Fantasy XIII, saying that it would be unveiled today. Speculation ran rampant as a result. Could it be a release date? A Wii version? Maybe they'd acknowledge that the entire game was a myth and designed only to drive RPG gamers crazy?
None of the above, actually. It was a new trailer, that featured some cutscenes as well as actual gameplay. That's... just about it, actually.
It raises a question, though: when does the hype become so overwhelming that the game cannot possibly live up to it?
I'm going to go on record and state that I am not much of a Final Fantasy fan, so I am not getting swept up in said wave of frothy excitement. I have no interest in playing lucky number XIII, so watch the trailers and announcements with a sort of detached pseudo-interest. I played the first one for the NES, and the second for the SNES. I seem to recall playing part of the third one as well, but don't think I finished it (I actually keep a log of every game I've ever completed, but it's packed at the moment so I can't check).
My relationship with the series went downhill from there. When I got a Playstation I immediately bought Final Fantasy VII. Between the hype, the reviews, and the word-of-mouth, this game was pretty much the "second coming" of the console RPG. Gamers still talk about how they cried over Aeris, how they put 800 hours into it, how they've played it every year since the day it was released, so on and so forth.
Thing is, I wasn't really that into it. I didn't make it past disc 1 (out of 3) before I gave up on it, and I've never gone back. I also haven't really played a Final Fantasy since then, either.
I'm not sure if it was entirely the game's fault, though. I was pretty burned out on turn based RPG's at that point, as they were pretty much all I played. Back in those days, they weren't that much different from one another, either. The mechanics generally stayed consistent, and no matter how unique the story tried to be they really ended up similar in a lot of ways.
A lot of it, too, was that I just didn't think it lived up to all the hype that had been built up beforehand, all the people that swore I would love it and all the reviews that adored it. I went in with a really inflated sense of what the game would be, and what I would get out of it, and it became pretty clear early on that those vaunted expectations were not to be met.
Now, I understand that there are a lot of fans who will buy Final Fantasy XIII regardless of hype, regardless of reviews, and will most likely love it regardless of any flaws it may have. I can understand and sympathise with this. They could announce Fable 3 now, say it's coming out in 2014 and show a vague rendered cinematic that may or may not have anything to do with the game, and I'd be drooling in excitement.
Once you get past the hardcore fans, though, who will buy it no matter what, will anybody else care by the time it is finally released? There will be a lot of people who buy it because of the hype, but can it possibly be what they've built up in their heads because of the years of videos and previews and press?
I don't think it will necessarily be a bad game when (if) it comes out. I doubt that all this build-up will lead everyone to a major disappointment (we call that the Phantom Menace effect). I just think that Squeenix is setting itself up for some serious backlash if the game isn't everything that people expect, and I don't think that it can be.
Gamers are willing to forgive a lot. Games don't necessarily have to be perfect to be enjoyable. Most, if not all, of the games that are out and doing well have little flaws that don't detract from the end product, in part because gamers can generally look past occasional hiccups if as long as the final experience is worthwhile. They also haven't waited for as long, and waded through as much hype, as they have for this. Every graphical glitch, every load that takes longer than normal, every plot hole, is going to be ripped apart far more than other games, because the game has been built up for so long in people's heads that they're going to expect something far beyond anybody's capability to deliver.
I'd rather hear of a game a couple of months before release, see a trailer and maybe get a demo on Xbox Live, than go through what Final Fantasy fans are going through right now. My expectations would be lower, which means that an amazing product would surprise me with how well put together it is. I like being surprised by games. I saw the stuff for Eternal Sonata less than a year before release, played the demo and it seemed cool, and I picked it up and have been really enjoying it. I didn't have super-high expectations (outside of normal playability and next-generation graphics and such), so there was plenty of room for the game to impress me and raise in my estimation as I played. It has done so.
As it is now, with expectations for Final Fantasy XIII as high as they are, can they only go down from here?
I think it made sense in my head. At least, the concept did. Somewhere between the original thought process and the writing process, though, everything went haywire.
What you have to understand is that my brain doesn't work in anything approaching a sequence. Usually I can take this jumble of crazy and work it into something resembling normal, but every now and again I just can't. Sometimes my brain just vomits words through my fingers.
I was actually going to delete the post, but changed my mind. First off, I do make a couple valid points amid all the randomness. Also, I think it will make readers appreciate the posts that DO make sense all the more.
So Squeenix spent the better part of a week building up to some "big" news for Final Fantasy XIII, saying that it would be unveiled today. Speculation ran rampant as a result. Could it be a release date? A Wii version? Maybe they'd acknowledge that the entire game was a myth and designed only to drive RPG gamers crazy?
None of the above, actually. It was a new trailer, that featured some cutscenes as well as actual gameplay. That's... just about it, actually.
It raises a question, though: when does the hype become so overwhelming that the game cannot possibly live up to it?
I'm going to go on record and state that I am not much of a Final Fantasy fan, so I am not getting swept up in said wave of frothy excitement. I have no interest in playing lucky number XIII, so watch the trailers and announcements with a sort of detached pseudo-interest. I played the first one for the NES, and the second for the SNES. I seem to recall playing part of the third one as well, but don't think I finished it (I actually keep a log of every game I've ever completed, but it's packed at the moment so I can't check).
My relationship with the series went downhill from there. When I got a Playstation I immediately bought Final Fantasy VII. Between the hype, the reviews, and the word-of-mouth, this game was pretty much the "second coming" of the console RPG. Gamers still talk about how they cried over Aeris, how they put 800 hours into it, how they've played it every year since the day it was released, so on and so forth.
Thing is, I wasn't really that into it. I didn't make it past disc 1 (out of 3) before I gave up on it, and I've never gone back. I also haven't really played a Final Fantasy since then, either.
I'm not sure if it was entirely the game's fault, though. I was pretty burned out on turn based RPG's at that point, as they were pretty much all I played. Back in those days, they weren't that much different from one another, either. The mechanics generally stayed consistent, and no matter how unique the story tried to be they really ended up similar in a lot of ways.
A lot of it, too, was that I just didn't think it lived up to all the hype that had been built up beforehand, all the people that swore I would love it and all the reviews that adored it. I went in with a really inflated sense of what the game would be, and what I would get out of it, and it became pretty clear early on that those vaunted expectations were not to be met.
Now, I understand that there are a lot of fans who will buy Final Fantasy XIII regardless of hype, regardless of reviews, and will most likely love it regardless of any flaws it may have. I can understand and sympathise with this. They could announce Fable 3 now, say it's coming out in 2014 and show a vague rendered cinematic that may or may not have anything to do with the game, and I'd be drooling in excitement.
Once you get past the hardcore fans, though, who will buy it no matter what, will anybody else care by the time it is finally released? There will be a lot of people who buy it because of the hype, but can it possibly be what they've built up in their heads because of the years of videos and previews and press?
I don't think it will necessarily be a bad game when (if) it comes out. I doubt that all this build-up will lead everyone to a major disappointment (we call that the Phantom Menace effect). I just think that Squeenix is setting itself up for some serious backlash if the game isn't everything that people expect, and I don't think that it can be.
Gamers are willing to forgive a lot. Games don't necessarily have to be perfect to be enjoyable. Most, if not all, of the games that are out and doing well have little flaws that don't detract from the end product, in part because gamers can generally look past occasional hiccups if as long as the final experience is worthwhile. They also haven't waited for as long, and waded through as much hype, as they have for this. Every graphical glitch, every load that takes longer than normal, every plot hole, is going to be ripped apart far more than other games, because the game has been built up for so long in people's heads that they're going to expect something far beyond anybody's capability to deliver.
I'd rather hear of a game a couple of months before release, see a trailer and maybe get a demo on Xbox Live, than go through what Final Fantasy fans are going through right now. My expectations would be lower, which means that an amazing product would surprise me with how well put together it is. I like being surprised by games. I saw the stuff for Eternal Sonata less than a year before release, played the demo and it seemed cool, and I picked it up and have been really enjoying it. I didn't have super-high expectations (outside of normal playability and next-generation graphics and such), so there was plenty of room for the game to impress me and raise in my estimation as I played. It has done so.
As it is now, with expectations for Final Fantasy XIII as high as they are, can they only go down from here?
Be unique, like everyone else
So I'd like to apologize for the lack of a post yesterday. I actually had every intention of doing so, and was well into one before realizing that it made absolutely no sense. I was attempting to talk about innovation in gaming. It was even more rambly than normal, with random jumps to tangents that went nowhere. At some point I was complaining about Too Human which, while a guilty pleasure that I do play, cannot by any means be considered a good game. I suppose it's my own fault for trying to piece something together at 1:00am after watching a few episodes of Doctor Who.
So I tried again this morning, but it became nothing more than me talking about random old games in my collection that I really want to play again.
So this is the third time, supposedly the charm, to put together yesterday's post. I am nothing if not loyal to my... fan...
OK, so I do want to talk about innovation. It's actually a "hot button" issue in the gaming community, a rallying cry of sorts that leads to endless debate and complaint.
The basis of the argument is that innovative games fail, and the standard "same old/ same old" and sequels are what sells and makes zillions of dollars. This, of course, prompts publishers to only release more of the same so they can continue to make those zillions, and stop putting out "risky" ventures that may be innovative but have no guarantee of selling.
The ones crying out about the lack of originality generally cite the same few titles that, while they received critical acclaim and gushing from those that played them, didn't do well enough at retail to call them a success by any means. Beyond Good and Evil often comes up, as does Psychonauts (both of which are amazing games).
I'm guilty of jumping on the "we want innovation" bandwagon. I've bitched endlessly about how these great games get unnoticed while Madden always sells a hojillion copies.
I've been thinking about it, though, and I wonder if we're looking at it wrong. Don't get me wrong for a second: I think the fact that more people didn't play Beyond Good and Evil is a sin against nature itself, and firmly believe that we need more fresh ideas than "franchises". I also believe, though, that it is possible to innovate within the established norms, add new ideas to existing genres and series, which could lead people to try new games that maybe incorporate similar ideas.
The chance of some new genre suddenly popping up is a long shot. OK, Konami brought us dancing games, and Harmonix gave us plastic instruments and rock star fantasies, but most of the genres that we play on a day to day basis have been around since the early days of gaming. So the chances are really low that something comes along that has people saying "I've never played anything like this".
What we can get, though, is "I've never played an RPG like this" or "Wow, that was the most unique racing game I've ever played".
Besides, "innovative" doesn't always translate to "good". See the aforementioned Too Human as proof. I'd rather play a really well done game that basically sticks to established conventions with a few new concepts (like Prince of Persia) than something that tries to go in crazy new directions and fails on all fronts.
Let's not forget as well that many people, even gamers, are just as guilty of not buying the unique titles despite crying out for unique titles. It's not really their fault, either, at least not all the time. Money isn't exactly pouring from the sky, especially not these days. If you can only afford one game right now, are you going to take a chance on something that you've never played and could hate, or something that you're pretty sure you're going to enjoy because it's something you're familiar with?
I recently purchased Tomb Raider: Underworld because I'm a big fan of the series. Even if it played exactly like Legend and Anniversary, I know I'd most likely enjoy it because I really liked those two as well. In fact, it was because I heard it stuck to the conventions established in the previous games that I picked it up. I could only afford one game, and I knew that I would like that one. Of course, it means that there may have been some crazy new game that tried new things sitting right next to it that I passed by because I wanted something that I was sure of. Stores have pretty strict return policies when it comes to games, so if I had picked up something that I ended up hating I'd most likely be stuck with it.
Of course, here's the other edge of the sword: if, three Tomb Raiders from now, I'm still playing pretty much the same thing I have been through the last several titles, then I'd probably get bored and think they need to try something new (as long as it isn't another Angel of Darkness).
So, I want my games to be innovative but also be exactly what I know and love?
What I want is new ideas within the genres I like to play. Part of the reason I'm so into Eternal Sonata is that it puts a new spin on RPG gameplay, and it's keeping me entertained throughout. So if I heard that some of the innovations in that game, like the battle system, were put into a different game, I'd probably check it out as a result.
Too much of a good thing can backfire as well, though. When Lego Star Wars hit the shelves, it was a fun and unique take on family games, action, and the Star Wars license. It got high marks in reviews, and sold lots of copies.
I noticed, though, that Lego Batman, while still selling well, didn't do as well in the reviews. The biggest complaint was that it didn't really do anything new, that hadn't been already done in Lego Star Wars and Lego Indiana Jones. They're still fun, and a fun game that's "tried and true" is better than a crappy game that's unique, but if we see a few more Lego games that are exactly like the rest, is the series going to suffer? Parents will probably still buy them for their younglings, as the games are always a safe bet, but will gamers have moved on?
Hm. That wasn't rambly and pointless at all...
So I tried again this morning, but it became nothing more than me talking about random old games in my collection that I really want to play again.
So this is the third time, supposedly the charm, to put together yesterday's post. I am nothing if not loyal to my... fan...
OK, so I do want to talk about innovation. It's actually a "hot button" issue in the gaming community, a rallying cry of sorts that leads to endless debate and complaint.
The basis of the argument is that innovative games fail, and the standard "same old/ same old" and sequels are what sells and makes zillions of dollars. This, of course, prompts publishers to only release more of the same so they can continue to make those zillions, and stop putting out "risky" ventures that may be innovative but have no guarantee of selling.
The ones crying out about the lack of originality generally cite the same few titles that, while they received critical acclaim and gushing from those that played them, didn't do well enough at retail to call them a success by any means. Beyond Good and Evil often comes up, as does Psychonauts (both of which are amazing games).
I'm guilty of jumping on the "we want innovation" bandwagon. I've bitched endlessly about how these great games get unnoticed while Madden always sells a hojillion copies.
I've been thinking about it, though, and I wonder if we're looking at it wrong. Don't get me wrong for a second: I think the fact that more people didn't play Beyond Good and Evil is a sin against nature itself, and firmly believe that we need more fresh ideas than "franchises". I also believe, though, that it is possible to innovate within the established norms, add new ideas to existing genres and series, which could lead people to try new games that maybe incorporate similar ideas.
