To be blunt, I think I have been unhappy blogging about most of the things I used to for a while now and it has shown in how many posts I've been making since September 2011.
I've been watching progressively fewer movies over the years and getting invested time in fewer television shows, and I haven't been keeping track of modern music, so clearly I've let a lot of pop culture pass me by, and I've made my peace with that. The fact that I don't peruse as many sites about film and television anymore seems to reflect my changing priorities as well.
But for a "pop culture" blog, that does present a problem. Yes, I could go on mining nostalgia and panning for gold from my past with a lot of subjects, but I don't have the passion to do so anymore.
Then there is this whole Amanda Bynes thing. There was a time I would have been all over this situation and just ran with it for weeks, especially given the amount of coverage she is getting, and gaffe after gaffe she keeps making on Twitter, but a while back, ripping on celebrities stopped being fun anymore.I had thought about talking about it, but it just didn't seem right anymore.It doesn't interest me and to write about it would be doing both myself and you, my readers, a disservice.
But there is one subject which I've written about in the past that I have kept current on, even though I've been resistant to pursuing with the kind of intensity that matches my interest in it, and that is video games. There are so many entries over the past 7 years that I haven't written because I was afraid of alienating my readers by talking about gaming too much, so I tried to limit my posts on it, but as of late, it seems like it is the only thing I've really wanted to write about. It took me until this week to finally admit that to myself.
And I don't mean I just want to review games. I want to talk about them critically as a whole, and talk about my experiences as someone who plays games who has watched this medium develop from its early roots to where it is today in my lifetime. In the past, I expressed the feeling that the gaming industry and press needed to encourage more scholarship, more introspection about the work they produce and evaluate, and rather than sit idly doing little to contribute to those discussions, I could be starting some of my own. I've been a great fan of the Extra Credits have been putting out for a few years now, and they talk about a lot of the kinds of things I want to talk about.
I am not saying that I won't talk about television and movies on occasion, but I think the majority of my posts are going to be about video games from now on, and I think I am finally okay with that.
I guess I am just going to have to see how this all turns out. I haven't even decided if I am going to do a redesign or rebranding yet, but there is time to think about those questions as I work on refocusing this blog on the topics I really want to talk about in the future. Culture Kills has been around for 7 years now and I think I would have a problem totally abandoning the name though.
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Monday, March 25, 2013
About The Bioshock Infinite Cover...
A few weeks back I mentioned on Twitter that I hoped that English actress Olivia Colman received payment for her likeness rights on the Bioshock Infinite cover art
Like it can't just be me who sees the resemblance, but it seems no one else has mentioned it at all.
Here is the character of Elizabeth as presented on the cover of the game:
And here is Olivia Colman from some of her sketch comedy work in the early part of the 2000's:
I mean, the same chin, similar eyes, eyebrows and lips. I saw the resemblance immediately. And the strange thing is, Elizabeth doesn't look like Olivia Colman in the game... just on the cover.
Like it can't just be me who sees the resemblance, but it seems no one else has mentioned it at all.
Here is the character of Elizabeth as presented on the cover of the game:
And here is Olivia Colman from some of her sketch comedy work in the early part of the 2000's:
I mean, the same chin, similar eyes, eyebrows and lips. I saw the resemblance immediately. And the strange thing is, Elizabeth doesn't look like Olivia Colman in the game... just on the cover.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
My Year In PC Gaming
It has been a while since I blogged, but I thought this would be something interesting to talk about. I've played a lot of games this year on PC and I've had some enjoyable experiences, and I thought it would be worth sharing my thoughts about the things I've had the opportunity to play over the past 12 months.
Now, I am not really going to talk about Dungeon Defenders or Football Manager 2011 since those are both games which I had started playing before the start of this year, so I don't think it is necessary to spend more time on them in this post, especially since this is going to be a long, long post anyway. I am giving you fair warning about that.
So without further ado, here's my year in PC gaming.
Starcraft II: I got this free because of a promotion at a Canadian site called Tsilon, which is affiliated with one of the major electronics stores up here. Anyway, as you well know, this is one of the most popular games in the world and it is one of the foundations of the modern eSports movement. However, I just couldn't get into this game. I wanted to like it, and in the single player mode, I was enjoying the story, but playing multiplayer soured me on the experience. I was terrible and in a way that was just demoralizing, since even though I was playing with other beginners, I was fundamentally not good enough to be competitive. Even from my relatively brief time with the game, I could tell it was very well designed, but I think that RTS's like this aren't my thing anymore.
Diablo II: After I got Starcraft II, I thought I would try Diablo II as well. This one is going to be important later in the list, but basically I liked the mechanics, but there were just some little design issues which detracted from my enjoyment of the game, like having to go back to town to sell loot and the way the quests were handed out. I have a feeling that if I had played this when it first came out, I would have been obsessed with it, but I think too much time had passed for me to experience this game at its best (especially since I didn't really get to see it played as a multiplayer game).
Mass Effect 1 + 2: Now these were some great games. I had decided to finally play them right before the final installment of the series came out because I had a feeling that if I didn't, the major plot points of them would likely be spoiled. I was not disappointed, as they were very well made and had a rather compelling storyline. Unusually for me, I also made the decision to play the game as a female version of the protagonist Shepard, a decision which I was glad I made because I liked Jennifer Hale's take on the character better than her male voice actor counterpart. I don't really have any complaints aside from the fact that I think I liked the combat system from the first game better than the one they used for the second, and I have a feeling I am in the minority with that opinion. I liked the characters, the story, the setting and the sense of continuity because of the decisions you made carrying over between games. In fact, I liked the first game so much that when it came time to play the second, I paid quite a bit of money for the DLC for the second game just so I could see everything it had to offer. I had set out to play the character in a certain way, as someone damaged and emotionally scarred, someone with an edge of bitterness, but she defied my intentions and became someone else when confronted with the hard choices, someone better and more noble than I had imagined at the beginning, and my time with my version of Shepard was amazing and it was something which may have changed how I view games in subtle ways. Unfortunately, the third part of the trilogy is on Origin, and because of some of the continuing technical problems with that platform, I am giving the conclusion of the series a pass for now.
Realm of the Mad God: This was a game I kept telling myself I would never play because it is a free MMO. And then Stumbleupon brought up the web client version of it and I tried it. It isn't bad, and because the lives of your characters are relatively short, it is easy to start and stop games, so it isn't as addictive as I feared. It falls right into that sweet spot between being really casual and being hardcore, so it is a game I can visit every couple of months for a night or two and then go on to something else. All and all, it is a lot of fun for very little time investment.
Dragon Age: Origins: I started this after I finished Mass Effect 2, and I had certain expectations because it was also a Bioware game. The first thing that I noticed, aside from the fact that the player character didn't really speak aside from some random things said during battles, was that the moral system was different that Mass Effect in that you couldn't always accurately assess whether a statement was going to be good or evil, nor could you judge if one of your companions would like or dislike your decisions, since there were party members who were more aligned to evil. I think I liked this ambiguity a little better. However, I found the battles a lot harder than the encounters in the Mass Effect series, so this game took me much longer to finish than either of those other games, which could be good or bad. By the end of it, I think I was ready for it to be over. I also liked the fact that the game had multiple endings which were based on some of the key decisions you made during the game, and some of those choices were difficult to make. While I enjoyed it, the Mass Effect games were far better in my mind, and while I liked the characters, especially Alistair and Leliana, they were not in the same league as their Mass Effect counterparts.
Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad: I bought this game when it was on sale one weekend and I played it for about a week. It was a good first person shooter but (and there is always a but), it just wasn't great. The maps were interesting, the weapons were nice and supposedly period accurate, but something didn't click for me, though I understand why there is a committed community for it. There is also a decent amount of strategy in playing it in MP, and I respect what the developers tried to do with this game. I certainly liked it better than Tripwire's previous game, Killing Floor, as it seems much more polished.
Shoot Many Robots: A decent side scrolling shooter. Not great, but entertaining in its way. There was discussion about there being some DLC, but the developer scrapped those plans and it is a shame since I think I would have liked to have seen what they had in mind for it.
Crusader Kings II: Oh my god. I loved this game. I was a fan of Paradox's previous games, and I had had the first installment of this series on my old computer, but I was never able to really get into a game of it because my processor was a little too slow. When the sequel was released on Valentine's Day this year, I had a much better computer. And it was certainly worth the wait. The game allows players to take on the role of any one of a number of counts, dukes, kings or even emperors from medieval Europe and basically try to have your dynastic line survive through the period. And the most interesting thing is that unlike other games in the genre, war isn't even your primary option for expanding your empire. My first game, I didn't get into a war for almost a century, and I was able to keep increasing the size of my family's lands through marriage and a few well-timed assassinations. I also have to say, for a game with no dialogue and a series of characters who crop up randomly after the initial setup (which can be any day in history from September 1066 through 1337), it develops into some serious character drama.Since every character in the game has their own ambitions, some of which benefit you (such as a vassal taking land from another ruler without involving you in their own war) and some that are very bad for you (like your brother plotting to take your throne), you as the player develop strong feelings towards these people. I can think of people who I liked very much and people who I hated so much, both sets of which were merely characters born of dynastic marriage and trying to fulfill their own destinies with or without me. The game is very moddable as well, and there are quite a few people who bought it this year simply to play the Game of Thrones mod, which the mechanisms of the game are well equipped to simulate. I just want to keep gushing, but I feel I should move on.
Dungeons of Dredmor: A rogue-like dungeon crawler with a wicked sense of humor and character permadeath, featuring so many different skill combinations that it seems infinitely replayable. However, the difficulty of the title is what sort of put me off after a couple of days. I liked the art style, the humor and figuring out the systems, but knowing that the developer didn't expect most people to be able to finish the game is disheartening. But it was relatively inexpensive, and I did have fun, but I just don't think I really saw the best this title had to offer, and that is on me. But I can see the value of the experience and I look forward to seeing Gaslight Games next project too.
Torchlight 1 and 2: You remember in the Diablo II entry that it was going to be important. These games are the reason why. These games, designed by people who were instrumental in developing the first two Diablo games basically fixed all the issues I had with those games and made something that to me was awesome to play. I like to play games in single player, so the absence of multiplayer in the first game wasn't really a problem for me. The times I did play online with my character in Torchlight II, I found the experience to be enjoyable and lag free. The fact that both of these games helped mitigate the loot problems by allowing you to send your pet to sell unwanted items for you, allowing you to continue your quest was a breakthrough and really helped the flow of these titles. The gameplay was so compelling that even after I beat both of these games, I continued playing, not just to see what loot I could find (which let's be honest, is a huge motivating factor in playing one of these games) but because I just enjoyed the world it presented me and the combat system. My only real issue with these games is the fact that you can't change the difficulty of your game on the fly, because I chose a difficulty level in the second one which was a little too intense for me and it made beating it a little more frustrating than I had hoped, and really, that is a minor quibble. Torchlight II was the only game I've ever preordered from Steam, and I don't regret doing so.
Fallout 3: I had played Morrowind last year, so I was pretty familiar with how Bethesda's open world games worked, and while I had some initial worries that I may have problems with it since it wasn't fully compatible with Windows 7, it ended up running fine for me. And what an experience it was. From the beginning, I was engaged with the story the game was telling me, and with the characters I met throughout my travels as the Lone Wanderer. Because the characters were so interesting, I wanted to help them, especially those people who I could tell we good and honest, the kind of characters who through their existence made a horrifying post-apocalyptic wasteland a better place for everyone. I liked the world Bethesda created as well, filled with hidden wonders and historical depths to explore. I also respected the fact that the morality system allowed the player to do some truly despicable things if they made those choices. I didn't of course, but knowing that those options were there made the choices more interesting. In retrospect, it made the renegade responses in Mass Effect seem really tame, because the worst your could be in ME was an anti-hero, while FO3 allowed you to be a villain protagonist. I surprised myself by actually finishing the game and the major pieces of DLC too since my experience with Morrowind led me to believe I would become bored before I reached the end because there is always so many sidequests to do in these kinds of games, but it was such a great experience that I had to see it through to the end, and all my small gripes seem immaterial when compared with the enjoyment I received playing it.
Galactic Civilizations II: This one is going to be really short. I wanted to like this, but I don't like the Civilizations series, and this game is just like those games.
Kung Fu Strike: The Warrior's Rise: A really, really hard stage based beat em up/fighting game based in early modern China. I was warned it was hard, and that made me want to play it even more, and you know what? It kicked my ass. Repeatedly. But I have to say it was fair, which I respect, since it kicking my ass was my fault, not the game. It rewards precision and timing, and I wasn't doing the things I needed to do to survive. I may go back in the new year to see if I can finally beat this game, but I have a feeling it will best me again.
Castle Crashers: I've wanted to play this game for so long, but it was a console exclusive for years, but it was finally released this fall. It was worth the wait. There was this game that I loved on the Saturn called Guardian Heroes, and it reminds me so much of that. I like the fact that there are just so many characters to play the game through as, and the art style is cartoonish and loveable, and the fighting mechanics are solid, and since I love side scrolling beat em ups, this was something that I was going to love just based on that. It will be a game I will definitely be revisiting over the coming year as well.
--
All in all, a pretty good year for games, because even the few I didn't really like were still pretty good otherwise, so I can't complain.
Now, I am not really going to talk about Dungeon Defenders or Football Manager 2011 since those are both games which I had started playing before the start of this year, so I don't think it is necessary to spend more time on them in this post, especially since this is going to be a long, long post anyway. I am giving you fair warning about that.
So without further ado, here's my year in PC gaming.
Starcraft II: I got this free because of a promotion at a Canadian site called Tsilon, which is affiliated with one of the major electronics stores up here. Anyway, as you well know, this is one of the most popular games in the world and it is one of the foundations of the modern eSports movement. However, I just couldn't get into this game. I wanted to like it, and in the single player mode, I was enjoying the story, but playing multiplayer soured me on the experience. I was terrible and in a way that was just demoralizing, since even though I was playing with other beginners, I was fundamentally not good enough to be competitive. Even from my relatively brief time with the game, I could tell it was very well designed, but I think that RTS's like this aren't my thing anymore.
Diablo II: After I got Starcraft II, I thought I would try Diablo II as well. This one is going to be important later in the list, but basically I liked the mechanics, but there were just some little design issues which detracted from my enjoyment of the game, like having to go back to town to sell loot and the way the quests were handed out. I have a feeling that if I had played this when it first came out, I would have been obsessed with it, but I think too much time had passed for me to experience this game at its best (especially since I didn't really get to see it played as a multiplayer game).
Mass Effect 1 + 2: Now these were some great games. I had decided to finally play them right before the final installment of the series came out because I had a feeling that if I didn't, the major plot points of them would likely be spoiled. I was not disappointed, as they were very well made and had a rather compelling storyline. Unusually for me, I also made the decision to play the game as a female version of the protagonist Shepard, a decision which I was glad I made because I liked Jennifer Hale's take on the character better than her male voice actor counterpart. I don't really have any complaints aside from the fact that I think I liked the combat system from the first game better than the one they used for the second, and I have a feeling I am in the minority with that opinion. I liked the characters, the story, the setting and the sense of continuity because of the decisions you made carrying over between games. In fact, I liked the first game so much that when it came time to play the second, I paid quite a bit of money for the DLC for the second game just so I could see everything it had to offer. I had set out to play the character in a certain way, as someone damaged and emotionally scarred, someone with an edge of bitterness, but she defied my intentions and became someone else when confronted with the hard choices, someone better and more noble than I had imagined at the beginning, and my time with my version of Shepard was amazing and it was something which may have changed how I view games in subtle ways. Unfortunately, the third part of the trilogy is on Origin, and because of some of the continuing technical problems with that platform, I am giving the conclusion of the series a pass for now.
Realm of the Mad God: This was a game I kept telling myself I would never play because it is a free MMO. And then Stumbleupon brought up the web client version of it and I tried it. It isn't bad, and because the lives of your characters are relatively short, it is easy to start and stop games, so it isn't as addictive as I feared. It falls right into that sweet spot between being really casual and being hardcore, so it is a game I can visit every couple of months for a night or two and then go on to something else. All and all, it is a lot of fun for very little time investment.
Dragon Age: Origins: I started this after I finished Mass Effect 2, and I had certain expectations because it was also a Bioware game. The first thing that I noticed, aside from the fact that the player character didn't really speak aside from some random things said during battles, was that the moral system was different that Mass Effect in that you couldn't always accurately assess whether a statement was going to be good or evil, nor could you judge if one of your companions would like or dislike your decisions, since there were party members who were more aligned to evil. I think I liked this ambiguity a little better. However, I found the battles a lot harder than the encounters in the Mass Effect series, so this game took me much longer to finish than either of those other games, which could be good or bad. By the end of it, I think I was ready for it to be over. I also liked the fact that the game had multiple endings which were based on some of the key decisions you made during the game, and some of those choices were difficult to make. While I enjoyed it, the Mass Effect games were far better in my mind, and while I liked the characters, especially Alistair and Leliana, they were not in the same league as their Mass Effect counterparts.
Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad: I bought this game when it was on sale one weekend and I played it for about a week. It was a good first person shooter but (and there is always a but), it just wasn't great. The maps were interesting, the weapons were nice and supposedly period accurate, but something didn't click for me, though I understand why there is a committed community for it. There is also a decent amount of strategy in playing it in MP, and I respect what the developers tried to do with this game. I certainly liked it better than Tripwire's previous game, Killing Floor, as it seems much more polished.
Shoot Many Robots: A decent side scrolling shooter. Not great, but entertaining in its way. There was discussion about there being some DLC, but the developer scrapped those plans and it is a shame since I think I would have liked to have seen what they had in mind for it.
Crusader Kings II: Oh my god. I loved this game. I was a fan of Paradox's previous games, and I had had the first installment of this series on my old computer, but I was never able to really get into a game of it because my processor was a little too slow. When the sequel was released on Valentine's Day this year, I had a much better computer. And it was certainly worth the wait. The game allows players to take on the role of any one of a number of counts, dukes, kings or even emperors from medieval Europe and basically try to have your dynastic line survive through the period. And the most interesting thing is that unlike other games in the genre, war isn't even your primary option for expanding your empire. My first game, I didn't get into a war for almost a century, and I was able to keep increasing the size of my family's lands through marriage and a few well-timed assassinations. I also have to say, for a game with no dialogue and a series of characters who crop up randomly after the initial setup (which can be any day in history from September 1066 through 1337), it develops into some serious character drama.Since every character in the game has their own ambitions, some of which benefit you (such as a vassal taking land from another ruler without involving you in their own war) and some that are very bad for you (like your brother plotting to take your throne), you as the player develop strong feelings towards these people. I can think of people who I liked very much and people who I hated so much, both sets of which were merely characters born of dynastic marriage and trying to fulfill their own destinies with or without me. The game is very moddable as well, and there are quite a few people who bought it this year simply to play the Game of Thrones mod, which the mechanisms of the game are well equipped to simulate. I just want to keep gushing, but I feel I should move on.
Dungeons of Dredmor: A rogue-like dungeon crawler with a wicked sense of humor and character permadeath, featuring so many different skill combinations that it seems infinitely replayable. However, the difficulty of the title is what sort of put me off after a couple of days. I liked the art style, the humor and figuring out the systems, but knowing that the developer didn't expect most people to be able to finish the game is disheartening. But it was relatively inexpensive, and I did have fun, but I just don't think I really saw the best this title had to offer, and that is on me. But I can see the value of the experience and I look forward to seeing Gaslight Games next project too.