The chance of some new genre suddenly popping up is a long shot. OK, Konami brought us dancing games, and Harmonix gave us plastic instruments and rock star fantasies, but most of the genres that we play on a day to day basis have been around since the early days of gaming. So the chances are really low that something comes along that has people saying "I've never played anything like this".
What we can get, though, is "I've never played an RPG like this" or "Wow, that was the most unique racing game I've ever played".
Besides, "innovative" doesn't always translate to "good". See the aforementioned Too Human as proof. I'd rather play a really well done game that basically sticks to established conventions with a few new concepts (like Prince of Persia) than something that tries to go in crazy new directions and fails on all fronts.
Let's not forget as well that many people, even gamers, are just as guilty of not buying the unique titles despite crying out for unique titles. It's not really their fault, either, at least not all the time. Money isn't exactly pouring from the sky, especially not these days. If you can only afford one game right now, are you going to take a chance on something that you've never played and could hate, or something that you're pretty sure you're going to enjoy because it's something you're familiar with?
I recently purchased Tomb Raider: Underworld because I'm a big fan of the series. Even if it played exactly like Legend and Anniversary, I know I'd most likely enjoy it because I really liked those two as well. In fact, it was because I heard it stuck to the conventions established in the previous games that I picked it up. I could only afford one game, and I knew that I would like that one. Of course, it means that there may have been some crazy new game that tried new things sitting right next to it that I passed by because I wanted something that I was sure of. Stores have pretty strict return policies when it comes to games, so if I had picked up something that I ended up hating I'd most likely be stuck with it.
Of course, here's the other edge of the sword: if, three Tomb Raiders from now, I'm still playing pretty much the same thing I have been through the last several titles, then I'd probably get bored and think they need to try something new (as long as it isn't another Angel of Darkness).
So, I want my games to be innovative but also be exactly what I know and love?
What I want is new ideas within the genres I like to play. Part of the reason I'm so into Eternal Sonata is that it puts a new spin on RPG gameplay, and it's keeping me entertained throughout. So if I heard that some of the innovations in that game, like the battle system, were put into a different game, I'd probably check it out as a result.
Too much of a good thing can backfire as well, though. When Lego Star Wars hit the shelves, it was a fun and unique take on family games, action, and the Star Wars license. It got high marks in reviews, and sold lots of copies.
I noticed, though, that Lego Batman, while still selling well, didn't do as well in the reviews. The biggest complaint was that it didn't really do anything new, that hadn't been already done in Lego Star Wars and Lego Indiana Jones. They're still fun, and a fun game that's "tried and true" is better than a crappy game that's unique, but if we see a few more Lego games that are exactly like the rest, is the series going to suffer? Parents will probably still buy them for their younglings, as the games are always a safe bet, but will gamers have moved on?
Hm. That wasn't rambly and pointless at all...
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Lara Croft: Mystery Tomb (Mauve and Teal versions)
So, in the news, Eidos has announced that they plan to make Lara Croft and her Tomb Raider franchise more "family friendly".
The series is legendary, the character is one of the most well known in the industry and has spun off into other mediums such as movies and books. Her latest outing, though, Tomb Raider: Underworld, didn't sell as well as they hoped. It was a tough holiday season across the board, of course, with a lot of high profile games and not a lot of money to spend. I was super excited for the latest Tomb Raider, and even I had to wait to buy it just because I didn't have the cash when it came out. Unemployment, financial issues, and all sorts of other problems are plaguing every industry including ours, and Underworld is hardly the only game to sell below expectations.
However, in the eyes of Eidos, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the game, so it's time for a revamp of the series.
We're talking a venerable franchise with a huge following, but maybe a new direction wouldn't be terrible if done correctly.
It's the "family friendly" part that freaks me out. Are we going to see "Lara Kart: Tomb Racer" or "Cooking Mama with Lara Croft" soon? What about "LEGO Tomb Raider" (OK, I admit that I'd totally play that one) or "Mario and Lara: Summer Games"?
I look at something like the new Prince of Persia as hope. The game is challenging without being hard, the graphics are stunning but go in a new direction for the series with the cel-shading, and they forego crazy collecting and item management for a simpler system (I'd prefer no collecting at all, but the Light Seed thing isn't terribly obtrusive). The game is fast, it's impossible to die, and it plays well. It's not a kiddy game, but it's far more accessible than the equally excellent Sands of Time trilogy, and it's a good example of a reinvented series that definitely worked out, and I could see someone who finds a lot of adventure games too tough being able to get through it.
Still, as a long time fan of the Tomb Raider series, I get a little nervous when I hear something like this. The fact is, I like the games because of what they are. Plumbing the depths of massive ruins, solving complex puzzles, finding hidden artifacts, and battling mythological beasts are the hallmarks of one of the most well known characters in gaming. The series is for the hardcore, it always has been. While I don't disagree with evolution, and could see some changes being made to make the series more accessible to casual gamers and therefore expand the audience, I just hope they don't turn their backs on the fans that brought the series this far (though, if more fans bought the latest game, maybe they wouldn't be rushing to go in a new direction).
I just get a chill when they decide to go "family friendly". I have nightmare visions of a big-headed Lara Croft running through some dumbed down dungeon, collecting cute monsters while she jumps on the heads of little mushroom monsters.
All for now. Catch you tomorrow.
The series is legendary, the character is one of the most well known in the industry and has spun off into other mediums such as movies and books. Her latest outing, though, Tomb Raider: Underworld, didn't sell as well as they hoped. It was a tough holiday season across the board, of course, with a lot of high profile games and not a lot of money to spend. I was super excited for the latest Tomb Raider, and even I had to wait to buy it just because I didn't have the cash when it came out. Unemployment, financial issues, and all sorts of other problems are plaguing every industry including ours, and Underworld is hardly the only game to sell below expectations.
However, in the eyes of Eidos, the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the game, so it's time for a revamp of the series.
We're talking a venerable franchise with a huge following, but maybe a new direction wouldn't be terrible if done correctly.
It's the "family friendly" part that freaks me out. Are we going to see "Lara Kart: Tomb Racer" or "Cooking Mama with Lara Croft" soon? What about "LEGO Tomb Raider" (OK, I admit that I'd totally play that one) or "Mario and Lara: Summer Games"?
I look at something like the new Prince of Persia as hope. The game is challenging without being hard, the graphics are stunning but go in a new direction for the series with the cel-shading, and they forego crazy collecting and item management for a simpler system (I'd prefer no collecting at all, but the Light Seed thing isn't terribly obtrusive). The game is fast, it's impossible to die, and it plays well. It's not a kiddy game, but it's far more accessible than the equally excellent Sands of Time trilogy, and it's a good example of a reinvented series that definitely worked out, and I could see someone who finds a lot of adventure games too tough being able to get through it.
Still, as a long time fan of the Tomb Raider series, I get a little nervous when I hear something like this. The fact is, I like the games because of what they are. Plumbing the depths of massive ruins, solving complex puzzles, finding hidden artifacts, and battling mythological beasts are the hallmarks of one of the most well known characters in gaming. The series is for the hardcore, it always has been. While I don't disagree with evolution, and could see some changes being made to make the series more accessible to casual gamers and therefore expand the audience, I just hope they don't turn their backs on the fans that brought the series this far (though, if more fans bought the latest game, maybe they wouldn't be rushing to go in a new direction).
I just get a chill when they decide to go "family friendly". I have nightmare visions of a big-headed Lara Croft running through some dumbed down dungeon, collecting cute monsters while she jumps on the heads of little mushroom monsters.
All for now. Catch you tomorrow.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Look out! He's got a game! Run for your life!
A reasonably serious post, in the "loss of human life" kind of way.
Some 24-year-old toolbag in Portland, Oregon decided to start shooting on Saturday night, opening fire in a teen club and killing 2 people. He wounded 7 others, and then shot himself in the head. He is now in critical condition, as apparently his brain was too small to hit with the bullet.
My point is not, however, to discuss the actual shooting, but the article in the Oregonian newspaper that reported the story. They pointed out that he was "quiet, with an interest in video games and computers". The story also makes mention of the fact that he liked to play Resistance: Fall of Man and Left 4 Dead.
Of course, this is hardly the first time a news outlet has strived to make this connection, between a shooter and the fact that they happened to play video games. Of course, it's only relevant when the games also happen to be first person shooters or Grand Theft Auto (which also gets mentioned when it is an automotive tragedy as well). You rarely see it pointed out that some vicious criminal spent his free time playing Patapon.
Once again, gaming is the easy scapegoat, an attempt for these "journalists" to point a finger to something they don't understand. While any gamer will read the story and shake their head in disgust, there are too many people who will see the connection the story is trying to make and suddenly think that playing Halo 3 will automatically turn their kid into a psychopath.
The article in the Oregonian, like most of the articles of this type, generally try to be subtle with their finger pointing, but they make the connection to a popular shooter and then stop without looking at any other (and probably more relevant) facts.
This all reminds me of a book I read way back when I was in high school called Dungeon Master. It was written by William Dear, a private detective, and the book was an account of a case he worked involving the disappearance of a college student.
The student in question had vanished, and Mr. Dear was hired by the parents to track him down. Over the course of the investigation it became clear that the kid was seriously troubled, but what the news outlets immediately centered on was that he avidly played Dungeons and Dragons. It became the focal point of the public's view of the case, and the scapegoat for his troubles and his disappearance. Much like Left 4 Dead and Resistance were subtly "blamed" for the Portland guy going on his shooting spree, Dungeons and Dragons became the central reason as to why the student vanished.
What Mr. Dear found, over the course of his investigation, was that this kid had troubles way beyond an interest in a role-playing game. For starters, he was young, and had accelerated through high school and became a college freshman at 15, which I'd assume is pretty stressful. He was a loner, partly due to his age and intelligence, and he didn't have too many friends. He was battling with sexual identity: he was a closet homosexual and hated himself for it. He started using drugs, but decided that the regular stuff was too soft and, being a chemistry major, he used his skills to start mixing his own that were far more powerful.
All in all, this added up to a seriously messed up kid. He started playing Dungeons and Dragons with a group, and this led to playing it "live" with them, running around in tunnels beneath the school. It is actually my opinion that, if he didn't have so many problems already, playing D&D could have maybe stopped his downward spiral. He was playing with people, with a group, sharing a common (non-destructive) interest. The damage was done, though, by all the other factors more than some paper and dice.
Eventually, if I recall, the kid was found and was alive. Good for him.
The point is, we're dealing with the same situation, but with a different scapegoat.
Was the Portland shooter a drug user? Molested as a kid? Fired from his job, lost his home, his girlfriend left him, whatever? I'm in no means trying to justify his actions, but it seems that there is something more wrong with him. Something triggered the desire to grab a gun and go out on a killing spree, and I doubt it was Left 4 Dead.
This needs to stop. It probably will someday. Nobody really blames D&D for anything anymore, or rock music, or whatever else people blamed the follies and horrors of youth on throughout history. In the now, though, as a gamer, it's pretty frustrating and upsetting to see a shooting story that references some shooting game as the "reason" for everything.
On a tangent, though: What would a Patapon inspired crime spree look like?
Some 24-year-old toolbag in Portland, Oregon decided to start shooting on Saturday night, opening fire in a teen club and killing 2 people. He wounded 7 others, and then shot himself in the head. He is now in critical condition, as apparently his brain was too small to hit with the bullet.
My point is not, however, to discuss the actual shooting, but the article in the Oregonian newspaper that reported the story. They pointed out that he was "quiet, with an interest in video games and computers". The story also makes mention of the fact that he liked to play Resistance: Fall of Man and Left 4 Dead.
Of course, this is hardly the first time a news outlet has strived to make this connection, between a shooter and the fact that they happened to play video games. Of course, it's only relevant when the games also happen to be first person shooters or Grand Theft Auto (which also gets mentioned when it is an automotive tragedy as well). You rarely see it pointed out that some vicious criminal spent his free time playing Patapon.
Once again, gaming is the easy scapegoat, an attempt for these "journalists" to point a finger to something they don't understand. While any gamer will read the story and shake their head in disgust, there are too many people who will see the connection the story is trying to make and suddenly think that playing Halo 3 will automatically turn their kid into a psychopath.
The article in the Oregonian, like most of the articles of this type, generally try to be subtle with their finger pointing, but they make the connection to a popular shooter and then stop without looking at any other (and probably more relevant) facts.
This all reminds me of a book I read way back when I was in high school called Dungeon Master. It was written by William Dear, a private detective, and the book was an account of a case he worked involving the disappearance of a college student.
The student in question had vanished, and Mr. Dear was hired by the parents to track him down. Over the course of the investigation it became clear that the kid was seriously troubled, but what the news outlets immediately centered on was that he avidly played Dungeons and Dragons. It became the focal point of the public's view of the case, and the scapegoat for his troubles and his disappearance. Much like Left 4 Dead and Resistance were subtly "blamed" for the Portland guy going on his shooting spree, Dungeons and Dragons became the central reason as to why the student vanished.
What Mr. Dear found, over the course of his investigation, was that this kid had troubles way beyond an interest in a role-playing game. For starters, he was young, and had accelerated through high school and became a college freshman at 15, which I'd assume is pretty stressful. He was a loner, partly due to his age and intelligence, and he didn't have too many friends. He was battling with sexual identity: he was a closet homosexual and hated himself for it. He started using drugs, but decided that the regular stuff was too soft and, being a chemistry major, he used his skills to start mixing his own that were far more powerful.
All in all, this added up to a seriously messed up kid. He started playing Dungeons and Dragons with a group, and this led to playing it "live" with them, running around in tunnels beneath the school. It is actually my opinion that, if he didn't have so many problems already, playing D&D could have maybe stopped his downward spiral. He was playing with people, with a group, sharing a common (non-destructive) interest. The damage was done, though, by all the other factors more than some paper and dice.
Eventually, if I recall, the kid was found and was alive. Good for him.
The point is, we're dealing with the same situation, but with a different scapegoat.