Torchlight 1 and 2: You remember in the Diablo II entry that it was going to be important. These games are the reason why. These games, designed by people who were instrumental in developing the first two Diablo games basically fixed all the issues I had with those games and made something that to me was awesome to play. I like to play games in single player, so the absence of multiplayer in the first game wasn't really a problem for me. The times I did play online with my character in Torchlight II, I found the experience to be enjoyable and lag free. The fact that both of these games helped mitigate the loot problems by allowing you to send your pet to sell unwanted items for you, allowing you to continue your quest was a breakthrough and really helped the flow of these titles. The gameplay was so compelling that even after I beat both of these games, I continued playing, not just to see what loot I could find (which let's be honest, is a huge motivating factor in playing one of these games) but because I just enjoyed the world it presented me and the combat system. My only real issue with these games is the fact that you can't change the difficulty of your game on the fly, because I chose a difficulty level in the second one which was a little too intense for me and it made beating it a little more frustrating than I had hoped, and really, that is a minor quibble. Torchlight II was the only game I've ever preordered from Steam, and I don't regret doing so.
Fallout 3: I had played Morrowind last year, so I was pretty familiar with how Bethesda's open world games worked, and while I had some initial worries that I may have problems with it since it wasn't fully compatible with Windows 7, it ended up running fine for me. And what an experience it was. From the beginning, I was engaged with the story the game was telling me, and with the characters I met throughout my travels as the Lone Wanderer. Because the characters were so interesting, I wanted to help them, especially those people who I could tell we good and honest, the kind of characters who through their existence made a horrifying post-apocalyptic wasteland a better place for everyone. I liked the world Bethesda created as well, filled with hidden wonders and historical depths to explore. I also respected the fact that the morality system allowed the player to do some truly despicable things if they made those choices. I didn't of course, but knowing that those options were there made the choices more interesting. In retrospect, it made the renegade responses in Mass Effect seem really tame, because the worst your could be in ME was an anti-hero, while FO3 allowed you to be a villain protagonist. I surprised myself by actually finishing the game and the major pieces of DLC too since my experience with Morrowind led me to believe I would become bored before I reached the end because there is always so many sidequests to do in these kinds of games, but it was such a great experience that I had to see it through to the end, and all my small gripes seem immaterial when compared with the enjoyment I received playing it.
Galactic Civilizations II: This one is going to be really short. I wanted to like this, but I don't like the Civilizations series, and this game is just like those games.
Kung Fu Strike: The Warrior's Rise: A really, really hard stage based beat em up/fighting game based in early modern China. I was warned it was hard, and that made me want to play it even more, and you know what? It kicked my ass. Repeatedly. But I have to say it was fair, which I respect, since it kicking my ass was my fault, not the game. It rewards precision and timing, and I wasn't doing the things I needed to do to survive. I may go back in the new year to see if I can finally beat this game, but I have a feeling it will best me again.
Castle Crashers: I've wanted to play this game for so long, but it was a console exclusive for years, but it was finally released this fall. It was worth the wait. There was this game that I loved on the Saturn called Guardian Heroes, and it reminds me so much of that. I like the fact that there are just so many characters to play the game through as, and the art style is cartoonish and loveable, and the fighting mechanics are solid, and since I love side scrolling beat em ups, this was something that I was going to love just based on that. It will be a game I will definitely be revisiting over the coming year as well.
--
All in all, a pretty good year for games, because even the few I didn't really like were still pretty good otherwise, so I can't complain.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Video Game Genres I've Given Up On
I think as we all get older, we start getting a little more selective about various forms of entertainment we choose to occupy our limited free time.
I know that with gaming, the titles I find fun has narrowed quite a bit over even the lifespan of this blog, and it was in thinking about that subject that some definite trends started to emerge.
Of course, having given this topic a little time to sit and settle, it also allowed me to go through a summer Steam sale and put my money where my mouth was.
So here are the kinds of games that I think I've just grown out of. It isn't a definitive list, partially because there are a lot of games which straddle multiple genres and partially because there are still games I enjoy in genres that for the most part I am going to give a wide berth to in the future.
Racing Games: First, I should preface this by saying that Mario Kart and games like that will always be fun, and I am not talking about those ones. No, I am talking about those simulation racing games like Forza, GRID and Gran Turismo... and even some of the arcade ones like the Burnout or Midnight Club series. Basically, I am talking about games that are really predicated on performance perfection. You cannot make a single mistake or else you won't win or advance. Think about the license tests in the Gran Turismo series for instance... they demanded near perfection to open up new events, and that just isn't fun for me anymore. I mean, in nearly every other genre of gaming, you can make mistakes and recover and finish, but in a lot of these titles, with the way they are designed, it is just a slog. There was a point where I would keep forcing myself to play them because at one time I really did enjoy them, and I still had that expectation, but the thrill is gone.
Steam Sale Outcome: I bought Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box for 4 bucks. For 4 dollars, yeah, I can just shrug and not get too upset that I own it now. And I almost bought Dirt 2 for 5 because I like the Point-to-Point racing in ATV Offroad Fury 4 and I thought it might have had the same kind of racing in it.
Strategy Games in General: I remember when I was younger, I was enthralled by games like Civilization, Cossacks, Steel Panthers, Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the like but something changed for me, and I can't really put my finger on what it was. I mean, for a time, I was continuing to buy games of this style, both turn-based and real-time strategy, and it just doesn't thrill me anymore. I think the first hints that I wasn't really into strategy games anymore was the fact that I had installed and uninstalled Civilization III three times on my old computer after playing a couple of short games each time, and there were a few other games from Matrix that I had also tried around the same time that had similar fates. And even recently, I tried playing Starcraft II and I just couldn't get into it. I can see the quality of design and the attention to detail, and I can't deny it is a good game, but it isn't for me anymore, and there are times when I find myself looking at other games like Victoria II or Wargame: European Escalation with a particular longing, but I know deep down that it is best that strategy games and myself should part as old friends rather than acrimonious enemies full of bitterness and regret. I do think I probably still like the Total War series, but I can't be sure at this point.
Steam Sale Outcome: I bought a Galactic Civilization II bundle for 5 bucks. I was tempted by Civilization IV because it kept going on sale. And I bought the newest DLC for Crusader Kings II, a game which I will be writing about in the future.
JRPGs: Now this one I totally understand. Like it is as clear as day for me. I don't like turn-based combat at all, and as a kid, I only tolerated it because at the time it was connected to some of the best stories in gaming. But now that almost every genre of gaming has stepped up and produced some really good narratives, I am no longer boxed in by that seemingly artificial combat constraint. I didn't notice my break from this genre until after I got my PS2 since I didn't really buy JRPGs for that system until much later... like I had exhausted almost every genre the system had before I started buying JRPGs. And then I remembered that I hadn't finished Final Fantasy IX or Chrono Cross either on the PSX, and Dragon Quest VIII was one of my earlier purchases for the PS2, and I never finished it because the battle system was just so tedious. Yes, that is the word that I think best describes most of my time playing games in this genre: it was tedious. After finally playing an Elder Scrolls game and some of the work of Bioware, I think I can safely say that I am firmly entrenched on the Western RPG side of the cultural divide now. I also have a distinct feeling that Persona 3 FES may have been my final JRPG, and I think I am ok with that. Even thinking about starting a new game in this genre leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Steam Sale Outcome: I bought a cheap action-RPG called Chantelise which I probably will never play. Why? Because I bought The Witcher 2, Jade Empire, Legend of Grimrock, Divine Divinity and Divinity II... all Western RPGs. So yeah, I think I won that battle.
Now I am wondering if any of you, my readers, have given up on particular genres of gaming you used to enjoy when you were younger?
I know that with gaming, the titles I find fun has narrowed quite a bit over even the lifespan of this blog, and it was in thinking about that subject that some definite trends started to emerge.
Of course, having given this topic a little time to sit and settle, it also allowed me to go through a summer Steam sale and put my money where my mouth was.
So here are the kinds of games that I think I've just grown out of. It isn't a definitive list, partially because there are a lot of games which straddle multiple genres and partially because there are still games I enjoy in genres that for the most part I am going to give a wide berth to in the future.
Racing Games: First, I should preface this by saying that Mario Kart and games like that will always be fun, and I am not talking about those ones. No, I am talking about those simulation racing games like Forza, GRID and Gran Turismo... and even some of the arcade ones like the Burnout or Midnight Club series. Basically, I am talking about games that are really predicated on performance perfection. You cannot make a single mistake or else you won't win or advance. Think about the license tests in the Gran Turismo series for instance... they demanded near perfection to open up new events, and that just isn't fun for me anymore. I mean, in nearly every other genre of gaming, you can make mistakes and recover and finish, but in a lot of these titles, with the way they are designed, it is just a slog. There was a point where I would keep forcing myself to play them because at one time I really did enjoy them, and I still had that expectation, but the thrill is gone.
Steam Sale Outcome: I bought Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box for 4 bucks. For 4 dollars, yeah, I can just shrug and not get too upset that I own it now. And I almost bought Dirt 2 for 5 because I like the Point-to-Point racing in ATV Offroad Fury 4 and I thought it might have had the same kind of racing in it.
Strategy Games in General: I remember when I was younger, I was enthralled by games like Civilization, Cossacks, Steel Panthers, Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the like but something changed for me, and I can't really put my finger on what it was. I mean, for a time, I was continuing to buy games of this style, both turn-based and real-time strategy, and it just doesn't thrill me anymore. I think the first hints that I wasn't really into strategy games anymore was the fact that I had installed and uninstalled Civilization III three times on my old computer after playing a couple of short games each time, and there were a few other games from Matrix that I had also tried around the same time that had similar fates. And even recently, I tried playing Starcraft II and I just couldn't get into it. I can see the quality of design and the attention to detail, and I can't deny it is a good game, but it isn't for me anymore, and there are times when I find myself looking at other games like Victoria II or Wargame: European Escalation with a particular longing, but I know deep down that it is best that strategy games and myself should part as old friends rather than acrimonious enemies full of bitterness and regret. I do think I probably still like the Total War series, but I can't be sure at this point.
Steam Sale Outcome: I bought a Galactic Civilization II bundle for 5 bucks. I was tempted by Civilization IV because it kept going on sale. And I bought the newest DLC for Crusader Kings II, a game which I will be writing about in the future.
JRPGs: Now this one I totally understand. Like it is as clear as day for me. I don't like turn-based combat at all, and as a kid, I only tolerated it because at the time it was connected to some of the best stories in gaming. But now that almost every genre of gaming has stepped up and produced some really good narratives, I am no longer boxed in by that seemingly artificial combat constraint. I didn't notice my break from this genre until after I got my PS2 since I didn't really buy JRPGs for that system until much later... like I had exhausted almost every genre the system had before I started buying JRPGs. And then I remembered that I hadn't finished Final Fantasy IX or Chrono Cross either on the PSX, and Dragon Quest VIII was one of my earlier purchases for the PS2, and I never finished it because the battle system was just so tedious. Yes, that is the word that I think best describes most of my time playing games in this genre: it was tedious. After finally playing an Elder Scrolls game and some of the work of Bioware, I think I can safely say that I am firmly entrenched on the Western RPG side of the cultural divide now. I also have a distinct feeling that Persona 3 FES may have been my final JRPG, and I think I am ok with that. Even thinking about starting a new game in this genre leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Steam Sale Outcome: I bought a cheap action-RPG called Chantelise which I probably will never play. Why? Because I bought The Witcher 2, Jade Empire, Legend of Grimrock, Divine Divinity and Divinity II... all Western RPGs. So yeah, I think I won that battle.
Now I am wondering if any of you, my readers, have given up on particular genres of gaming you used to enjoy when you were younger?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Mass Effect 3 And The Culture Of Entitlement
Before you get worried, there are no spoilers here since I haven't played the game, however, I am going to be swearing quite a bit, so if you don't like that kind of language, then this post isn't going to be for you.
Basically there is a group of players that were dissatisfied with the ending of Mass Effect 3 and they have been very vocal about it.
Some of them have also been, what is the word... ah, douchebags too.
Firstly, there is an individual who is bringing a claim about the game to the Federal Trade Commission because they didn't like the ending. Like the FTC doesn't have better things to do with its time and taxpayer money than investigate that. It just seems petty on so many levels.
And Amazon started giving refunds to people who completed the game and didn't like the ending. There isn't a technical problem with the game, it isn't defective... they just didn't like the narrative choices that Bioware had made for the ending of their storyline. They loved the game except for 10-15 minutes at the end. For a company whose bread and butter is selling narrative works, this is a horrible precedent to set, because basically what they are saying is, if you didn't like a movie, game or book they've sold you, you can get a refund I guess.
So spoiled assholes who feel so entitled that they can't bear to deal with any minor disappointment in their lives while experiencing narrative fiction in its many forms can now just line up after essentially renting various things for free and then send them back on Amazon's rather gracious dime.
Guess what? Everyone is disappointed by the ending of something they've watched, played or read. Most people deal with that with a modicum of maturity and just shrug about it and get on with the rest of their lives or at most (or like me) bitch about it with people in real life or online.
For example, I hated the ending of Final Fantasy VII. I mean I absolutely loathe it. Hate it, hate it, HATE IT. I am not understating it. However, after I had played the game and dealt with my abject disappointment in that ending, at no point did it ever occur to me that I should demand a refund. Or complain to the FTC that it did not meet my expectations (which it didn't).
And I didn't return my copy of Matrix Revolutions to Blockbuster because I hated the ending. I guess I could and should have.
Because maybe I have antiquated notions about buying things... that if you've bought something and you've used it and there is nothing technically wrong with it, then you really don't have cause to return it. Trying to get a full refund for a game that you've played all the way through the end of is akin to eating a full meal and then trying to get the meal for free because the restaurant didn't offer you a mint at the end.
I just think it is a childish move, and remember, this is coming from someone who defends gaming whenever he can. But I don't like this culture of whining and I don't like the precedent that these actions are setting.
Honestly, if the ending of a game or a movie can so irrevocably change your life for the negative, then perhaps fiction isn't for you.
Basically there is a group of players that were dissatisfied with the ending of Mass Effect 3 and they have been very vocal about it.
Some of them have also been, what is the word... ah, douchebags too.
Firstly, there is an individual who is bringing a claim about the game to the Federal Trade Commission because they didn't like the ending. Like the FTC doesn't have better things to do with its time and taxpayer money than investigate that. It just seems petty on so many levels.
And Amazon started giving refunds to people who completed the game and didn't like the ending. There isn't a technical problem with the game, it isn't defective... they just didn't like the narrative choices that Bioware had made for the ending of their storyline. They loved the game except for 10-15 minutes at the end. For a company whose bread and butter is selling narrative works, this is a horrible precedent to set, because basically what they are saying is, if you didn't like a movie, game or book they've sold you, you can get a refund I guess.
So spoiled assholes who feel so entitled that they can't bear to deal with any minor disappointment in their lives while experiencing narrative fiction in its many forms can now just line up after essentially renting various things for free and then send them back on Amazon's rather gracious dime.
Guess what? Everyone is disappointed by the ending of something they've watched, played or read. Most people deal with that with a modicum of maturity and just shrug about it and get on with the rest of their lives or at most (or like me) bitch about it with people in real life or online.
For example, I hated the ending of Final Fantasy VII. I mean I absolutely loathe it. Hate it, hate it, HATE IT. I am not understating it. However, after I had played the game and dealt with my abject disappointment in that ending, at no point did it ever occur to me that I should demand a refund. Or complain to the FTC that it did not meet my expectations (which it didn't).
And I didn't return my copy of Matrix Revolutions to Blockbuster because I hated the ending. I guess I could and should have.
Because maybe I have antiquated notions about buying things... that if you've bought something and you've used it and there is nothing technically wrong with it, then you really don't have cause to return it. Trying to get a full refund for a game that you've played all the way through the end of is akin to eating a full meal and then trying to get the meal for free because the restaurant didn't offer you a mint at the end.
I just think it is a childish move, and remember, this is coming from someone who defends gaming whenever he can. But I don't like this culture of whining and I don't like the precedent that these actions are setting.
Honestly, if the ending of a game or a movie can so irrevocably change your life for the negative, then perhaps fiction isn't for you.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Long Games Are Worthwhile
Note: I have a lot of things to say about this particular subject, so there may be moments where I rapidly digress and I hope I don't confuse anyone by doing so.
It has recently come to my attention that a writer named Michael Thomson at Slate took a less than loving look at a game called Dark Souls and in doing so, he ended up taking a rather wide swipe at video games in general. The subheading for the title was "Is a 100 hour video game ever worthwhile?".
Now I am not going to stand here and tell you that every game that I've played that required that kind of commitment was worth that time. But some of them were in much the same way that there were 1000 page novels, television series that stretched a narrative across more than a hundred hour-long episodes and so on that fit into both categories.
It seems that the difficulty of the title was the main issue for Thomson, but there are lots of other difficult things which force you to work so you can appreciate them. To give you some context on where he is coming from:
As soon as I read that particular line, I thought of a piece of art from another medium: Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. It too doesn't tell you the basic ground rules of the narrative, it makes you work harder than you ever thought possible to understand it and to do so, you are going to have to backtrack and reread passages to understand it, but people still do it, and in general, it is never implied that those people are idiots who are wasting their lives.
Because the argument that instead of playing a game, you could be reading War and Peace or learning a new language isn't really relevant or fair. It is true, but only in the same way me saying you would be wasting your life reading War and Peace because you could be volunteering at a soup kitchen or building houses for the less fortunate or another activity which isn't so solipsistic would be fair.
I am not telling someone else how to spend their time, and I think it is foolish for the writer in question to do the same. As Jason Killingsworth at Edge Online notes, comparing almost any work to War and Peace, let alone work in another medium, is really not fitting since nearly everything would pale in comparison to it. If I said, have you seen Breaking Bad and you responded with "Yeah, but it is no War and Peace," you could technically be right but it avoids discussing the merits of that particular series by dismissing it.
But the repeated mentions of Tolstoy and War and Peace in that article brings up a particularly good point... some stories need a longer amount of time and space to express their narrative in the stylistic conventions of their medium. Yes, you could probably tell the entire gist of War and Peace in a few pages, but it would lose a lot by doing so. In much the same way, condensing a long game into 5 hours would also diminish it. While I am a huge proponent of narratives in gaming, I know that the story and character are fundamentally tied to the gameplay in determining the quality of a game.
Games have their own language, a language which players generally all understand but to outsiders they are foreign concepts. I am not talking about a language spoken in words, but in a common set of actions and gestures which apply situationally across titles in a genre and it is the way a designer follows or subverts those expectations that is half the fun. But if you aren't familiar with how a particular genre of gaming works, you will not fully appreciate what you are being presented.
It is like if you were to start to read T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land and you were not familiar with the various works of literature that were alluded to... yes, you may get something out of the experience, but someone who was better educated about classical literature would derive far more meaning from reading it.
If one was to complain that The Waste Land was needlessly difficult and obscure, and did so because they were willfully ignorant of the underlying themes and language underpinning it, their opinion would be marginalized. If someone had complained that the idea of The Artist was stupid because who would ever want to watch a silent movie, they'd be laughed at. If you do the same kind of thing when it comes to gaming, no one really bats an eye.
There was also more than a little of the attitude that the audience for that game (and games in general) being merely entertained wasn't enough, a certain condescension which critics in the already established and recognized art forms seem to have for video games as a whole.
I've been moved by games, both long and short, and put into situations which have made me think critically about the real world and philosophical dilemmas. In Morrowind, I had to ask myself can I really be the hero if on my way to that final battle, I do evil things? I could certainly get away with murder, especially in many of the scenarios presented, but how can the person who is destined to save the world act that way and still be good. Or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where because of the pressure being exerted on the lead character, he was forced to murder countless, largely-innocent people to protect his brother with the long term goal of destroying networks and killing people which are far more evil.