Was the Portland shooter a drug user? Molested as a kid? Fired from his job, lost his home, his girlfriend left him, whatever? I'm in no means trying to justify his actions, but it seems that there is something more wrong with him. Something triggered the desire to grab a gun and go out on a killing spree, and I doubt it was Left 4 Dead.
This needs to stop. It probably will someday. Nobody really blames D&D for anything anymore, or rock music, or whatever else people blamed the follies and horrors of youth on throughout history. In the now, though, as a gamer, it's pretty frustrating and upsetting to see a shooting story that references some shooting game as the "reason" for everything.
On a tangent, though: What would a Patapon inspired crime spree look like?
Sunday night
I don't know that I have a lot to say tonight, aside from the odd aimless rambling. That's never stopped me before, though...
I've been thinking about gamers as a collective whole, as one large group, and have realized just how at odds with itself that group is and has always been. In essence, it could be surmised that gamers are in fact holding the gaming industry back. Of course, this same conflict is what makes the industry strong. More than any other entertainment medium, gaming is a lesson in chaos theory.
Take the biggest of all gamer conflicts, the "system wars". Even in the days of the Nintendo Entertainment System and the Sega Master System, there were lines drawn in the sand between the fans of each respective console. The battle really heated up in the next generation, the Super Nintendo and Genesis days.
I don't like romantic comedy movies. I prefer science fiction. Just my personal tastes. However, I've never felt the need to openly insult someone who does like romantic comedies. I accept that, as a moviegoer, I may have a different sense of what I enjoy than someone else. Same with music. I'm a huge Alice Cooper fan, but won't get insulted if someone would rather listen to something else. It's different with games and gamers, though. Even as far back as the early system wars, the fanboys of the respective sides would call out the others with insults and derision. It's only gotten worse as time has gone on and generations have gone by.
Now we have consoles so incredibly more advanced then what we played in those days, and the attitudes haven't changed. In fact, I'd say they've gotten worse with time. Look at just about any article about a game on any site, and f you start reading the public comments you'll find the conversation eventually devolve into "360/ Ps3 sucks and you're stupid for liking it" fare.
As an example, when Capcom announced that Devil May Cry 4 was going to go cross-platform, the outcry from "fans" of the series was amazing. Since it had always been a series exclusive to Sony systems, fans somehow felt that Capcom was betraying them by making the game for the 360 as well. Forget that this meant that a whole new audience could enjoy the series, or that Capcom could bring in more revenue this way to help fund more games. Nope, a lot of gamers threw tantrums about what was a basic business decision. You don't see that in other mediums. I've never heard someone refuse to see any Bruce Willis movie because they hate science fiction and he was in Fifth Element.
If you take a step back from the console wars, you see an even bigger skirmish, between the console world itself and PC gamers. Now you have gamers fighting over whose entire platform is right or wrong. Zoom back in, onto PC this time, and now you have PC versus Mac (which is more of a tech issue than a games issue, so only loosely relevant here).
Now the latest battle being fought is "hardcore" versus "casual" gamers. It seems that, according to some, casual gaming is somehow going to destroy our entire way of life. These hardcore gamers would rather close off their hobby to the world than let new blood in. They attack Nintendo for catering more to a casual crowd and ignoring the hardcore.
Nintendo has chosen a course of action that they feel will bring gaming to the masses, with the Wii and the DS. They feel that gaming should be about more than just huddling in a dark room with a controller in hand, trying to get past some impossible boss and get to the next level. They see gaming as social, as something anybody can do. Honestly, until the Wii, I never thought I'd have a serious conversation with my grandmother about playing video games. I have tremendous respect for the direction Nintendo has taken, but the vitriol aimed towards them by the gaming community at large is pretty dizzying.
What's funny, though, is that there are a lot of games out there that appeal to both, but each one claims that it "belongs" to their respective group. Take something like Rock Band or Guitar Hero (I prefer Rock Band, so that's the one we'll stick with for this). Almost every hardcore gamer I know has at least tried it, and most of them play it regularly. Rock Band is also incredibly popular with more casual gamers, and has introduced a lot of people to gaming that may not have tried it otherwise. When I worked in a game store, I heard the same thing from a lot of parents, that they watched their kids play and just had to try it out. They often claim that they're not very good, but they have fun nonetheless. More than one admitted to cracking out the plastic instruments when they had their friends over, sometimes without the kids even being around.
This is good for the industry as a whole, for reasons ranging from sales to exposure, but so many gamers still fear it because it's different.
There's a reason that gamers are often portrayed as single, unemployed/ underemployed, living in their parents' basements (wait a second. I just described myself). It's because we pretty much foster this image, through our words and actions more than anything else.
Gamers often cry out that we're not taken seriously, that the world needs to accept our hobby as a legitimate art form like movies and music, but then they act like children and just prove why this multi-billion dollar industry is still looked down on by so many other people. I'm by no means agreeing with the politicians trying to regulate the industry, nor with anybody who decries gaming as a kid's hobby or not a form of entertainment.
I'm mostly saying this: if someone wasn't familiar with video games, but wanted to learn a bit more, maybe they'd use this neat interweb device to do some research. This could lead them to a random forum, and what would they see? Maybe they'd get lucky. When gamers unite, it's an amazing thing. Maybe they'd find some gamers helping out others who are trying to get past a tough boss, or having a serious discussion about the existential undertones in Bioshock, or having a friendly debate about the music in Rock Band. More likely, though, they'll find one gamer insulting another for their choice in console, or laughing at him/ her for choosing to play RPG's instead of shooters (and don't even get me started on what the hims often are saying about the hers).
If this is what they see, they'll turn away and figure that we're all just a bunch of whiny kids, and never pick up a controller for fear of being one of us.
Developers make games, publishers get them onto the shelves, and retailers sell them, but ultimately the power to shape and move the industry lies in the hands of the gamers themselves.
We can move the industry forward as a whole, working together to get respect and elevate games to a higher level in public consciousness, or we can complain that other gamers are using the wrong console and therefore their opinions are stupid (and, in the case of most forums, will do so with poor spelling and a complete lack of any grammatical accuracy).
Just something for you to think about. Unless you were reading another blog instead of this one, in which case you're dumb :)
I've been thinking about gamers as a collective whole, as one large group, and have realized just how at odds with itself that group is and has always been. In essence, it could be surmised that gamers are in fact holding the gaming industry back. Of course, this same conflict is what makes the industry strong. More than any other entertainment medium, gaming is a lesson in chaos theory.
Take the biggest of all gamer conflicts, the "system wars". Even in the days of the Nintendo Entertainment System and the Sega Master System, there were lines drawn in the sand between the fans of each respective console. The battle really heated up in the next generation, the Super Nintendo and Genesis days.
I don't like romantic comedy movies. I prefer science fiction. Just my personal tastes. However, I've never felt the need to openly insult someone who does like romantic comedies. I accept that, as a moviegoer, I may have a different sense of what I enjoy than someone else. Same with music. I'm a huge Alice Cooper fan, but won't get insulted if someone would rather listen to something else. It's different with games and gamers, though. Even as far back as the early system wars, the fanboys of the respective sides would call out the others with insults and derision. It's only gotten worse as time has gone on and generations have gone by.
Now we have consoles so incredibly more advanced then what we played in those days, and the attitudes haven't changed. In fact, I'd say they've gotten worse with time. Look at just about any article about a game on any site, and f you start reading the public comments you'll find the conversation eventually devolve into "360/ Ps3 sucks and you're stupid for liking it" fare.
As an example, when Capcom announced that Devil May Cry 4 was going to go cross-platform, the outcry from "fans" of the series was amazing. Since it had always been a series exclusive to Sony systems, fans somehow felt that Capcom was betraying them by making the game for the 360 as well. Forget that this meant that a whole new audience could enjoy the series, or that Capcom could bring in more revenue this way to help fund more games. Nope, a lot of gamers threw tantrums about what was a basic business decision. You don't see that in other mediums. I've never heard someone refuse to see any Bruce Willis movie because they hate science fiction and he was in Fifth Element.
If you take a step back from the console wars, you see an even bigger skirmish, between the console world itself and PC gamers. Now you have gamers fighting over whose entire platform is right or wrong. Zoom back in, onto PC this time, and now you have PC versus Mac (which is more of a tech issue than a games issue, so only loosely relevant here).
Now the latest battle being fought is "hardcore" versus "casual" gamers. It seems that, according to some, casual gaming is somehow going to destroy our entire way of life. These hardcore gamers would rather close off their hobby to the world than let new blood in. They attack Nintendo for catering more to a casual crowd and ignoring the hardcore.
Nintendo has chosen a course of action that they feel will bring gaming to the masses, with the Wii and the DS. They feel that gaming should be about more than just huddling in a dark room with a controller in hand, trying to get past some impossible boss and get to the next level. They see gaming as social, as something anybody can do. Honestly, until the Wii, I never thought I'd have a serious conversation with my grandmother about playing video games. I have tremendous respect for the direction Nintendo has taken, but the vitriol aimed towards them by the gaming community at large is pretty dizzying.
What's funny, though, is that there are a lot of games out there that appeal to both, but each one claims that it "belongs" to their respective group. Take something like Rock Band or Guitar Hero (I prefer Rock Band, so that's the one we'll stick with for this). Almost every hardcore gamer I know has at least tried it, and most of them play it regularly. Rock Band is also incredibly popular with more casual gamers, and has introduced a lot of people to gaming that may not have tried it otherwise. When I worked in a game store, I heard the same thing from a lot of parents, that they watched their kids play and just had to try it out. They often claim that they're not very good, but they have fun nonetheless. More than one admitted to cracking out the plastic instruments when they had their friends over, sometimes without the kids even being around.
This is good for the industry as a whole, for reasons ranging from sales to exposure, but so many gamers still fear it because it's different.
There's a reason that gamers are often portrayed as single, unemployed/ underemployed, living in their parents' basements (wait a second. I just described myself). It's because we pretty much foster this image, through our words and actions more than anything else.
Gamers often cry out that we're not taken seriously, that the world needs to accept our hobby as a legitimate art form like movies and music, but then they act like children and just prove why this multi-billion dollar industry is still looked down on by so many other people. I'm by no means agreeing with the politicians trying to regulate the industry, nor with anybody who decries gaming as a kid's hobby or not a form of entertainment.
I'm mostly saying this: if someone wasn't familiar with video games, but wanted to learn a bit more, maybe they'd use this neat interweb device to do some research. This could lead them to a random forum, and what would they see? Maybe they'd get lucky. When gamers unite, it's an amazing thing. Maybe they'd find some gamers helping out others who are trying to get past a tough boss, or having a serious discussion about the existential undertones in Bioshock, or having a friendly debate about the music in Rock Band. More likely, though, they'll find one gamer insulting another for their choice in console, or laughing at him/ her for choosing to play RPG's instead of shooters (and don't even get me started on what the hims often are saying about the hers).
If this is what they see, they'll turn away and figure that we're all just a bunch of whiny kids, and never pick up a controller for fear of being one of us.
Developers make games, publishers get them onto the shelves, and retailers sell them, but ultimately the power to shape and move the industry lies in the hands of the gamers themselves.
We can move the industry forward as a whole, working together to get respect and elevate games to a higher level in public consciousness, or we can complain that other gamers are using the wrong console and therefore their opinions are stupid (and, in the case of most forums, will do so with poor spelling and a complete lack of any grammatical accuracy).
Just something for you to think about. Unless you were reading another blog instead of this one, in which case you're dumb :)
Friday, January 23, 2009
Lara Croft made me do it!
This one struck me as amusing today:
A team of faculty and students from Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah just released a report that was published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence which, as near as I can find, is some sort of journal dealing with youths and adolescents.
The report was a "study" conducted by this crack team, in which they worked with participants to "research" the effects of video games on students. According to the report, the breakdown of the lab rats were: 813 undergrad students, 313 male and 500 female. The median age was 20. 100% were unmarried (though there is no record that I could find relating to other relationship status), 90% lived away from home (away from parents, according to the language in the report), and 79% were European American. Why that last part is in any way relevant, I have no idea, but it was in the press release so I included it.
So they did some research-y stuff to these kids, probably involving electroshock nipple clamps and big mazes with cheese at the end or something. I'm sure it was very scientific looking. I even bet there were lab coats involved.
Anyway, according to this study:
*) The more the lab rats... I mean, students played video games, the worse their relationships with friends and parents.
--I'm not even sure what this means. So gamers fight more with their friends and parents, or just have fewer friends (and parents) than non-gamers? Pretty much all of my friends are gamers to begin with, so I suppose that's the best way to dodge that bullet. Plus, I'd assume that at age 20, many college students don't have stellar relationships with their parents anyway, so there is that.
*) Students who play games every day smoke pot twice as much as casual players (not playing every day), and three times more than non-gamers.
--I've smoked pot maybe twice in my life, and it was a long time ago. I play games every day. Apparently I'm not one of the cool kids. Actually, I don't know that any of my gamer friends smoke pot. I mean, if you're buying pot, you have less money with which to buy games.
This study was done on a college campus, and the test subjects were college students. That's when, at least in my experience, the majority of drug use takes place anyway. Heck, I knew a few people in college that would try to smoke, snort, or inhale anything you put in front of them.
*) Young women who play often have lower self esteem.
--I know a lot of girl gamers, and I don't know that any of them have self esteem problems that stem from gaming. I do know that, especially at a median age of 20, on a college campus, self esteem issues are fairly common, in both genders. I know that, depending on the situation, girls can have a tougher time in some online games (coughHALO3cough), but that's because most of the guys playing online are tools anyway. I'm a 34 year old male, and I won't even play with most of the people online because they're often jerks. They also didn't seem to specify what kind of self esteem issues we're talking here. Are they worried about not being pretty enough, because I doubt some time playing Lego Indiana Jones caused that.
I didn't see anything that indicated the breakdown of gamers in their test study, meaning how many were "hardcore" players, how many were casual, et cetera. For all we know, they could have seen some girl playing solitaire on her laptop and considered that gaming. Is it fair to study someone like myself, who eats sleeps and breathes games, and someone who may pick up a Wii Remote socially now and again by the same set of parameters?