And in thinking of the long, narrative game as a form, the one that I kept coming to mind was Persona 3 FES. That one had to be long. You as the player had to live with those characters, day after day, to understand them on a personal level, to feel the pressures they were under, see their struggles, their resentment, their love. On an emotional level, it was a masterpiece, and to discount that because of an arbitrary number is wrong on so many levels.
That being said, in writing the article, Thomson name checked and linked to another article on Slate which had named Dark Souls as the 2011 Game Of The Year. But he seems to have ignored a passage which was about games in general, but which applies to Dark Souls specifically as well.
And I've played many games like that, both long and short. I don't discount a game's artistry because of its length. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, who liked the Thomson article: "No good game is too long and no bad game is short enough."
It has recently come to my attention that a writer named Michael Thomson at Slate took a less than loving look at a game called Dark Souls and in doing so, he ended up taking a rather wide swipe at video games in general. The subheading for the title was "Is a 100 hour video game ever worthwhile?".
Now I am not going to stand here and tell you that every game that I've played that required that kind of commitment was worth that time. But some of them were in much the same way that there were 1000 page novels, television series that stretched a narrative across more than a hundred hour-long episodes and so on that fit into both categories.
It seems that the difficulty of the title was the main issue for Thomson, but there are lots of other difficult things which force you to work so you can appreciate them. To give you some context on where he is coming from:
Dark Souls takes so long to play because it refuses to tell you its basic ground rules, then kills you over and over again for failing to understand them. As a player, you proceed not by thinking through problems but by randomly trying anything and everything until something haphazard sticks. The game is teaching you, but it's not teaching you anything worth knowing.
As soon as I read that particular line, I thought of a piece of art from another medium: Finnegans Wake by James Joyce. It too doesn't tell you the basic ground rules of the narrative, it makes you work harder than you ever thought possible to understand it and to do so, you are going to have to backtrack and reread passages to understand it, but people still do it, and in general, it is never implied that those people are idiots who are wasting their lives.
Because the argument that instead of playing a game, you could be reading War and Peace or learning a new language isn't really relevant or fair. It is true, but only in the same way me saying you would be wasting your life reading War and Peace because you could be volunteering at a soup kitchen or building houses for the less fortunate or another activity which isn't so solipsistic would be fair.
I am not telling someone else how to spend their time, and I think it is foolish for the writer in question to do the same. As Jason Killingsworth at Edge Online notes, comparing almost any work to War and Peace, let alone work in another medium, is really not fitting since nearly everything would pale in comparison to it. If I said, have you seen Breaking Bad and you responded with "Yeah, but it is no War and Peace," you could technically be right but it avoids discussing the merits of that particular series by dismissing it.
But the repeated mentions of Tolstoy and War and Peace in that article brings up a particularly good point... some stories need a longer amount of time and space to express their narrative in the stylistic conventions of their medium. Yes, you could probably tell the entire gist of War and Peace in a few pages, but it would lose a lot by doing so. In much the same way, condensing a long game into 5 hours would also diminish it. While I am a huge proponent of narratives in gaming, I know that the story and character are fundamentally tied to the gameplay in determining the quality of a game.
Games have their own language, a language which players generally all understand but to outsiders they are foreign concepts. I am not talking about a language spoken in words, but in a common set of actions and gestures which apply situationally across titles in a genre and it is the way a designer follows or subverts those expectations that is half the fun. But if you aren't familiar with how a particular genre of gaming works, you will not fully appreciate what you are being presented.
It is like if you were to start to read T.S. Eliot's The Waste Land and you were not familiar with the various works of literature that were alluded to... yes, you may get something out of the experience, but someone who was better educated about classical literature would derive far more meaning from reading it.
If one was to complain that The Waste Land was needlessly difficult and obscure, and did so because they were willfully ignorant of the underlying themes and language underpinning it, their opinion would be marginalized. If someone had complained that the idea of The Artist was stupid because who would ever want to watch a silent movie, they'd be laughed at. If you do the same kind of thing when it comes to gaming, no one really bats an eye.
There was also more than a little of the attitude that the audience for that game (and games in general) being merely entertained wasn't enough, a certain condescension which critics in the already established and recognized art forms seem to have for video games as a whole.
I've been moved by games, both long and short, and put into situations which have made me think critically about the real world and philosophical dilemmas. In Morrowind, I had to ask myself can I really be the hero if on my way to that final battle, I do evil things? I could certainly get away with murder, especially in many of the scenarios presented, but how can the person who is destined to save the world act that way and still be good. Or Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas where because of the pressure being exerted on the lead character, he was forced to murder countless, largely-innocent people to protect his brother with the long term goal of destroying networks and killing people which are far more evil.
And in thinking of the long, narrative game as a form, the one that I kept coming to mind was Persona 3 FES. That one had to be long. You as the player had to live with those characters, day after day, to understand them on a personal level, to feel the pressures they were under, see their struggles, their resentment, their love. On an emotional level, it was a masterpiece, and to discount that because of an arbitrary number is wrong on so many levels.
That being said, in writing the article, Thomson name checked and linked to another article on Slate which had named Dark Souls as the 2011 Game Of The Year. But he seems to have ignored a passage which was about games in general, but which applies to Dark Souls specifically as well.
Much of what I’m calling "style" can be attributed to careful craftsmanship that extends through each element of design. The visual palette for games has expanded, and developers are incorporating a wider range of artistic styles in their visuals. Great visuals don’t necessarily make a great game, but when their expressiveness extends through the sound, the music, and the overall feel of the gameplay experience, they can elevate an otherwise conventional game into something that feels very special.
And I've played many games like that, both long and short. I don't discount a game's artistry because of its length. To paraphrase Roger Ebert, who liked the Thomson article: "No good game is too long and no bad game is short enough."
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
I Really Have To Stop Playing Dungeon Defenders
Dungeon Defenders is the reason why I haven't been blogging as much lately. Every time I have a great idea for a post, I always think... well, I can play a little Dungeon Defenders before I get around to that, and then I never do.
I am at the part of the game which I am sure a lot of people who play MMOs understand quite well... the grinding phase. I've gone through most of the content at the insane level, but there is a higher level, one which is still in sort of pretesting/beta form.
But there are people who have conquered that mode. I want to eventually be one of them.
I should stop playing for a while though. It is getting to be a little much though.
I am at the part of the game which I am sure a lot of people who play MMOs understand quite well... the grinding phase. I've gone through most of the content at the insane level, but there is a higher level, one which is still in sort of pretesting/beta form.
But there are people who have conquered that mode. I want to eventually be one of them.
I should stop playing for a while though. It is getting to be a little much though.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Dungeon Defenders
Every time there is a major Steam sale, there is one game which I end up with which becomes the star of the show.
In the previous sales, it had been Beat Hazard Ultra, with a twist of the-then newly free Team Fortress 2.
In the holiday sale that ended a few weeks ago, the star ended up being a game called Dungeon Defenders.
And the thing is, I didn't end up buying the main game. Someone I know won a copy as part of the contest, but since they already had it, they gave it to me.
Then I bought everything else including DLC that is yet to be released, and I've put about 60 hours into it already.
The basic jist of the game is it combines tower defense with third person action RPGs in a world that is cel-shaded and cartoonish with a light fantasy story.
It is designed for 4-player co-op play, but it is also very approachable for solo play, and I've done a bit of both during my time with the game. There are some challenges which you need help on based on the logistics, so it is always better to play with the little help from your friends.
There are basically 4 different classes to build a character from: the Squire, who is your traditional knight-type character; the Apprentice, who is your basic mage; the Monk, who builds a lot of support towers and such; and the Huntress, who lays traps and uses crossbows and guns (and there is DLC which allows you to build the characters from the opposite side of the gender divide as well), and their abilities and towers complement each other. Take for instance, the monk has a tower which slows enemies down. When you pair that with the magical elemental towers of the Apprentice, it means that enemies are exposed to damaging projectiles for much longer.
It is a game that is simple from the outset, but which has a lot of depth, and is well worth investing time in, because I have one character almost at the top of the heap levelwise, but there is still a lot more stuff to get and more challenges to attack.
The game is currently available for the PC, PS3 and 360, though the PC version has a lot more DLC available (and is available worldwide, unlike the console versions which I've heard haven't been released in Europe or Australia yet).
In the previous sales, it had been Beat Hazard Ultra, with a twist of the-then newly free Team Fortress 2.
In the holiday sale that ended a few weeks ago, the star ended up being a game called Dungeon Defenders.
And the thing is, I didn't end up buying the main game. Someone I know won a copy as part of the contest, but since they already had it, they gave it to me.
Then I bought everything else including DLC that is yet to be released, and I've put about 60 hours into it already.
The basic jist of the game is it combines tower defense with third person action RPGs in a world that is cel-shaded and cartoonish with a light fantasy story.
It is designed for 4-player co-op play, but it is also very approachable for solo play, and I've done a bit of both during my time with the game. There are some challenges which you need help on based on the logistics, so it is always better to play with the little help from your friends.
There are basically 4 different classes to build a character from: the Squire, who is your traditional knight-type character; the Apprentice, who is your basic mage; the Monk, who builds a lot of support towers and such; and the Huntress, who lays traps and uses crossbows and guns (and there is DLC which allows you to build the characters from the opposite side of the gender divide as well), and their abilities and towers complement each other. Take for instance, the monk has a tower which slows enemies down. When you pair that with the magical elemental towers of the Apprentice, it means that enemies are exposed to damaging projectiles for much longer.
It is a game that is simple from the outset, but which has a lot of depth, and is well worth investing time in, because I have one character almost at the top of the heap levelwise, but there is still a lot more stuff to get and more challenges to attack.
The game is currently available for the PC, PS3 and 360, though the PC version has a lot more DLC available (and is available worldwide, unlike the console versions which I've heard haven't been released in Europe or Australia yet).
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
My Year At Steam
Since there is a huge end of the year sale going on at Steam, and I've been using the service for about a year now, I thought I would share my thoughts on some of my favorite games that I've played on Steam over the past year with some quick reviews.
The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind: I have to admit, my conception of what a role playing game was supposed to be was very much rooted on the Japanese side of the pond, where there was a central narrative and a lot of invisible walls guiding you towards the end, with few deviations, and yes, I had played a few games which were sandbox games with RPG elements, but it wasn't until I played Morrowind (with some graphical mods to bring it up to today's standards in terms of visuals) that I really understood what a Western sandbox role playing game could be. There was just so many ways to play and so many places to explore that it was easy to just go off and do your own thing. While I did not finish it, my experience was exceptional, and I look forward to playing Oblivion, the Fallout games and eventually Skyrim.
Beat Hazard: I was never really into bullet hell-type shooters, but the lovely twist on that genre is that each level is generated by whatever piece of music you play it to. And since the elements are pretty much the same every time you play that particular song, you can compete against yourself to better your score or coop/play against your friends who have that same song. It is a brilliant design decision. However, it is certainly not a game for those who have epilepsy. But if you can take the flashing (it took me a while to get used to it), it is a very enjoyable experience.
AI War: Fleet Command: This is a relatively new entry for this list, but it does have more than a few little tricks up its sleeve to make up for that. The premise is simple... there was a war between two competing factions on Earth who both created AI forces to try to defeat each other. However, over time, the AI conspired with each other to try to take humanity out, which pushed the remnants of the human race together against the foe they had mutually created. I know it sounds like something out of the Matrix, but it does give the whole game a great atmosphere. Blending elements of real time strategy, tower defense and other tactical gaming, you really do get a sense at the beginning that you are fighting a hopeless battle (and the AI swatted me enough times when I was playing a little too brash for my own good). I also love the fact that when you play with other people online, they are always on the same team as you... that they have the same goal as you... to defeat the two AI forces (which each have their own unique fighting styles) and win the galaxy back for humanity.
The Binding of Isaac: There are a few phrases that I can use to describe this game. Gross. Blasphemous. Zelda-clone. Rogue-like. And yet, they don't really get down to the essence of what makes this game so fun (and at times frustrating). With its cartoonish graphics about a child escaping from the mother who wishes to sacrifice him to God through the underworld beneath his home, it's charm is easy to see, and it is clearly a game designed with a perverse sense of humor, and the fact that it mimics a lot of the aesthetics of the original Legend of Zelda is also a huge selling point. But what makes this a stand out title for me is the fact that every time you play it, the dungeon changes, as do the powerups you find, which gives the game a lot of replay value. Add to that the choice that you only have one life with no continues, which increases the difficulty, and you can see why this game might also be maddening. So if you don't mind a lot of blasphemous content in your games, you will probably enjoy this game.
Team Fortress 2: A first person shooter with a wicked sense of humor, great visual style and supports a lot of different play styles. And its free. It is the game that just keeps on giving for me. I love, love, LOVE this game and unlike some of the other multiplayer games I've played, generally the other people playing are cool too. I have almost 100 hours of play in this game and I can literally count the number of times I've been insulted by another player on one hand (with some fingers to spare). I've met a lot of people who were just getting into Steam, and it is the first game I recommend. It is a game that is easy to get into and one which is very much geared for a quick play, but with all the weapons that you find, it also rewards persistence and strategic thinking, because some combinations will be much more conducive to a particular play style.
I never thought I would say this, but I think I've finally become an whole hearted advocate of digital game distribution. The sheer availability of legally obtainable games at my fingertips is amazing. I've played a lot of games I would have never even been able to find at a store, games crafted with love or from an area of the world where distribution in stores in North America would be a pipe dream, and for that I am thankful.
My year with Steam has been memorable and has opened my eyes to just how wonderful gaming is.
The Elder Scrolls: Morrowind: I have to admit, my conception of what a role playing game was supposed to be was very much rooted on the Japanese side of the pond, where there was a central narrative and a lot of invisible walls guiding you towards the end, with few deviations, and yes, I had played a few games which were sandbox games with RPG elements, but it wasn't until I played Morrowind (with some graphical mods to bring it up to today's standards in terms of visuals) that I really understood what a Western sandbox role playing game could be. There was just so many ways to play and so many places to explore that it was easy to just go off and do your own thing. While I did not finish it, my experience was exceptional, and I look forward to playing Oblivion, the Fallout games and eventually Skyrim.
Beat Hazard: I was never really into bullet hell-type shooters, but the lovely twist on that genre is that each level is generated by whatever piece of music you play it to. And since the elements are pretty much the same every time you play that particular song, you can compete against yourself to better your score or coop/play against your friends who have that same song. It is a brilliant design decision. However, it is certainly not a game for those who have epilepsy. But if you can take the flashing (it took me a while to get used to it), it is a very enjoyable experience.
AI War: Fleet Command: This is a relatively new entry for this list, but it does have more than a few little tricks up its sleeve to make up for that. The premise is simple... there was a war between two competing factions on Earth who both created AI forces to try to defeat each other. However, over time, the AI conspired with each other to try to take humanity out, which pushed the remnants of the human race together against the foe they had mutually created. I know it sounds like something out of the Matrix, but it does give the whole game a great atmosphere. Blending elements of real time strategy, tower defense and other tactical gaming, you really do get a sense at the beginning that you are fighting a hopeless battle (and the AI swatted me enough times when I was playing a little too brash for my own good). I also love the fact that when you play with other people online, they are always on the same team as you... that they have the same goal as you... to defeat the two AI forces (which each have their own unique fighting styles) and win the galaxy back for humanity.
The Binding of Isaac: There are a few phrases that I can use to describe this game. Gross. Blasphemous. Zelda-clone. Rogue-like. And yet, they don't really get down to the essence of what makes this game so fun (and at times frustrating). With its cartoonish graphics about a child escaping from the mother who wishes to sacrifice him to God through the underworld beneath his home, it's charm is easy to see, and it is clearly a game designed with a perverse sense of humor, and the fact that it mimics a lot of the aesthetics of the original Legend of Zelda is also a huge selling point. But what makes this a stand out title for me is the fact that every time you play it, the dungeon changes, as do the powerups you find, which gives the game a lot of replay value. Add to that the choice that you only have one life with no continues, which increases the difficulty, and you can see why this game might also be maddening. So if you don't mind a lot of blasphemous content in your games, you will probably enjoy this game.
Team Fortress 2: A first person shooter with a wicked sense of humor, great visual style and supports a lot of different play styles. And its free. It is the game that just keeps on giving for me. I love, love, LOVE this game and unlike some of the other multiplayer games I've played, generally the other people playing are cool too. I have almost 100 hours of play in this game and I can literally count the number of times I've been insulted by another player on one hand (with some fingers to spare). I've met a lot of people who were just getting into Steam, and it is the first game I recommend. It is a game that is easy to get into and one which is very much geared for a quick play, but with all the weapons that you find, it also rewards persistence and strategic thinking, because some combinations will be much more conducive to a particular play style.
I never thought I would say this, but I think I've finally become an whole hearted advocate of digital game distribution. The sheer availability of legally obtainable games at my fingertips is amazing. I've played a lot of games I would have never even been able to find at a store, games crafted with love or from an area of the world where distribution in stores in North America would be a pipe dream, and for that I am thankful.
My year with Steam has been memorable and has opened my eyes to just how wonderful gaming is.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Midweek Video: Sequelitis on Mega Man Classic and X
I was really impressed by this breakdown of how the early Mega Man games were designed in a particular way that taught you everything you needed to know to play them without holding your hand or breaking the action.
It is a long video and there is a lot of swearing, but it really highlights an issue that plagues modern games... that designers sort of treat gamers like idiots that need to have everything explained to them in tutorials rather than teaching you how to play by setting up situations where you naturally discover how to play it by experimenting.
I played Mega Man X on a PS2 collection and it is exactly how he explains it. It was an example of a game creating set pieces that teach you how to play the game organically, and it is something that other designers should take note of.
It is a long video and there is a lot of swearing, but it really highlights an issue that plagues modern games... that designers sort of treat gamers like idiots that need to have everything explained to them in tutorials rather than teaching you how to play by setting up situations where you naturally discover how to play it by experimenting.
I played Mega Man X on a PS2 collection and it is exactly how he explains it. It was an example of a game creating set pieces that teach you how to play the game organically, and it is something that other designers should take note of.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
I Feel Very Machiavellian Right Now
Sometimes you have gaming experiences where it feels like everything is against you, no matter what you do. And sometimes you experience a series of events that you've set in motion that make you feel like an evil genius, all of whose plans are coming to fruition.
This is one of those latter tales.
It all starts as my time at Peru's Universidad San Martin in Football Manager 2011 was winding down to a close. I had just won the Peruvian First Division title, and I was looking for a new challenge.
So I quit my job there and while there were no positions immediately open, I did publicly express interest in a couple of jobs which had been occupied at the time, but which were ripe for the taking, as the people sitting in those chairs were not bringing the kind of success that management was looking for.
I went after jobs with Boca Juniors in Argentina and Penarol in Uruguay. Boca said they had to see how things were going with their current manager, but Penarol offered me that job almost immediately. I had wanted an 18 month contract, and they would only give me 6. So I finally relented.
And it turns out that in taking the job, I put Luis Fernandez Suarez out of a job. Now, when I was at San Martin, I had a rather poor professional relationship with Suarez, who had been the coach at Cristal before Penarol approached him to manage their club.
So getting that job at Penarol was screwing someone who I had a bad relationship with already, which was sort of cool.
Then I looked at the standings for the first half of the season.
Penarol finished 4th. The difference between where they were and first place was 2 points or to put it another way, the difference between a win and a tie.