I remember college. Lots of new people, tons of work, expensive books, exams, expectations, and a dizzying amount of caffeine. Stress levels are high, and people handle these stresses in different ways. Generally I looked forward to some game time, especially after a hard day. There's nothing like sitting back with your feet up, being transported to a different world, and just relaxing with a controller in hand. It generally made me feel better about issues such as the ones suggested in the study.
Relationships are hard, especially in college. Making new friends, trying to figure out who you are, arguing with parents over grades or money or what have you, these things happen on campuses all over the world every day, regardless of how much Left 4 Dead is being played.
Drug use is sadly common as well. For a lot of students, college marks their first time really away from home. They are, as a result, going to be extremely stupid. They're going to smoke things, have one night stands with strangers, and throw up extreme amounts of alcohol. Again, not really Prince of Persia's fault. Actually, there were nights I prefered to sit at home playing games rather than going out to party. Not that I was a wild child, but they probably kept me out of trouble.
As for self esteem, kids have issues with that. Both genders do, but guys generally beat their chests and act manly and don't admit it as readily. There are a million reasons a young girl is going to face issues like that, and I'm going to wager that gaming is low down on the list.
But wait, there's more! The story about the report was printed in the Deseret News, and various involved folks had these fun things to say:
Laura Walker, professor at BYU, stated: "Everything we found associated with video games came out negative."
I'm really curious as to what games they were testing. I don't think playing Crosswords on my DS can really be considered a negative experience. Maybe if I was doing it while driving on the Autobahn or something.
Ms. Walker continues: "I don't want parents to go and yank all video games. It's like TV. We have to choose what's good and bad and practice moderation."
So you tell people that "all games are bad", then tell them to choose what's good and bad? You're essentially trying to create a panic amongst the uninformed, then cover your own ass.
A student who took part in the study, Alex, had this gem come out of his mouth:
"I assumed violent video games would be related to lower relationship quality with friends and family. I didn't expect regular video games — nonviolent video game use — would be correlated to lower relationship quality..."
Maybe, Alex, your relationship issues stem from being a loser.
Given that Utah is one of the states trying to enact video game legislation, I'd love to know who ordered and funded this attempt at science.
A team of faculty and students from Brigham Young University (BYU) in Utah just released a report that was published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence which, as near as I can find, is some sort of journal dealing with youths and adolescents.
The report was a "study" conducted by this crack team, in which they worked with participants to "research" the effects of video games on students. According to the report, the breakdown of the lab rats were: 813 undergrad students, 313 male and 500 female. The median age was 20. 100% were unmarried (though there is no record that I could find relating to other relationship status), 90% lived away from home (away from parents, according to the language in the report), and 79% were European American. Why that last part is in any way relevant, I have no idea, but it was in the press release so I included it.
So they did some research-y stuff to these kids, probably involving electroshock nipple clamps and big mazes with cheese at the end or something. I'm sure it was very scientific looking. I even bet there were lab coats involved.
Anyway, according to this study:
*) The more the lab rats... I mean, students played video games, the worse their relationships with friends and parents.
--I'm not even sure what this means. So gamers fight more with their friends and parents, or just have fewer friends (and parents) than non-gamers? Pretty much all of my friends are gamers to begin with, so I suppose that's the best way to dodge that bullet. Plus, I'd assume that at age 20, many college students don't have stellar relationships with their parents anyway, so there is that.
*) Students who play games every day smoke pot twice as much as casual players (not playing every day), and three times more than non-gamers.
--I've smoked pot maybe twice in my life, and it was a long time ago. I play games every day. Apparently I'm not one of the cool kids. Actually, I don't know that any of my gamer friends smoke pot. I mean, if you're buying pot, you have less money with which to buy games.
This study was done on a college campus, and the test subjects were college students. That's when, at least in my experience, the majority of drug use takes place anyway. Heck, I knew a few people in college that would try to smoke, snort, or inhale anything you put in front of them.
*) Young women who play often have lower self esteem.
--I know a lot of girl gamers, and I don't know that any of them have self esteem problems that stem from gaming. I do know that, especially at a median age of 20, on a college campus, self esteem issues are fairly common, in both genders. I know that, depending on the situation, girls can have a tougher time in some online games (coughHALO3cough), but that's because most of the guys playing online are tools anyway. I'm a 34 year old male, and I won't even play with most of the people online because they're often jerks. They also didn't seem to specify what kind of self esteem issues we're talking here. Are they worried about not being pretty enough, because I doubt some time playing Lego Indiana Jones caused that.
I didn't see anything that indicated the breakdown of gamers in their test study, meaning how many were "hardcore" players, how many were casual, et cetera. For all we know, they could have seen some girl playing solitaire on her laptop and considered that gaming. Is it fair to study someone like myself, who eats sleeps and breathes games, and someone who may pick up a Wii Remote socially now and again by the same set of parameters?
I remember college. Lots of new people, tons of work, expensive books, exams, expectations, and a dizzying amount of caffeine. Stress levels are high, and people handle these stresses in different ways. Generally I looked forward to some game time, especially after a hard day. There's nothing like sitting back with your feet up, being transported to a different world, and just relaxing with a controller in hand. It generally made me feel better about issues such as the ones suggested in the study.
Relationships are hard, especially in college. Making new friends, trying to figure out who you are, arguing with parents over grades or money or what have you, these things happen on campuses all over the world every day, regardless of how much Left 4 Dead is being played.
Drug use is sadly common as well. For a lot of students, college marks their first time really away from home. They are, as a result, going to be extremely stupid. They're going to smoke things, have one night stands with strangers, and throw up extreme amounts of alcohol. Again, not really Prince of Persia's fault. Actually, there were nights I prefered to sit at home playing games rather than going out to party. Not that I was a wild child, but they probably kept me out of trouble.
As for self esteem, kids have issues with that. Both genders do, but guys generally beat their chests and act manly and don't admit it as readily. There are a million reasons a young girl is going to face issues like that, and I'm going to wager that gaming is low down on the list.
But wait, there's more! The story about the report was printed in the Deseret News, and various involved folks had these fun things to say:
Laura Walker, professor at BYU, stated: "Everything we found associated with video games came out negative."
I'm really curious as to what games they were testing. I don't think playing Crosswords on my DS can really be considered a negative experience. Maybe if I was doing it while driving on the Autobahn or something.
Ms. Walker continues: "I don't want parents to go and yank all video games. It's like TV. We have to choose what's good and bad and practice moderation."
So you tell people that "all games are bad", then tell them to choose what's good and bad? You're essentially trying to create a panic amongst the uninformed, then cover your own ass.
A student who took part in the study, Alex, had this gem come out of his mouth:
"I assumed violent video games would be related to lower relationship quality with friends and family. I didn't expect regular video games — nonviolent video game use — would be correlated to lower relationship quality..."
Maybe, Alex, your relationship issues stem from being a loser.
Given that Utah is one of the states trying to enact video game legislation, I'd love to know who ordered and funded this attempt at science.
2009 time-wasting prospects
YAAAAY!!!!
Ubisoft just officially announced Assassin's Creed 2. No official date yet, just sometime this year (well, before April 2010). I'd wager a big holiday release.
I was a big fan of the first game. It got a lot of heat for being repetitive, but I saw past that. I enjoyed the entire concept, the action was good, the gameplay was smooth, and overall it was a cool experience.
I maintain that almost every game, at its core, is pretty repetitive. "Fight bad guys, battle boss, go to next level, fight more bad guys, lather rinse and repeat". It's even worse in old-school turn based RPG's, when the later monsters are just palette swaps of earlier monsters (because the red goblins are way tougher than the otherwise identical green goblins).
Either way, I really liked Assassin's Creed. I'm glad I held onto it. I'll play it again shortly before the release of the sequel to get myself all ready and in an assassin-y mood.
While I'm thinking ahead to games I need to play this year:
Star Ocean for the Xbox 360. Square-Enix (SQUEEEEEENIX!!!) has had a pretty spotty history thus far on the 360, but now they're bringing an established series to the system so there's a real good chance they'll get it right.
Overlord 2, because more minions and world conquest is never a bad thing. The first had so many good ideas with just a few glaring issues, but I think this one will get it right. I'm going to have to get the 360 version, but I'm really intrigued by the Wii version as well.
Phantasy Star Zero for the DS, and Shining Force Feather for the DS. I'll play anything with the words "phantasy star" and/ or "shining force" in the titles, so this was a given from the moment they were announced. Still, it's so heartwarming to see Shining Force returning to its strategy RPG roots where it very much belongs.
As much as I avoid MMO's (aside from the aforementioned Phantasy Star, which only loosely counts anyway), I will be there day one for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Online. While I would have prefered a KOTOR 3, I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt for now.
I'm really hoping that Bioware comes through with an announcement on Mass Effect 2 for this year. I know they're planning on discussing the tech behind the game this year, but I want to see a real announcement and a real release date.
I want to play Puzzle Quest: Galactrix. I'll probably go with the 360 download, as tempting as the DS version sounds, but as long as I get to play it I suppose I'll manage.
Oh, I so can't forget about Marvel Ultimate Alliance: Fusion. The first one was so good, and so underappreciated by the unwashed masses. I still think that the first one just got lost in the tsunami of holiday releases, and I'm hoping that they don't make the same mistake with this one. A late summer slot could work (it did for Bioshock), but whenever it hits the shelf I'll be there to snag a copy. I still play the first one, despite it having destroyed my save file and making me a sad panda.
The Witcher. I bought the PC game, the "enhanced edition", and from what I've played it's pretty amazing. It took some work to get my laptop to run it, though, and even now it's choppy and I've had to sacrifice a lot of the beauty of the graphics. Plus, I'm just not a PC gamer, no matter how hard I try. I'm a console guy, tried and true. So I'm pretty psyched about the console version hitting (supposedly) this fall.
I'm actually feeling a little hypocritical all of a sudden. In an earlier post I blasted the industry for relying on "franchises" and "marketing decisions" and not going with original games, yet here I am with a list of anticipated games that are all sequels.
So I'm going to mention Infinite Space, for the DS. This futuristic RPG has space exploration and customizable starships, which are some of my favorite phrases (root beer being another). I love games like that, from current generation hits like Mass Effect to classic gems like Starflight, so I'm hoping that this one holds up to its impressive previews and sucks me in like those two games did.
There are a lot of others, I'm sure, and this post was primarily borne out of the Assassin's Creed 2 announcement anyway. These are just some of the ones that I'm extra drooly over.
I've also noticed that I wasn't particularly grouchy in this post. So... ummm.... hey, you kids! Get the hell off my lawn!
Ubisoft just officially announced Assassin's Creed 2. No official date yet, just sometime this year (well, before April 2010). I'd wager a big holiday release.
I was a big fan of the first game. It got a lot of heat for being repetitive, but I saw past that. I enjoyed the entire concept, the action was good, the gameplay was smooth, and overall it was a cool experience.
I maintain that almost every game, at its core, is pretty repetitive. "Fight bad guys, battle boss, go to next level, fight more bad guys, lather rinse and repeat". It's even worse in old-school turn based RPG's, when the later monsters are just palette swaps of earlier monsters (because the red goblins are way tougher than the otherwise identical green goblins).
Either way, I really liked Assassin's Creed. I'm glad I held onto it. I'll play it again shortly before the release of the sequel to get myself all ready and in an assassin-y mood.
While I'm thinking ahead to games I need to play this year:
Star Ocean for the Xbox 360. Square-Enix (SQUEEEEEENIX!!!) has had a pretty spotty history thus far on the 360, but now they're bringing an established series to the system so there's a real good chance they'll get it right.
Overlord 2, because more minions and world conquest is never a bad thing. The first had so many good ideas with just a few glaring issues, but I think this one will get it right. I'm going to have to get the 360 version, but I'm really intrigued by the Wii version as well.
Phantasy Star Zero for the DS, and Shining Force Feather for the DS. I'll play anything with the words "phantasy star" and/ or "shining force" in the titles, so this was a given from the moment they were announced. Still, it's so heartwarming to see Shining Force returning to its strategy RPG roots where it very much belongs.
As much as I avoid MMO's (aside from the aforementioned Phantasy Star, which only loosely counts anyway), I will be there day one for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic Online. While I would have prefered a KOTOR 3, I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt for now.
I'm really hoping that Bioware comes through with an announcement on Mass Effect 2 for this year. I know they're planning on discussing the tech behind the game this year, but I want to see a real announcement and a real release date.
I want to play Puzzle Quest: Galactrix. I'll probably go with the 360 download, as tempting as the DS version sounds, but as long as I get to play it I suppose I'll manage.
Oh, I so can't forget about Marvel Ultimate Alliance: Fusion. The first one was so good, and so underappreciated by the unwashed masses. I still think that the first one just got lost in the tsunami of holiday releases, and I'm hoping that they don't make the same mistake with this one. A late summer slot could work (it did for Bioshock), but whenever it hits the shelf I'll be there to snag a copy. I still play the first one, despite it having destroyed my save file and making me a sad panda.
The Witcher. I bought the PC game, the "enhanced edition", and from what I've played it's pretty amazing. It took some work to get my laptop to run it, though, and even now it's choppy and I've had to sacrifice a lot of the beauty of the graphics. Plus, I'm just not a PC gamer, no matter how hard I try. I'm a console guy, tried and true. So I'm pretty psyched about the console version hitting (supposedly) this fall.
I'm actually feeling a little hypocritical all of a sudden. In an earlier post I blasted the industry for relying on "franchises" and "marketing decisions" and not going with original games, yet here I am with a list of anticipated games that are all sequels.
So I'm going to mention Infinite Space, for the DS. This futuristic RPG has space exploration and customizable starships, which are some of my favorite phrases (root beer being another). I love games like that, from current generation hits like Mass Effect to classic gems like Starflight, so I'm hoping that this one holds up to its impressive previews and sucks me in like those two games did.
There are a lot of others, I'm sure, and this post was primarily borne out of the Assassin's Creed 2 announcement anyway. These are just some of the ones that I'm extra drooly over.
I've also noticed that I wasn't particularly grouchy in this post. So... ummm.... hey, you kids! Get the hell off my lawn!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
The "find a job" game
There have been a lot of layoffs in the game industry as of late.
Every industry has felt the sting of the economy, of course, but as this is a game blog it seems prudent that we focus on game companies.
Lots of game companies, many of the biggest in the industry, have been cutting people. Electronic Arts and Sega have both cut people. Sony is cutting 16,000 jobs (8000 regular and 8000 contract, though this is across all their departments and not just limited to their game division), and Microsoft is also making cuts throughout the company. Small development teams have been shut down or restructured, and some companies (such as Helixe, a local dev) have closed their doors.
First and foremost, I want to say that I hope the Force is with all of these people. I have been unemployed since October, and I can sympathize with what they are all going through. There is, of course, the financial insecurity and the issues that arise surrounding health benefits. There is fear, and confusion. More than that, there's the emotional toll that something like this takes. So I feel for every one of them.
It's going to be tough to find something in the industry, at least for a while. Most companies have tightened their belts, lowered expectations, and stopped hiring while they weather this storm. Not to mention that now there's a lot of industry people out there looking for jobs. So those companies that do have work available may see an influx of applicants. Good for those looking for people, but bad for the lots who are competing for the few openings.
For someone like myself, who wants nothing more than to "break into" the industry, it's going to be near impossible to compete with those who have experience. I'm not just griping about not being able to get my "dream job" either: there are a lot of people just like me who are going to have a harder time for a while, because those with experience are having an equally hard time.
So what is going to happen? For the moment, I'd guess, not much. Things are probably going to hold steady for a bit, and probably get worse before they get better. We may see more layoffs, more shutdowns. Games that might be seen as "not marketable" could get canceled, more experimental ideas will get shoved aside to go with franchises or licensed fare.
It will get better, though, and then what? Maybe the bigger companies will start hiring again, as their business stabilizes. In a perfect world, people could get their jobs back, or find something new in a similarly large house. Thing will go back to normal, as much as they can, and life will go on.
Here's another scenario, though, and one that could really push the games industry forward: What if these lost souls started to get together and form new companies, new indie developers and such? It's not really realistic as things are right now, since forming a company requires money and nobody has much of that right now.
But think about it for a second. So a laid off creative director from Sega starts talking to a programmer from EA, who knows a writer and artist from Microsoft Game Studios, and they start a small company in the hopes of putting together some titles for Xbox Life Arcade. They start a website, hire someone from Sony, and put out an original little game that does better than even they expected. They start their next project, a bigger one, and decide to hire some new people. With the big houses hiring again and more small companies cropping up, those "waiting in the wings" to find their dream job in the industry have a shot, bringing new blood into the process.
Could something like this happen? Absolutely. Will it happen? As a gamer, I can only hope. This industry, like any, can only really grow when its people stand up and go against the grain, taking risks and bringing new ideas to fruition. When a company is scared and tightening its belt, it is going to play it safe, which may be financially sound but ultimately will do nothing to push creativity forward.
So, in an even more perfect world, maybe we'll see a new creative boom once this madness is firmly in our collective rear-view mirror.
Just a thought, and just a hope. It's something we all need right about now.
Every industry has felt the sting of the economy, of course, but as this is a game blog it seems prudent that we focus on game companies.
Lots of game companies, many of the biggest in the industry, have been cutting people. Electronic Arts and Sega have both cut people. Sony is cutting 16,000 jobs (8000 regular and 8000 contract, though this is across all their departments and not just limited to their game division), and Microsoft is also making cuts throughout the company. Small development teams have been shut down or restructured, and some companies (such as Helixe, a local dev) have closed their doors.
First and foremost, I want to say that I hope the Force is with all of these people. I have been unemployed since October, and I can sympathize with what they are all going through. There is, of course, the financial insecurity and the issues that arise surrounding health benefits. There is fear, and confusion. More than that, there's the emotional toll that something like this takes. So I feel for every one of them.
It's going to be tough to find something in the industry, at least for a while. Most companies have tightened their belts, lowered expectations, and stopped hiring while they weather this storm. Not to mention that now there's a lot of industry people out there looking for jobs. So those companies that do have work available may see an influx of applicants. Good for those looking for people, but bad for the lots who are competing for the few openings.
For someone like myself, who wants nothing more than to "break into" the industry, it's going to be near impossible to compete with those who have experience. I'm not just griping about not being able to get my "dream job" either: there are a lot of people just like me who are going to have a harder time for a while, because those with experience are having an equally hard time.
So what is going to happen? For the moment, I'd guess, not much. Things are probably going to hold steady for a bit, and probably get worse before they get better. We may see more layoffs, more shutdowns. Games that might be seen as "not marketable" could get canceled, more experimental ideas will get shoved aside to go with franchises or licensed fare.
It will get better, though, and then what? Maybe the bigger companies will start hiring again, as their business stabilizes. In a perfect world, people could get their jobs back, or find something new in a similarly large house. Thing will go back to normal, as much as they can, and life will go on.
Here's another scenario, though, and one that could really push the games industry forward: What if these lost souls started to get together and form new companies, new indie developers and such? It's not really realistic as things are right now, since forming a company requires money and nobody has much of that right now.
But think about it for a second. So a laid off creative director from Sega starts talking to a programmer from EA, who knows a writer and artist from Microsoft Game Studios, and they start a small company in the hopes of putting together some titles for Xbox Life Arcade. They start a website, hire someone from Sony, and put out an original little game that does better than even they expected. They start their next project, a bigger one, and decide to hire some new people. With the big houses hiring again and more small companies cropping up, those "waiting in the wings" to find their dream job in the industry have a shot, bringing new blood into the process.
Could something like this happen? Absolutely. Will it happen? As a gamer, I can only hope. This industry, like any, can only really grow when its people stand up and go against the grain, taking risks and bringing new ideas to fruition. When a company is scared and tightening its belt, it is going to play it safe, which may be financially sound but ultimately will do nothing to push creativity forward.
So, in an even more perfect world, maybe we'll see a new creative boom once this madness is firmly in our collective rear-view mirror.
Just a thought, and just a hope. It's something we all need right about now.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Slow news day
So I've perused today's headlines, and nothing jumped out at me saying "ridicule me". The back-and-forth between Microsoft and Sony was entertaining, in that schoolyard way when two rivals are trying to one-up each other, but hardly newsworthy.
Oddly enough, though, I was thinking back to one of the E3 shows that I attended (I think it was #2) during which I got to see a game called Theseus. There is no reference anywhere to this game anymore. I did a Google search, checked IGN and Gamespot, and the closest I got was some PC game called Theseus: Return of the Hero which appears to be some form of alien shooter.
This is not the game I was thinking of. The Theseus I saw was being developed by some unknown Greek team. I actually think I saw the game in Kentia Hall, which is where all the random unknowns end up (and, for the record, it's probably the most fun of all the halls at E3). It was an action game set in ancient Greece, and borrowed heavily from actual Greek culture and mythology. Sounds a lot like God of War, I know, but this one had a different... voice. First of all, every area was reasonably authentic and historically accurate, and the developers were taking care to really infuse it with their Greek pride.
I don't know. They were so animated about it, so proud of the fact that they were not only making a pretty impressive looking game but were filling it with their heritage, that the concept just struck me as extra interesting.
Granted, it is the task of any decent PR/ community manager type person to impress their audience at such an event and make them want the game they are showing off, though I don't think these were marketing guys. I actually think they were the developers. Either way, it was their goal to dazzle showgoers with their game.
Graphics were decent, gameplay seemed to be standard action, and there were certainly bigger fish in the sea of madness that is E3, but there was something about Theseus. I think it was the historical aspect, the fact that they were infusing this game with not only passion for the game, but love of their culture.
Sadly, the interesting concept that was Theseus doesn't seem to exist anymore. Hardly news in this industry, just another casualty in the battle to release the next big title. Hell, I think that was the same year I saw all sorts of stuff on Starcraft: Ghost, which is certainly more high-profile vaporware than some tiny Greek project.
When I think about the tripe that does make it onto store shelves, though, it makes me sad that these small projects have to die. Whether it be budget, lack of a publisher, or whatever else, a neat looking game like Theseus is killed off. A game that, maybe it wasn't the most amazing thing on the show floor, but its creators had so much passion for their project. This game was their dream, not only the release of the game but the concept of bringing their culture to gamers all over the world.
A project borne of passion is no more, and a marketing decision like Dancing With the Stars comes to life. Sigh...
It's funny, though, to go to these shows. I've been to 3 E3 shows, back when E3 was the big extravaganza. I've gone to 5 Gamestop manager conferences. I've seen hundreds of games. I've played the damn Phantom system, for crying out loud.
It's always fascinating to see which high profile, big budget games fail once they hit retail, and which tiny projects actually turn out OK. Which ones play like crap on the show floor but comes together, while others have a great demo but a poor final product. Some companies spend a small fortune hyping up their project (like Stargate: Worlds, for which they built a full-sized stargate), while others just have a line of systems playing their latest games (like Square Enix). Sometimes the big draws never see the light of day, and the tiny experiment that gets one system in a dark corner of the booth becomes a cult hit.
I'd guess that every publisher and developer wants a Magic 8-Ball that will tell them which games to push at these events, but I guess the PR guys wouldn't have much to do if all they had to do was show off guaranteed hits.
Just a random thought, really. Mostly I just think I miss the shows and the spectacle. And, of course, the booth babes...
Oddly enough, though, I was thinking back to one of the E3 shows that I attended (I think it was #2) during which I got to see a game called Theseus. There is no reference anywhere to this game anymore. I did a Google search, checked IGN and Gamespot, and the closest I got was some PC game called Theseus: Return of the Hero which appears to be some form of alien shooter.
This is not the game I was thinking of. The Theseus I saw was being developed by some unknown Greek team. I actually think I saw the game in Kentia Hall, which is where all the random unknowns end up (and, for the record, it's probably the most fun of all the halls at E3). It was an action game set in ancient Greece, and borrowed heavily from actual Greek culture and mythology. Sounds a lot like God of War, I know, but this one had a different... voice. First of all, every area was reasonably authentic and historically accurate, and the developers were taking care to really infuse it with their Greek pride.
I don't know. They were so animated about it, so proud of the fact that they were not only making a pretty impressive looking game but were filling it with their heritage, that the concept just struck me as extra interesting.
Granted, it is the task of any decent PR/ community manager type person to impress their audience at such an event and make them want the game they are showing off, though I don't think these were marketing guys. I actually think they were the developers. Either way, it was their goal to dazzle showgoers with their game.
Graphics were decent, gameplay seemed to be standard action, and there were certainly bigger fish in the sea of madness that is E3, but there was something about Theseus. I think it was the historical aspect, the fact that they were infusing this game with not only passion for the game, but love of their culture.
Sadly, the interesting concept that was Theseus doesn't seem to exist anymore. Hardly news in this industry, just another casualty in the battle to release the next big title. Hell, I think that was the same year I saw all sorts of stuff on Starcraft: Ghost, which is certainly more high-profile vaporware than some tiny Greek project.
When I think about the tripe that does make it onto store shelves, though, it makes me sad that these small projects have to die. Whether it be budget, lack of a publisher, or whatever else, a neat looking game like Theseus is killed off. A game that, maybe it wasn't the most amazing thing on the show floor, but its creators had so much passion for their project. This game was their dream, not only the release of the game but the concept of bringing their culture to gamers all over the world.
A project borne of passion is no more, and a marketing decision like Dancing With the Stars comes to life. Sigh...
It's funny, though, to go to these shows. I've been to 3 E3 shows, back when E3 was the big extravaganza. I've gone to 5 Gamestop manager conferences. I've seen hundreds of games. I've played the damn Phantom system, for crying out loud.
It's always fascinating to see which high profile, big budget games fail once they hit retail, and which tiny projects actually turn out OK. Which ones play like crap on the show floor but comes together, while others have a great demo but a poor final product. Some companies spend a small fortune hyping up their project (like Stargate: Worlds, for which they built a full-sized stargate), while others just have a line of systems playing their latest games (like Square Enix). Sometimes the big draws never see the light of day, and the tiny experiment that gets one system in a dark corner of the booth becomes a cult hit.
I'd guess that every publisher and developer wants a Magic 8-Ball that will tell them which games to push at these events, but I guess the PR guys wouldn't have much to do if all they had to do was show off guaranteed hits.
Just a random thought, really. Mostly I just think I miss the shows and the spectacle. And, of course, the booth babes...
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Ratings
So it's happening again: some politician (California, I believe) is trying to rail against games. This time, they want warning labels slapped on the games packaging similar to that on cigarette packs. The warning would be put on anything T or higher, and would state:
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Of course, this is being fought by the ECA and other industry groups. It will most likely be shot down, "assault on free speech" and such, just like all the others. From making it a crime to sell M games to minors, to trying to fine minors who buy M games, our industry has weathered a lot of political posturing. The old fogeys in power won't rest until games are sold from a curtained off area in the back of back alley shops, not understanding that with each passing day gamers become the majority.
Hell, now we have a president who plays Wii Sports. This makes him the first major political figure to know anything about gaming since Pong. Whether or not that means anything in the long run remains to be seen, but it can't hurt. While I doubt that our commander-in-chief is going to be kicking ass in Manhunt 2 anytime soon, it's at least a start.
Realistically, I'm 34 now. That means that, according to law, I would be able to run for president in the next election. Not just me, but my contemporaries. Meaning the generation that pretty much grew up during the boom of gaming. So as early as 2012, we could see our first gamer prez.
When did games become the root of all evil? I know that every media has to go through this, a sort of rite of passage or something, but it's getting ridiculous. I'm sure movies had to deal with it when they first gained in popularity. Rock music was considered evil for a while. I'm old enough to remember the big thing with Tipper Gore vs. 2 Live Crew.