I had booted someone I hated out of a job because in one game out of many, Penarol didn't score one more goal.
Again, I got a job because of a single goal or lack thereof.
So I was pretty much in a situation where I was going to succeed, and I did everything I could to see that the team met its goals. I won the second half of the season and qualified the team for Copa Libertadores (which is the highest level international club competition in South America).
And as my contract was nearing an end, Boca then approached me and asked me to take over as soon as contract was finished at Penarol.
At this point, I should mention who the coach of Boca Juniors was at the time.
Diego Freakin' Maradona.
A guy that gets mentioned in the same breath as Pele (and one who some say was the greatest soccer player of all time). A polarizing figure who is loved in Argentina.
Yeah, I pushed that dude, out of a job. If I had pushed him out of nearly any other job, it would have been a little funny. The fact that I pushed him out of Boca Juniors, is amazing. I mean, they love him at Boca. They even have a fight song about him.
I pushed the man who scored what has been called the Goal of the Century for Argentina out of one of the crown jewels of its premier league.
That is a lot of responsibility. But I kept my head.
Then I won. And won. And won.
I won both halves of the season. I won the Copa Sudamericana. I took out Santos, Pele's and the rising star Neymar's former team in the Recopa, and I won the biggest South American club prize, the aforementioned Copa Libertadores. All in my first year.
That wasn't merely victory... that was a curb-stomp battle.
Of course, now they love me.
And riding that wave, I requested to my board that Boca pick up a feeder club, and so they looked around at literally thousands of in the world clubs and came back with a single choice.
Penarol.
Which means that upon agreeing to that, they are sort of my bitch now.
And to think, if Penarol would have given me that 18 month contract to begin with, well, they wouldn't be under the thumb of Boca at this moment.
The sprinkles on top of that icing is now due to my success at Boca over the past year, the Argentinean FA has offered me the helm of the national team, a position I can do concurrently with Boca. At this time, Argentina is ranked #1 in the world.
So yeah, this is going to be fun. If I was really evil, I could use my power as the national coach to sabotage my club side foes by calling up their stars right before I have to face Boca. I'm not going to, but oh, I could be so corrupt. And that is why I am on the verge of crossing the line from every day villainy to cartoonish super-villainy. And that's a good thing.
This is one of those latter tales.
It all starts as my time at Peru's Universidad San Martin in Football Manager 2011 was winding down to a close. I had just won the Peruvian First Division title, and I was looking for a new challenge.
So I quit my job there and while there were no positions immediately open, I did publicly express interest in a couple of jobs which had been occupied at the time, but which were ripe for the taking, as the people sitting in those chairs were not bringing the kind of success that management was looking for.
I went after jobs with Boca Juniors in Argentina and Penarol in Uruguay. Boca said they had to see how things were going with their current manager, but Penarol offered me that job almost immediately. I had wanted an 18 month contract, and they would only give me 6. So I finally relented.
And it turns out that in taking the job, I put Luis Fernandez Suarez out of a job. Now, when I was at San Martin, I had a rather poor professional relationship with Suarez, who had been the coach at Cristal before Penarol approached him to manage their club.
So getting that job at Penarol was screwing someone who I had a bad relationship with already, which was sort of cool.
Then I looked at the standings for the first half of the season.
Penarol finished 4th. The difference between where they were and first place was 2 points or to put it another way, the difference between a win and a tie.
I had booted someone I hated out of a job because in one game out of many, Penarol didn't score one more goal.
Again, I got a job because of a single goal or lack thereof.
So I was pretty much in a situation where I was going to succeed, and I did everything I could to see that the team met its goals. I won the second half of the season and qualified the team for Copa Libertadores (which is the highest level international club competition in South America).
And as my contract was nearing an end, Boca then approached me and asked me to take over as soon as contract was finished at Penarol.
At this point, I should mention who the coach of Boca Juniors was at the time.
Diego Freakin' Maradona.
A guy that gets mentioned in the same breath as Pele (and one who some say was the greatest soccer player of all time). A polarizing figure who is loved in Argentina.
Yeah, I pushed that dude, out of a job. If I had pushed him out of nearly any other job, it would have been a little funny. The fact that I pushed him out of Boca Juniors, is amazing. I mean, they love him at Boca. They even have a fight song about him.
I pushed the man who scored what has been called the Goal of the Century for Argentina out of one of the crown jewels of its premier league.
That is a lot of responsibility. But I kept my head.
Then I won. And won. And won.
I won both halves of the season. I won the Copa Sudamericana. I took out Santos, Pele's and the rising star Neymar's former team in the Recopa, and I won the biggest South American club prize, the aforementioned Copa Libertadores. All in my first year.
That wasn't merely victory... that was a curb-stomp battle.
Of course, now they love me.
And riding that wave, I requested to my board that Boca pick up a feeder club, and so they looked around at literally thousands of in the world clubs and came back with a single choice.
Penarol.
Which means that upon agreeing to that, they are sort of my bitch now.
And to think, if Penarol would have given me that 18 month contract to begin with, well, they wouldn't be under the thumb of Boca at this moment.
The sprinkles on top of that icing is now due to my success at Boca over the past year, the Argentinean FA has offered me the helm of the national team, a position I can do concurrently with Boca. At this time, Argentina is ranked #1 in the world.
So yeah, this is going to be fun. If I was really evil, I could use my power as the national coach to sabotage my club side foes by calling up their stars right before I have to face Boca. I'm not going to, but oh, I could be so corrupt. And that is why I am on the verge of crossing the line from every day villainy to cartoonish super-villainy. And that's a good thing.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Midweek Video: The History Of Russia As Told To The Theme To Tetris
This is definitely an earworm.
A fun and somewhat accurate take on the Soviet Union.
A fun and somewhat accurate take on the Soviet Union.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
The Throne of Games
Winter is coming, and there are games to be played... lots and lots and lots of games to be played.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Gripe: Game Developers/Publishers and System Requirements
In many ways, console gamers have it so much easier than those who play on a PC or a Mac. And I am not simply talking about system configurations, drivers and OS compatibility issues.
I am talking about getting information about if you can even run a game before it is released.
I mean, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is coming out in about 2 and a half weeks, and yet, Bethesda somehow doesn't know what the system requirements are going to be. I don't really see how that is possible. The same goes for THQ, which is releasing Saints Row 3 a few days later. I don't think this is simply a case of, if you have to ask, you can't run it.
As a developer, they must have some idea of at what their recommended requirements for that game should be at this point. Since they are selling these games through digital distribution channels with preorder bonuses, as a potential customer, the hardware requirements are something that I would really need to know before making a commitment to spend money on their product. That is something which console gamers don't have to contend with... if they have the system which the game is coming out on, they know they can buy and play the game when it is released. Simple as that.
I think it is a reasonable expectation as a consumer.
EDIT: And as soon as I write this, the system requirements for Skyrim were finally released.
I am talking about getting information about if you can even run a game before it is released.
I mean, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is coming out in about 2 and a half weeks, and yet, Bethesda somehow doesn't know what the system requirements are going to be. I don't really see how that is possible. The same goes for THQ, which is releasing Saints Row 3 a few days later. I don't think this is simply a case of, if you have to ask, you can't run it.
As a developer, they must have some idea of at what their recommended requirements for that game should be at this point. Since they are selling these games through digital distribution channels with preorder bonuses, as a potential customer, the hardware requirements are something that I would really need to know before making a commitment to spend money on their product. That is something which console gamers don't have to contend with... if they have the system which the game is coming out on, they know they can buy and play the game when it is released. Simple as that.
I think it is a reasonable expectation as a consumer.
EDIT: And as soon as I write this, the system requirements for Skyrim were finally released.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Oh, Bethesda Is Never Going To Hear The End Of This
A few days ago, Bethesda announced that the upcoming Elder Scrolls game, Skyrim, would support marriage between the player character and any number of NPCs.
The thing that is news though is the fac that marriage wouldn't be restricted by gender, so if your male or female character developed a long term relationship with a member of the same sex, then in that world, you could get married.
So that alone is going to be something that the same people who were getting bent out of shape about things like the bit of consensual sex in games like Mass Effect are going to have a field day with this.
Because it isn't going to be just the gay marriage angle that is going to end up being controversial, though that will likely be the main focus.
You see, there are many species of humanoid sentient beings in the world where these games take place, so outside of interracial marriage within members of the same general species (you know, white humans marrying black humans and fair skinned elves marrying Dark Elves etc), there is also the possibility that a human or whatever could marry an Argonian (a humanoid lizard/fish species) or a member of the Khajiit (a humanoid feline species).
And then you put same sex marriage on top of that. Yeah, some people's heads are going to explode.
I mean, I can almost hear a particular news network taking this ball and running with it. And it will be hilarious when they do. I could even see some presidential candidates, really go to town with this.
And I especially look forward to the response from the gaming community when that happens. That part is going to be sweet. The stories that I've read reporting the seeming freedom of marriage in Skyrim have all been followed by a stream of wonderfully snarky comments that indicate that in general, players have no problem with this being added, or they welcome it. That is an amazing sign.
To me, it is a non-issue. It is a role playing game, and if in the game you want your barechested Nordic hero to marry his longtime Khajiit lover, then more power to you. What you do doesn't affect my own gaming experience, and the fact that you will be able to do that, well, it shows a great deal of flexibility on Bethesda's part. They make games that are wide open sandbox affairs, so to have all those relationship options makes things even more interesting and likely adds some replay value to the game for some people.
Granted I would probably never really marry an NPC in a game unless it was necessary for the plot...
Um, what was I saying again?
Note: All screenshots in this post, both linked and attached are from Morrowind.
The thing that is news though is the fac that marriage wouldn't be restricted by gender, so if your male or female character developed a long term relationship with a member of the same sex, then in that world, you could get married.
So that alone is going to be something that the same people who were getting bent out of shape about things like the bit of consensual sex in games like Mass Effect are going to have a field day with this.