So this is just another example of the old and unwilling to learn villifying the new and popular. Just the general "we don't understand, so we fear" mentality. Of course, as always, it's hidden behind the veil of "think about the children" and such.
I have a child, and I'll decide what is the best thing for her to see or do, thank you very much. I don't need some 90 year old out of touch guy in a suit telling me what she should or shouldn't be exposed to.
As a side note, from years of working in retail: Has anybody else noticed that American parents are generally fine with violence and gore, as long as there is no nudity present? Weird, huh?
I don't know how many M rated games I sold to parents, buying them for their young children, and when myself or an employee pointed out the rating, the parents were fine with the violence but not with the nudity.
So, it's OK to expose my kid to exploding heads and torn out spines, but not to a boob?
For the record, I would let my child play Dead or Alive way before Mortal Kombat. I have less of a problem with my girl seeing cleavage (since, gods help me, she's developing way faster than I want her to, so she pretty much has her own now) than with fatalities.
Maybe that's just me. Of course, in general, Japanese and European cultures are on the same wavelength. Maybe I should move to Japan or Europe.
Yay for tangents!
Anyway... This is not the first battle the industry has weathered, nor will it be the last.
It got me to wondering, though: what if we changed the rating system?
I was watching TV the other day, and before whatever show was next came on, a screen came on with the show's rating. It was rated MA (presumably for Mature Audiences? I wasn't paying very close attention), but then there were a bunch of follow-up codes for why it was rated MA. i think this one had L, S, and V beneath it. I would guess Language, Sexual content, and Violence? Makes more sense than my first notion: Liver, Squirrels, and Volkswagons.
Point is, I found the TV rating system very confusing. So we have a rating of MA, but then we have to clarify with all these other letters? Wouldn't it have been easier to just rate it like a movie and say it's rated R, or a game and say it's M?
So what if every form of entertainment (that carries a rating) had one universal rating system? See, I think part of the problem is a lack of understanding about the system, and the fact that the system changes with each form of media. As a retailer, I had to explain the game rating system to a million people, people who were most likely already familiar with the movie rating system. I myself was momentarily confused by the TV system, because it was different (and more complex) than the other 2 systems. So people who may be good at not letting their kids see R movies may let an M game get through because they didn't understand. Granted, a good retailer will inform their customers of the rating, and a good parent will take the extra 5 seconds to read the freaking package, but these are fantasies from my world of puppies and jellybeans.
If there was a universal system, though, would it make everything easier for people to understand and therefore accept? Nobody has really raised a stink about R rated movies lately, because the rating system has become part of our basic culture.
So, if a parent takes her 2 little monsters out one fine day, and they go to the movies, she's offered a choice: Bolt or Wanted. She's a busy sort, and hasn't had time to watch TV or read a paper or do much of anything involving daily life, so she has no idea what these movies are. She looks at the ratings, sees the G and the R and immediately knows what they're going to see without even knowing anything else. As a concerned parent, and one that hasn't been living in a cave for the last 50 years, she knows what these letters mean and makes her choice accordingly.
After the movie, they stop at their local game store so she can buy them a distraction so she doesn't have to actually talk to them or anything later. She doesn't usually buy the games, that'd be work for the menfolk (you'd be surprised how often we heard something similar to that), so she's not really familiar with gaming.
On the games are these letters, E, E 10+ (probably the most extraneous of all the ratings), et cetera. She has no idea what they mean, and doesn't take the time to read the ESRB descriptors since she's trying to wrangle the 2 unruly kids. Plus, asking for help in a game store is akin to torture these days, so she just wings it and picks up Grand Theft Auto 4 for the kiddies.
Obviously an extreme scenario, but not that far off.
Now, if there was one universal system, it would have gone differently. I'll use the movie system as the base, though I'm not necessarily saying that's the best one.
After the movie, the mom goes to the store. She looks at the shelf, and sees that Grand Theft Auto 4 is rated R. Knowing what that means, she avoids it and picks up Viva Pinata, which is rated G.
Not as much confusion in the second scene. Later that night, she could pick an appropriate TV show for them based on the same ratings, instead of needing a freaking cheat sheet to understand all the various TV codes.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's some legitimate, realistic reason as to why this can't and won't happen.
All I do know is that Eternal Sonata is rated T, so under this California bill it would have to have the warning label. I seriously doubt that any kid is going to become a crazed cannibalistic murderer by playing this game.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to Eternal Sonata has been linked to making kids want to be 19th century Polish composers.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Of course, this is being fought by the ECA and other industry groups. It will most likely be shot down, "assault on free speech" and such, just like all the others. From making it a crime to sell M games to minors, to trying to fine minors who buy M games, our industry has weathered a lot of political posturing. The old fogeys in power won't rest until games are sold from a curtained off area in the back of back alley shops, not understanding that with each passing day gamers become the majority.
Hell, now we have a president who plays Wii Sports. This makes him the first major political figure to know anything about gaming since Pong. Whether or not that means anything in the long run remains to be seen, but it can't hurt. While I doubt that our commander-in-chief is going to be kicking ass in Manhunt 2 anytime soon, it's at least a start.
Realistically, I'm 34 now. That means that, according to law, I would be able to run for president in the next election. Not just me, but my contemporaries. Meaning the generation that pretty much grew up during the boom of gaming. So as early as 2012, we could see our first gamer prez.
When did games become the root of all evil? I know that every media has to go through this, a sort of rite of passage or something, but it's getting ridiculous. I'm sure movies had to deal with it when they first gained in popularity. Rock music was considered evil for a while. I'm old enough to remember the big thing with Tipper Gore vs. 2 Live Crew.
So this is just another example of the old and unwilling to learn villifying the new and popular. Just the general "we don't understand, so we fear" mentality. Of course, as always, it's hidden behind the veil of "think about the children" and such.
I have a child, and I'll decide what is the best thing for her to see or do, thank you very much. I don't need some 90 year old out of touch guy in a suit telling me what she should or shouldn't be exposed to.
As a side note, from years of working in retail: Has anybody else noticed that American parents are generally fine with violence and gore, as long as there is no nudity present? Weird, huh?
I don't know how many M rated games I sold to parents, buying them for their young children, and when myself or an employee pointed out the rating, the parents were fine with the violence but not with the nudity.
So, it's OK to expose my kid to exploding heads and torn out spines, but not to a boob?
For the record, I would let my child play Dead or Alive way before Mortal Kombat. I have less of a problem with my girl seeing cleavage (since, gods help me, she's developing way faster than I want her to, so she pretty much has her own now) than with fatalities.
Maybe that's just me. Of course, in general, Japanese and European cultures are on the same wavelength. Maybe I should move to Japan or Europe.
Yay for tangents!
Anyway... This is not the first battle the industry has weathered, nor will it be the last.
It got me to wondering, though: what if we changed the rating system?
I was watching TV the other day, and before whatever show was next came on, a screen came on with the show's rating. It was rated MA (presumably for Mature Audiences? I wasn't paying very close attention), but then there were a bunch of follow-up codes for why it was rated MA. i think this one had L, S, and V beneath it. I would guess Language, Sexual content, and Violence? Makes more sense than my first notion: Liver, Squirrels, and Volkswagons.
Point is, I found the TV rating system very confusing. So we have a rating of MA, but then we have to clarify with all these other letters? Wouldn't it have been easier to just rate it like a movie and say it's rated R, or a game and say it's M?
So what if every form of entertainment (that carries a rating) had one universal rating system? See, I think part of the problem is a lack of understanding about the system, and the fact that the system changes with each form of media. As a retailer, I had to explain the game rating system to a million people, people who were most likely already familiar with the movie rating system. I myself was momentarily confused by the TV system, because it was different (and more complex) than the other 2 systems. So people who may be good at not letting their kids see R movies may let an M game get through because they didn't understand. Granted, a good retailer will inform their customers of the rating, and a good parent will take the extra 5 seconds to read the freaking package, but these are fantasies from my world of puppies and jellybeans.
If there was a universal system, though, would it make everything easier for people to understand and therefore accept? Nobody has really raised a stink about R rated movies lately, because the rating system has become part of our basic culture.
So, if a parent takes her 2 little monsters out one fine day, and they go to the movies, she's offered a choice: Bolt or Wanted. She's a busy sort, and hasn't had time to watch TV or read a paper or do much of anything involving daily life, so she has no idea what these movies are. She looks at the ratings, sees the G and the R and immediately knows what they're going to see without even knowing anything else. As a concerned parent, and one that hasn't been living in a cave for the last 50 years, she knows what these letters mean and makes her choice accordingly.
After the movie, they stop at their local game store so she can buy them a distraction so she doesn't have to actually talk to them or anything later. She doesn't usually buy the games, that'd be work for the menfolk (you'd be surprised how often we heard something similar to that), so she's not really familiar with gaming.
On the games are these letters, E, E 10+ (probably the most extraneous of all the ratings), et cetera. She has no idea what they mean, and doesn't take the time to read the ESRB descriptors since she's trying to wrangle the 2 unruly kids. Plus, asking for help in a game store is akin to torture these days, so she just wings it and picks up Grand Theft Auto 4 for the kiddies.
Obviously an extreme scenario, but not that far off.
Now, if there was one universal system, it would have gone differently. I'll use the movie system as the base, though I'm not necessarily saying that's the best one.
After the movie, the mom goes to the store. She looks at the shelf, and sees that Grand Theft Auto 4 is rated R. Knowing what that means, she avoids it and picks up Viva Pinata, which is rated G.
Not as much confusion in the second scene. Later that night, she could pick an appropriate TV show for them based on the same ratings, instead of needing a freaking cheat sheet to understand all the various TV codes.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's some legitimate, realistic reason as to why this can't and won't happen.
All I do know is that Eternal Sonata is rated T, so under this California bill it would have to have the warning label. I seriously doubt that any kid is going to become a crazed cannibalistic murderer by playing this game.
WARNING: Excessive exposure to Eternal Sonata has been linked to making kids want to be 19th century Polish composers.
Old me
You know how I can tell I'm getting old?
My daughter can tool on me in games.
Not every game, I don't think. I've never taken her on in Halo or anything. Though, given how much I suck at Halo, maybe she'd kill me there too.
Mario Kart, no contest. She can usually leave me in the dust.
Wii Sports, I lose every time. I'm decent at that game, too, and can usually beat anybody else. Just not her.
She's also further in Professor Layton than I am.
Sigh...
My daughter can tool on me in games.
Not every game, I don't think. I've never taken her on in Halo or anything. Though, given how much I suck at Halo, maybe she'd kill me there too.
Mario Kart, no contest. She can usually leave me in the dust.
Wii Sports, I lose every time. I'm decent at that game, too, and can usually beat anybody else. Just not her.
She's also further in Professor Layton than I am.
Sigh...
Glitches
I was very annoyed at Fable 2 recently. I gave it a very stern talking to, and sent it right to bed without any dessert.
There's a side mission later in the game, in which you're hired by a creepy gravekeeper to find the various dessicated body parts of a certain Lady Grey. This is noteworthy because Lady Grey was my favorite character in the first game, so I was pretty excited that she showed up in the sequel. This gravekeeper was, once the parts of Lady Grey were assembled, going to bring her back to life and live happily ever after with her. He had included love magic in his resurrection magic, so she would fall madly in love with him as soon as she was alive again.
So I embarked on the quest. I found the parts, brought them back to him, and he brought her back to life. Then, as she looked upon my character with newly resurrected eyes, she fell in love. This led to the moral choice of this quest: leave, and allow her to fall in love with the gravekeeper, or stand still and let the love spell take hold with me in her sights. Since I was playing evil, I waited around and listened to the gravekeeper freak out as a timer counted down. Finally, he ran off and she was in love with me.
Because I was a big scary bad guy, though, many NPC's had a tendency to scream and run away from me. As soon as the questline was officially over, and she was just an NPC, she did exactly that.
I never found her. I searched the entire area, and throughout the rest of the game I frequently returned to that part of the world to continue the search. I also frequented the forums, finding that this was a fairly common glitch and that lots of people had lost her. I did read of a few people finding her again at a particular spot, so I often went there between quests to check, but eventually I grudgingly accepted that she was gone.
Like I said, Lady Grey was my favorite character in the first game, and I was looking forward to seeing what she'd bring to the second game.
Now that I think about it, though, I think she was designed to be a player's favorite character. I'd wager she was a favorite of the developers, actually.
She was the most fleshed out NPC in the first game, and the only one to carry over into the next. There were a lot of characters in the first Fable: Whisper, Thunder, Briar Rose, Maze, etc, but most of them were just characters with little or no back story or anything. If you hunt around you can hear a little bit about Maze being a big part of the Hero's Guild for a long time, and Thunder has that whole obsession with Lady Grey thing going on, but that's about it.
Even "major" players in the plot, like your mother, only have the most superficial of histories: she was a hero, got injured, fell in love with the yokel who nursed her back to health, end of story. Jack of Blades is a cool looking villain, but you never really find out why he's doing what he's doing.
I'm not really complaining. Fable stands as one of my favorite games of all time, to the point that I've been seriously considering a Guild Seal tattoo. Fable 2 is also amazing, and I have played it through twice already. So I can apparently look past any issues with characterization and such.
But then you have Lady Grey. First off, she makes you do some fetch questing before you can even talk to her. Then you have the choice of blowing her off for some peasant or marrying her. She's the only character in Fable to have different phrases for sex. Plus, if you pursue another side quest later on, you get details on her rise to power and how she became mayor of Bowerstone. There's a pretty detailed back story there, at least compared to everyone else in the game.
Then, in Fable 2, you're given a lot of info on her again. In some of the loading screens you get some tidbits about her, then during the gravekeeper quests to reassemble her body you get journal entries from the ones that hid her parts in the first place. It fills in the blanks pretty well.
So, obviously, someone at Lionhead has a thing for Lady Grey. Maybe that's part of why I like the character so much, because someone took the time to detail her.
Which made me sad when she vanished from my game. Of course, on my next time through, I was playing good (blah) so I let the gravekeeper have her. Hopefully, on my next time through, I can manage to not have her run off. Then I can marry my zombie girl and live happily ever after.
Incidentally, I understand that you can have kids with Zombie Lady Grey. How the hell does that work?????
Other fun glitches I have encountered:
In Star Wars: The Force Unleashed I managed to walk across air. I was inching out from a step hoping to make a jump for a holocron, and when I rotated the camera I found myself hovering over nothing. Insert funny "Skywalker" reference here.
This one was weird. In Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, I was fighting against a few baddies in a timed mission. I jump kicked, and froze in mid air. Freezing in itself isn't weird, and I had encountered a few lockups already in that game (plus a serious amount of slowdown in the third chapter), but this was different. I was frozen, but everything around me was not. The enemies were still moving, trying to kill me. They were hitting me, but not doing any damage. The various doodads moving in the background were still doing so, and the timer was still counting down. So I let it run out, figuring that when the mission reloaded all would be right with the world.
Half right. The mission failed and reloaded, and I was now free to move about the cabin. Only now, none of the buttons on the controller worked. Well, they worked, they just didn't work in the game. The thumbsticks still did: I could move Spider-Man and rotate the camera, but that was it. I could get the menu up with the guide button, and navigate that (which is how I knew the buttons actually worked). I let myself die again, and the same thing occurred. No control outside of movement. Nothing else did anything in game.
Strange.
This one time (at band camp) I was playing Dead or Alive 4 online with a friend. She was Helena, I was Christie. We also had another friend in the game, who was spectating the match. I tooled on Helena, she only got like one shot in before I dropped her. I got the win, got the points and money associated with a win, and during the victory screen was moving the camera around my character, which is noteworthy only because you can only do that when you win (and c'mon, who wasn't zoomed in on your fighter's boobs once or twice...).
Anyway, after the fight, I was talking to my friends and bragging about the victory. They were confused. Apparently, on my opponent's screen (and the spectator's), there was a completely different fight. Christie never moved, Helena got a perfect win, and I lost. So my opponent got the victory, with the points and money and camera twirling, and I lost.
We both won, and we both lost. At least we both got the points for the win, I suppose.
There's a side mission later in the game, in which you're hired by a creepy gravekeeper to find the various dessicated body parts of a certain Lady Grey. This is noteworthy because Lady Grey was my favorite character in the first game, so I was pretty excited that she showed up in the sequel. This gravekeeper was, once the parts of Lady Grey were assembled, going to bring her back to life and live happily ever after with her. He had included love magic in his resurrection magic, so she would fall madly in love with him as soon as she was alive again.
So I embarked on the quest. I found the parts, brought them back to him, and he brought her back to life. Then, as she looked upon my character with newly resurrected eyes, she fell in love. This led to the moral choice of this quest: leave, and allow her to fall in love with the gravekeeper, or stand still and let the love spell take hold with me in her sights. Since I was playing evil, I waited around and listened to the gravekeeper freak out as a timer counted down. Finally, he ran off and she was in love with me.
Because I was a big scary bad guy, though, many NPC's had a tendency to scream and run away from me. As soon as the questline was officially over, and she was just an NPC, she did exactly that.
I never found her. I searched the entire area, and throughout the rest of the game I frequently returned to that part of the world to continue the search. I also frequented the forums, finding that this was a fairly common glitch and that lots of people had lost her. I did read of a few people finding her again at a particular spot, so I often went there between quests to check, but eventually I grudgingly accepted that she was gone.
Like I said, Lady Grey was my favorite character in the first game, and I was looking forward to seeing what she'd bring to the second game.
Now that I think about it, though, I think she was designed to be a player's favorite character. I'd wager she was a favorite of the developers, actually.
She was the most fleshed out NPC in the first game, and the only one to carry over into the next. There were a lot of characters in the first Fable: Whisper, Thunder, Briar Rose, Maze, etc, but most of them were just characters with little or no back story or anything. If you hunt around you can hear a little bit about Maze being a big part of the Hero's Guild for a long time, and Thunder has that whole obsession with Lady Grey thing going on, but that's about it.
Even "major" players in the plot, like your mother, only have the most superficial of histories: she was a hero, got injured, fell in love with the yokel who nursed her back to health, end of story. Jack of Blades is a cool looking villain, but you never really find out why he's doing what he's doing.
I'm not really complaining. Fable stands as one of my favorite games of all time, to the point that I've been seriously considering a Guild Seal tattoo. Fable 2 is also amazing, and I have played it through twice already. So I can apparently look past any issues with characterization and such.
But then you have Lady Grey. First off, she makes you do some fetch questing before you can even talk to her. Then you have the choice of blowing her off for some peasant or marrying her. She's the only character in Fable to have different phrases for sex. Plus, if you pursue another side quest later on, you get details on her rise to power and how she became mayor of Bowerstone. There's a pretty detailed back story there, at least compared to everyone else in the game.
Then, in Fable 2, you're given a lot of info on her again. In some of the loading screens you get some tidbits about her, then during the gravekeeper quests to reassemble her body you get journal entries from the ones that hid her parts in the first place. It fills in the blanks pretty well.
So, obviously, someone at Lionhead has a thing for Lady Grey. Maybe that's part of why I like the character so much, because someone took the time to detail her.
Which made me sad when she vanished from my game. Of course, on my next time through, I was playing good (blah) so I let the gravekeeper have her. Hopefully, on my next time through, I can manage to not have her run off. Then I can marry my zombie girl and live happily ever after.
Incidentally, I understand that you can have kids with Zombie Lady Grey. How the hell does that work?????
Other fun glitches I have encountered:
In Star Wars: The Force Unleashed I managed to walk across air. I was inching out from a step hoping to make a jump for a holocron, and when I rotated the camera I found myself hovering over nothing. Insert funny "Skywalker" reference here.
This one was weird. In Spider-Man: Web of Shadows, I was fighting against a few baddies in a timed mission. I jump kicked, and froze in mid air. Freezing in itself isn't weird, and I had encountered a few lockups already in that game (plus a serious amount of slowdown in the third chapter), but this was different. I was frozen, but everything around me was not. The enemies were still moving, trying to kill me. They were hitting me, but not doing any damage. The various doodads moving in the background were still doing so, and the timer was still counting down. So I let it run out, figuring that when the mission reloaded all would be right with the world.
Half right. The mission failed and reloaded, and I was now free to move about the cabin. Only now, none of the buttons on the controller worked. Well, they worked, they just didn't work in the game. The thumbsticks still did: I could move Spider-Man and rotate the camera, but that was it. I could get the menu up with the guide button, and navigate that (which is how I knew the buttons actually worked). I let myself die again, and the same thing occurred. No control outside of movement. Nothing else did anything in game.
Strange.
This one time (at band camp) I was playing Dead or Alive 4 online with a friend. She was Helena, I was Christie. We also had another friend in the game, who was spectating the match. I tooled on Helena, she only got like one shot in before I dropped her. I got the win, got the points and money associated with a win, and during the victory screen was moving the camera around my character, which is noteworthy only because you can only do that when you win (and c'mon, who wasn't zoomed in on your fighter's boobs once or twice...).
Anyway, after the fight, I was talking to my friends and bragging about the victory. They were confused. Apparently, on my opponent's screen (and the spectator's), there was a completely different fight. Christie never moved, Helena got a perfect win, and I lost. So my opponent got the victory, with the points and money and camera twirling, and I lost.
We both won, and we both lost. At least we both got the points for the win, I suppose.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Save me!
OK, so I'm going to apologize in advance for any bizarre spellings or any part of this that makes less sense than normal. I pulled something in my back on the ice yesterday, and am currently a little doped on percoset, so my brain is a little fuzzy.
I'm playing Eternal Sonata at the moment. The game is simply breathtaking. The graphics are gorgeous, the storyline seems above the general JRPG cliches, and the battle system/ gameplay is pretty involved. I like the fact that the battle system evolves as you raise levels, insuring that it remains challenging as you progress. I'm going to go ahead and say that this is one of my favorite games of this generation thus far.
I just completed Infinite Undiscovery. That wasn't nearly as good. It was OK, but I really had no interest in replaying it once I finished the story, despite there being a whole extra dungeon to tackle. There's even an achievement for getting a certain character back in the extra dungeon. If I'm not willing to take on the game for the achievement, you know something is wrong.
It's not that the game was bad, it's just that it wasn't particularly good either. I played it, I beat it, I'm done with it. I have other games to play.
The point of this post, though, isn't to bash Infinite Undiscovery, at least not directly. My issue with that game, and so many others, is freaking SAVE POINTS!!!!!!
C'mon people, is this 1996? Have we not progressed past the point of needing to save only at specific points in the world?
Eternal Sonata is guilty of this as well, though I will say that the save points in that game are pretty frequent. Not like Infinite Undiscovery. There's nothing like working your way through a huge dungeon only to fight a boss and lose, then have to do the entire dungeon over again. Even if they didn't want a "save anywhere" option, which every game should have anyway, couldn't they have put a save point before a big battle? Is this meant to challenge the player, make the game more difficult or myre dynamic or something? Mostly, it just pissed this player off.
I'm willing to make compromises. Star Ocean for PSP allows you to save anywhere on the world map, but once you're in a dungeon you're bound by save points. I haven't gotten too far into that game yet (like, past the opening cinematic), so I can't vouch for how well the save points are implemented, but it's better than nothing.
I actually think that every handheld game should have some form of quick save feature. DS games are great for this. All of the DS Castlevania games, as well as the Advance Wars ones, and lots of others, have a quick save. So the game can be saved, then when you restart that save is burned. Especially in the case of handhelds, when you could be on a train or in a doctor's office or something, the need to quickly stop what you're doing without sacrificing your progress is wicked important. The sleep mode of the system is always an option as well, but I've forgotten about it more than once and left the Ds sleeping for an insane amount of time, and in certain cases (like an airport) you could be required to actually shut the system off. I think that quick saving is a valid compromise.
Every handheld game should have a quick save option if it doesn't already offer a save anywhere feature. One or the other should be required. You know what, make it a part of the handheld hardware itself, a flash memory thing or something.
Back onto what I was saying before. I don't understand why these games insist on making us save in certain spots. Can we not be trusted with the save function? Are we going to burn it out? Is there some international save file quota that they're trying to protect or something?
I'm even OK with something like the last couple Tomb Raider games, where you can save anywhere and when you restart you'll be at the last checkpoint. The games are pretty good about frequently checkpointing, so you'd rarely end up too far back. Generally I'd play until I hit the next checkpoint and then save and stop, so I'd come back right where I left off. Same with Too Human.
Elder Scrolls: Oblivion lets you save anywhere. You could be in a fight underwater, and it'll let you save. You'll also restart at the exact spot you saved. Bioshock let you save anywhere, which I think is unusual for a shooter. Fable 2 and Mass Effect also let you have control over when and where you save.
Now that I think of it, Blue Dragon did the "save anywhere outside, at save points in dungeons" thing, and it bugged me sometimes but never nearly to the point that Infinite Undiscovery did with its save point system. I think that, like Sonata, the save points were pretty well placed so I was never really far from one. When I'm tired and want to stop playing, I want to be able to stop within a few minutes of the decision. I don't want to wander around for another half hour or so looking for a place to save, especially when i'm still being attacked by monsters and further slowing things down.
See, doing something like this runs the risk of completely turning off players. During the aforementioned dungeon in Infinite Undiscovery, I played through this massive area only to come up suddenly against this big spider boss. Now, being a fairly standard JRPG, this large monster was very strong and also accompanied by a bunch of minion monsters that respawned every so often. As I was unprepared for the battle, since there was no indication that a boss fight was iminent, I didn't last too long.
I then had to do the entire dungeon again. From the beginning, since that was the only save point in the entire freaking area. So I started again. As this was a fairly difficult dungeon, on my second time through I died before even reaching the boss.
At this point I got pissed, and went to play something else.
Now, I did eventually go back to the game, grudgingly, and got past that point and moved on. What if I hadn't, though? What if every time I looked at that case on my shelf and thought about playing it, I remembered that dungeon and got too pissed off? Maybe I'd just trade it in or something. what if I was a newer gamer, and this was my first RPG experience? I could get turned off of an entire genre because of this.
I'm all for challenge in games. I like hard fights, I like having to figure things out and I generally don't have an issue with dying and restarting an area. As long as the challenge is legitimate, and not because of poorly implemented save procedures.
There is no reason, in this age of gaming enlightenment, that we should not be allowed to save when and where we want in our games. I can't think if a single design decision that would lead someone to think that only being able to save now and again is a good idea. It's not "challenging" (not in a good way), it's not user friendly, and it's an ancient part of gaming that should be left in the past.
Incidentally, I keep stopping this post to play a bit of Eternal Sonata. There are these monsters that I'm fighting called "Angel Goats". They're goats, with wings and halos. They also have long horns and flaming hooves. Has to be one of the weirdest monsters I've seen in a while.
I'm playing Eternal Sonata at the moment. The game is simply breathtaking. The graphics are gorgeous, the storyline seems above the general JRPG cliches, and the battle system/ gameplay is pretty involved. I like the fact that the battle system evolves as you raise levels, insuring that it remains challenging as you progress. I'm going to go ahead and say that this is one of my favorite games of this generation thus far.
I just completed Infinite Undiscovery. That wasn't nearly as good. It was OK, but I really had no interest in replaying it once I finished the story, despite there being a whole extra dungeon to tackle. There's even an achievement for getting a certain character back in the extra dungeon. If I'm not willing to take on the game for the achievement, you know something is wrong.
It's not that the game was bad, it's just that it wasn't particularly good either. I played it, I beat it, I'm done with it. I have other games to play.
The point of this post, though, isn't to bash Infinite Undiscovery, at least not directly. My issue with that game, and so many others, is freaking SAVE POINTS!!!!!!
C'mon people, is this 1996? Have we not progressed past the point of needing to save only at specific points in the world?
Eternal Sonata is guilty of this as well, though I will say that the save points in that game are pretty frequent. Not like Infinite Undiscovery. There's nothing like working your way through a huge dungeon only to fight a boss and lose, then have to do the entire dungeon over again. Even if they didn't want a "save anywhere" option, which every game should have anyway, couldn't they have put a save point before a big battle? Is this meant to challenge the player, make the game more difficult or myre dynamic or something? Mostly, it just pissed this player off.
I'm willing to make compromises. Star Ocean for PSP allows you to save anywhere on the world map, but once you're in a dungeon you're bound by save points. I haven't gotten too far into that game yet (like, past the opening cinematic), so I can't vouch for how well the save points are implemented, but it's better than nothing.
I actually think that every handheld game should have some form of quick save feature. DS games are great for this. All of the DS Castlevania games, as well as the Advance Wars ones, and lots of others, have a quick save. So the game can be saved, then when you restart that save is burned. Especially in the case of handhelds, when you could be on a train or in a doctor's office or something, the need to quickly stop what you're doing without sacrificing your progress is wicked important. The sleep mode of the system is always an option as well, but I've forgotten about it more than once and left the Ds sleeping for an insane amount of time, and in certain cases (like an airport) you could be required to actually shut the system off. I think that quick saving is a valid compromise.
Every handheld game should have a quick save option if it doesn't already offer a save anywhere feature. One or the other should be required. You know what, make it a part of the handheld hardware itself, a flash memory thing or something.
Back onto what I was saying before. I don't understand why these games insist on making us save in certain spots. Can we not be trusted with the save function? Are we going to burn it out? Is there some international save file quota that they're trying to protect or something?
I'm even OK with something like the last couple Tomb Raider games, where you can save anywhere and when you restart you'll be at the last checkpoint. The games are pretty good about frequently checkpointing, so you'd rarely end up too far back. Generally I'd play until I hit the next checkpoint and then save and stop, so I'd come back right where I left off. Same with Too Human.
Elder Scrolls: Oblivion lets you save anywhere. You could be in a fight underwater, and it'll let you save. You'll also restart at the exact spot you saved. Bioshock let you save anywhere, which I think is unusual for a shooter. Fable 2 and Mass Effect also let you have control over when and where you save.
Now that I think of it, Blue Dragon did the "save anywhere outside, at save points in dungeons" thing, and it bugged me sometimes but never nearly to the point that Infinite Undiscovery did with its save point system. I think that, like Sonata, the save points were pretty well placed so I was never really far from one. When I'm tired and want to stop playing, I want to be able to stop within a few minutes of the decision. I don't want to wander around for another half hour or so looking for a place to save, especially when i'm still being attacked by monsters and further slowing things down.
See, doing something like this runs the risk of completely turning off players. During the aforementioned dungeon in Infinite Undiscovery, I played through this massive area only to come up suddenly against this big spider boss. Now, being a fairly standard JRPG, this large monster was very strong and also accompanied by a bunch of minion monsters that respawned every so often. As I was unprepared for the battle, since there was no indication that a boss fight was iminent, I didn't last too long.
I then had to do the entire dungeon again. From the beginning, since that was the only save point in the entire freaking area. So I started again. As this was a fairly difficult dungeon, on my second time through I died before even reaching the boss.
At this point I got pissed, and went to play something else.
Now, I did eventually go back to the game, grudgingly, and got past that point and moved on. What if I hadn't, though? What if every time I looked at that case on my shelf and thought about playing it, I remembered that dungeon and got too pissed off? Maybe I'd just trade it in or something. what if I was a newer gamer, and this was my first RPG experience? I could get turned off of an entire genre because of this.
I'm all for challenge in games. I like hard fights, I like having to figure things out and I generally don't have an issue with dying and restarting an area. As long as the challenge is legitimate, and not because of poorly implemented save procedures.
There is no reason, in this age of gaming enlightenment, that we should not be allowed to save when and where we want in our games. I can't think if a single design decision that would lead someone to think that only being able to save now and again is a good idea. It's not "challenging" (not in a good way), it's not user friendly, and it's an ancient part of gaming that should be left in the past.
Incidentally, I keep stopping this post to play a bit of Eternal Sonata. There are these monsters that I'm fighting called "Angel Goats". They're goats, with wings and halos. They also have long horns and flaming hooves. Has to be one of the weirdest monsters I've seen in a while.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Freaky
Go play Rock Band or Guitar Hero, for a decent amount of time.
Then stop and look at something, a surface of some kind. Stare at it, and it'll look all weird and stuff. It looks like it's writhing and moving.
Even better, after playing your music game of choice for a bit, look at skin. The writhing effect is even creepier on skin.
You're welcome.
Then stop and look at something, a surface of some kind. Stare at it, and it'll look all weird and stuff. It looks like it's writhing and moving.
Even better, after playing your music game of choice for a bit, look at skin. The writhing effect is even creepier on skin.
You're welcome.
DLC
Ah, forum dwellers. They open their mouths (figuratively), and amazing pours out.
I was reading random posts in random forums, as I am prone to do. I actually like to, but then I generally hate myself. There are, to be fair, a lot of intelligent people with a lot of good ideas out there, and when you hit a forum like the ones on gamefaqs.com or achieve360points.com, you can see the spirit of cooperation and gamers helping one another out amid the poor grammar and gay jokes.
Anyway, I was reading about Tomb Raider: Underworld, which I just recently started after completing Prince of Persia. Around the time that the game was released, it was said that there would be some forthcoming downloadable chapters. I believe a prequel chapter was mentioned.
Also, recently Star Wars: The Force Unleashed got an extra mission in the form of the Jedi Temple, which I just recently completed. I also downloaded the Knothole Island add-on for Fable 2. So I'm obviously into the whole extra missions thing, I guess.
Back on topic: the general plot of the forum rant was that these companies are releasing games that aren't finished, and then charging gamers extra to play "the rest of the game". The basic issue these people had was that they are already paying $60-ish for these games, and then are being nickel-and-dimed to get the full experience.
I suppose, in some way, I can see their point, at least from a financial standpoint. Games aren't cheap to begin with, and then to play more of the game there is an additional financial investment. For the most part, I don't think this is necessary "bad" so much as it's "new", especially on the console side of things. In another few years, I doubt anybody will really bat al eye as the "micro-transactions" will have become commonplace. We like to complain about things that go against the norm, especially gamers (who are a notoriously set-in-their-ways bunch).
I downloaded the add-on for Force Unleashed, and it was fun. Not very long, maybe an hour. I'm not really sure because I spent extra time trying to score the achievements, and the Jedi trials one took me a while, but either way it wasn't exactly a long adventure for my $10.
The thing is, I didn't mind it. I mean, here is a chance to play more of a game that I really enjoyed. OK, I would have prefered maybe 2 levels for the money, or some new powers or something to take back into the main game, but it was still fun. I could wait until the inevitable sequel and spend another $60, or enjoy the bite-sized chunks of gameplay that keep me hooked.
My issue with this particular forum rant was the accusation that developers are intentionally holding back content just to sell it later and make more money.
I mean, isn't it more possible that they had a great idea for a level after the fact, maybe after the game had gone gold or something like that?
For example:
Star Wars: Force Unleashed came out last year, and the extra level just came out recently. Let's say that the developers had this Jedi Temple idea last year, towards the end of development. They could have delayed the game while they completed and implemented the level, which would have put the release several months later. Plus, what if they had come up with a new idea for another level while working on that one? Would they then wait even longer to release while they implemented this next idea?
Eventually, we'd have no games ever coming out because someone might have an idea for a new weapon, and are afraid of the backlash if they add it in after the fact.
I'm not saying that the gripes aren't sometimes justified. Soul Calibur 4 charging the $5 or whatever it was for 1 freaking character? C'mon. At least offer up a pack, or a bunch of new arenas and weapons with the download, or something that justifies the money.
So Tomb Raider: Underworld is getting some DLC at some point in the form of new chapters. I'm glad, and I will most likely download them when they hit Live.
If I enjoy a game, and finish the game, I can trade it in for whatever paltry sum Lamestop is offering, or let it sit and collect dust on my shelf (really, I'll get back and play it again, honest). Or I can wait for some new content, bringing me back into the world that I enjoyed and giving me a reason to dust off the disc.
It's not like anybody is forcing people to buy the download. I enjoyed Grand Theft Auto 4 (which is odd since I didn't care for the others). I never finished it, but I enjoyed it and keep telling myself that I'll get back to it eventually. I doubt I'll download the new episode that's coming soon, though, at least not at first. It just doesn't interest me enough like Knothole Island did for Fable 2. So I probably won't download it, but that doesn't mean that I'm throwing a poorly spelled hissy fit in a forum because Rockstar is trying to charge me for something.
I'm looking forward to new content for Left 4 Dead.
Honestly, I'm more pissed when a developer releases a game that obviously has serious technical flaws and then has to patch it with an update after the fact. Occasional glitches get through even the best QA, and that's fine, but when your game is freezing up and having serious issues that requires a patch, that bothers me far more than asking me to buy a new level. Bully: Scholarship Edition is a good example. The initial release was nigh unplayable due to bugs, prompting a pretty speedy downloadable patch to correct the issues.
This bothers me way more. When purchasing a game, like any product, a certain level of quality if expected. When putting a disc into the tray, said disc is expected to at the very least function properly. I'm OK with the occasional glitch, but someone really should have noticed the "constant freezing" issue before tossing the disc out the door.
This, to me, is an example of releasing an unfinished product and expecting to fix it with downloads.
However, wanting to tell more of a story, wanting to invite gamers back into the world, is hardly a sin.
I was reading random posts in random forums, as I am prone to do. I actually like to, but then I generally hate myself. There are, to be fair, a lot of intelligent people with a lot of good ideas out there, and when you hit a forum like the ones on gamefaqs.com or achieve360points.com, you can see the spirit of cooperation and gamers helping one another out amid the poor grammar and gay jokes.
Anyway, I was reading about Tomb Raider: Underworld, which I just recently started after completing Prince of Persia. Around the time that the game was released, it was said that there would be some forthcoming downloadable chapters. I believe a prequel chapter was mentioned.
Also, recently Star Wars: The Force Unleashed got an extra mission in the form of the Jedi Temple, which I just recently completed. I also downloaded the Knothole Island add-on for Fable 2. So I'm obviously into the whole extra missions thing, I guess.
Back on topic: the general plot of the forum rant was that these companies are releasing games that aren't finished, and then charging gamers extra to play "the rest of the game". The basic issue these people had was that they are already paying $60-ish for these games, and then are being nickel-and-dimed to get the full experience.
I suppose, in some way, I can see their point, at least from a financial standpoint. Games aren't cheap to begin with, and then to play more of the game there is an additional financial investment. For the most part, I don't think this is necessary "bad" so much as it's "new", especially on the console side of things. In another few years, I doubt anybody will really bat al eye as the "micro-transactions" will have become commonplace. We like to complain about things that go against the norm, especially gamers (who are a notoriously set-in-their-ways bunch).
I downloaded the add-on for Force Unleashed, and it was fun. Not very long, maybe an hour. I'm not really sure because I spent extra time trying to score the achievements, and the Jedi trials one took me a while, but either way it wasn't exactly a long adventure for my $10.
The thing is, I didn't mind it. I mean, here is a chance to play more of a game that I really enjoyed. OK, I would have prefered maybe 2 levels for the money, or some new powers or something to take back into the main game, but it was still fun. I could wait until the inevitable sequel and spend another $60, or enjoy the bite-sized chunks of gameplay that keep me hooked.
My issue with this particular forum rant was the accusation that developers are intentionally holding back content just to sell it later and make more money.
I mean, isn't it more possible that they had a great idea for a level after the fact, maybe after the game had gone gold or something like that?
For example:
Star Wars: Force Unleashed came out last year, and the extra level just came out recently. Let's say that the developers had this Jedi Temple idea last year, towards the end of development. They could have delayed the game while they completed and implemented the level, which would have put the release several months later. Plus, what if they had come up with a new idea for another level while working on that one? Would they then wait even longer to release while they implemented this next idea?
Eventually, we'd have no games ever coming out because someone might have an idea for a new weapon, and are afraid of the backlash if they add it in after the fact.
I'm not saying that the gripes aren't sometimes justified. Soul Calibur 4 charging the $5 or whatever it was for 1 freaking character? C'mon. At least offer up a pack, or a bunch of new arenas and weapons with the download, or something that justifies the money.
So Tomb Raider: Underworld is getting some DLC at some point in the form of new chapters. I'm glad, and I will most likely download them when they hit Live.
If I enjoy a game, and finish the game, I can trade it in for whatever paltry sum Lamestop is offering, or let it sit and collect dust on my shelf (really, I'll get back and play it again, honest). Or I can wait for some new content, bringing me back into the world that I enjoyed and giving me a reason to dust off the disc.
It's not like anybody is forcing people to buy the download. I enjoyed Grand Theft Auto 4 (which is odd since I didn't care for the others). I never finished it, but I enjoyed it and keep telling myself that I'll get back to it eventually. I doubt I'll download the new episode that's coming soon, though, at least not at first. It just doesn't interest me enough like Knothole Island did for Fable 2. So I probably won't download it, but that doesn't mean that I'm throwing a poorly spelled hissy fit in a forum because Rockstar is trying to charge me for something.
I'm looking forward to new content for Left 4 Dead.
Honestly, I'm more pissed when a developer releases a game that obviously has serious technical flaws and then has to patch it with an update after the fact. Occasional glitches get through even the best QA, and that's fine, but when your game is freezing up and having serious issues that requires a patch, that bothers me far more than asking me to buy a new level. Bully: Scholarship Edition is a good example. The initial release was nigh unplayable due to bugs, prompting a pretty speedy downloadable patch to correct the issues.
This bothers me way more. When purchasing a game, like any product, a certain level of quality if expected. When putting a disc into the tray, said disc is expected to at the very least function properly. I'm OK with the occasional glitch, but someone really should have noticed the "constant freezing" issue before tossing the disc out the door.
This, to me, is an example of releasing an unfinished product and expecting to fix it with downloads.
However, wanting to tell more of a story, wanting to invite gamers back into the world, is hardly a sin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