Because it isn't going to be just the gay marriage angle that is going to end up being controversial, though that will likely be the main focus.
You see, there are many species of humanoid sentient beings in the world where these games take place, so outside of interracial marriage within members of the same general species (you know, white humans marrying black humans and fair skinned elves marrying Dark Elves etc), there is also the possibility that a human or whatever could marry an Argonian (a humanoid lizard/fish species) or a member of the Khajiit (a humanoid feline species).
And then you put same sex marriage on top of that. Yeah, some people's heads are going to explode.
I mean, I can almost hear a particular news network taking this ball and running with it. And it will be hilarious when they do. I could even see some presidential candidates, really go to town with this.
And I especially look forward to the response from the gaming community when that happens. That part is going to be sweet. The stories that I've read reporting the seeming freedom of marriage in Skyrim have all been followed by a stream of wonderfully snarky comments that indicate that in general, players have no problem with this being added, or they welcome it. That is an amazing sign.
To me, it is a non-issue. It is a role playing game, and if in the game you want your barechested Nordic hero to marry his longtime Khajiit lover, then more power to you. What you do doesn't affect my own gaming experience, and the fact that you will be able to do that, well, it shows a great deal of flexibility on Bethesda's part. They make games that are wide open sandbox affairs, so to have all those relationship options makes things even more interesting and likely adds some replay value to the game for some people.
Granted I would probably never really marry an NPC in a game unless it was necessary for the plot...
Um, what was I saying again?
Note: All screenshots in this post, both linked and attached are from Morrowind.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Monday, August 15, 2011
Does This Look Like Someone Famous To You?
I installed a graphics mod for The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind last weekend, and when I happened to visit a particular Mages Guild, I ran into this NPC.
My question is, am I the only one who noticed that this character has more than a passing resemblance to Olivia Wilde?
Oh, and if you have Morrowind for the PC, the graphic mod, which is awesome, can be found here. And you can watch a video to see what the mods look like together too.
My question is, am I the only one who noticed that this character has more than a passing resemblance to Olivia Wilde?
Oh, and if you have Morrowind for the PC, the graphic mod, which is awesome, can be found here. And you can watch a video to see what the mods look like together too.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Why Won't Anyone Believe Me?
I saw previews for a particular game on a few game sites a couple weeks back, and I immediately figured out that it was a game being developed by auteur designer Suda51, the same guy who was behind No More Heroes, and I really wanted to play it.
I then learned this week that this same game was being written by James Gunn... you know the guy who did the PG Porn shorts and wrote the Dawn of the Dead remake. And that made me want to play the game in question even more.
And yet, when I tell people I want to play Lollipop Chainsaw and they see a screenshot or concept art from it:
They give me a look that says, "Yeah, I know the real reason you want to play that," because the other reasons don't matter because it is a game about an attractive cheerleader killing zombies with a chainsaw.
It doesn't matter that Joss Whedon made a career off of a vampire-battling cheerleader because that was different. If I professed a love of Buffy or a desire to watch it, then I wouldn't have to weather those kinds of looks.
But because I'm a gamer, well, the fact that I might want to play a game made by a designer I like is irrelevant. I'm a perv because it is a game about a blonde cheerleader.
I sort of don't like this double standard.
I then learned this week that this same game was being written by James Gunn... you know the guy who did the PG Porn shorts and wrote the Dawn of the Dead remake. And that made me want to play the game in question even more.
And yet, when I tell people I want to play Lollipop Chainsaw and they see a screenshot or concept art from it:
They give me a look that says, "Yeah, I know the real reason you want to play that," because the other reasons don't matter because it is a game about an attractive cheerleader killing zombies with a chainsaw.
It doesn't matter that Joss Whedon made a career off of a vampire-battling cheerleader because that was different. If I professed a love of Buffy or a desire to watch it, then I wouldn't have to weather those kinds of looks.
But because I'm a gamer, well, the fact that I might want to play a game made by a designer I like is irrelevant. I'm a perv because it is a game about a blonde cheerleader.
I sort of don't like this double standard.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Do All Kids Play Video Games Like This?
Cracked has an article today called the 5 Crucial Lessons Learned By Watching Kids Play Video Games, and it got me to thinking about my own experiences playing games as a kid and an adult... because I've played games for over 25 years now, and I have seen some of these changes happen over time. I am not really going to reiterate what John Cheese has said, rather I am just going to comment on the 5 things he discussed.
1. They Don't Tolerate Losing. You know, I don't mind dying in a game if it is a learning experience, even if that death ends the entire game for me (like Way of the Samurai, which was literally one life and it deleted your save file too). I can deal with difficulty based on the gameplay dynamic. No, the thing I discovered as an adult that I can no longer tolerate is chinzy, cheap puzzles. You know, the kind of puzzle or quest to find an item or whatever that requires pixel precision or advanced knowledge of an area you are visiting for the first time... the kind of stuff that is unintuitive and designed specifically to stretch out a game. I will give one of these missions/puzzles only so much of my time before I look up the solution in text form or on Youtube, because with so many other things I could be doing, or even so many other games I could be playing, spending unproductive time solving an arbitrary puzzle isn't worth it. I just want to get to the next thing in the game.
2. They Have No Tolerance for "Grinding" I remember back in my SNES days playing Final Fantasy IV, and there was a particular sidequest where you had to climb a tower and fight a boss to get a special item. Well, there was an easy way you could win by using a particular combination of spells. I didn't know that at the time. So I just kept playing the game and building up my levels until I could take whatever that boss was going to dish out and survive long enough to kill it. And this was not some isolated incident... I mean, I did stuff like that recently in both Disgaea and Persona 3 FES. But then I hear stories about games that discourage you from grinding by either making your enemies level up with you (and gain additional skills which will make them much harder) or they keep decreasing the amount of experience you get for killing them (Borderlands does this). Don't get me wrong... I don't enjoy grinding, but at times it is a necessary evil in a role playing game. It is something I am willing to put up with in moderation.
3. If They Want to Read, They'll Buy a F'ing Book You know, I was all set to disagree with this point. Then I thought about the sidequests I've been playing in the aforementioned Borderlands and I realized that while I wasn't pushing a button to skip through a lot of text, I was just looking at what a quest entailed and not reading the backstory or the in-game, in-character reason why I was doing something. But I think this is something that I've only recently started doing in games, since I used to be married to lots of text and narrative in a game. And I don't mind reading information in a game at all. I mean, I spent 4 months at the beginning of the year playing a game that was predicated on just looking at lots of numbers and making decisions based on your interpretation of them. But I do think that lots of reading may be a thing that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in most games.
4. They Press "Y" to Skip, as Fast as They Can I think I might be in the minority here but generally the first time I am going to see a cutscene, I watch the whole thing. On subsequent playthroughs, I may skip it, but when I am playing a game which a narrative, I sort of want to see how things play out in the cutscenes, even if they take forever to watch. It is part of the overall experience for me, so even the bad ones are still worth watching in my opinion. Like I said, I know others might not agree with that, but that's how I play things. I can see how to some people if you aren't actively participating in the action, then you aren't really playing a game, but I think of cinematics as part of the grander experience. I don't think they are going to go away for a while.
5. Don't Like it? Break It. I have been known to go full psycho with tweaks and cheats in a sandbox. But I never save whatever I am doing... I just use those kinds of codes when I am blowing off some steam outside of the game's larger narrative. But I generally don't cheat in the way the author discusses when I am playing for keeps. Cheats are for fun in my eyes, not plowing through games. If I wanted a tank in GTA:SA to have, well, I'd steal it. If I wanted one just to see what would happen if I drove it off the top of a mountain, then I'd spawn one. I do like exploring how far you can go within a game's programming, with and without cheats, it's true. But I too find myself on the goal-oriented side of things.
Now the thing I am wondering is if I am going to notice my niece doing the same kinds of things when she gets older. She already plays games on the DS/PSP at age 4, so her skipping a wall of text is understandable. However, are those activities something that all kids are doing or just the author's?
And has anyone else who played games as a kid and adult noticed some of these shifts in the medium?
1. They Don't Tolerate Losing. You know, I don't mind dying in a game if it is a learning experience, even if that death ends the entire game for me (like Way of the Samurai, which was literally one life and it deleted your save file too). I can deal with difficulty based on the gameplay dynamic. No, the thing I discovered as an adult that I can no longer tolerate is chinzy, cheap puzzles. You know, the kind of puzzle or quest to find an item or whatever that requires pixel precision or advanced knowledge of an area you are visiting for the first time... the kind of stuff that is unintuitive and designed specifically to stretch out a game. I will give one of these missions/puzzles only so much of my time before I look up the solution in text form or on Youtube, because with so many other things I could be doing, or even so many other games I could be playing, spending unproductive time solving an arbitrary puzzle isn't worth it. I just want to get to the next thing in the game.
2. They Have No Tolerance for "Grinding" I remember back in my SNES days playing Final Fantasy IV, and there was a particular sidequest where you had to climb a tower and fight a boss to get a special item. Well, there was an easy way you could win by using a particular combination of spells. I didn't know that at the time. So I just kept playing the game and building up my levels until I could take whatever that boss was going to dish out and survive long enough to kill it. And this was not some isolated incident... I mean, I did stuff like that recently in both Disgaea and Persona 3 FES. But then I hear stories about games that discourage you from grinding by either making your enemies level up with you (and gain additional skills which will make them much harder) or they keep decreasing the amount of experience you get for killing them (Borderlands does this). Don't get me wrong... I don't enjoy grinding, but at times it is a necessary evil in a role playing game. It is something I am willing to put up with in moderation.
3. If They Want to Read, They'll Buy a F'ing Book You know, I was all set to disagree with this point. Then I thought about the sidequests I've been playing in the aforementioned Borderlands and I realized that while I wasn't pushing a button to skip through a lot of text, I was just looking at what a quest entailed and not reading the backstory or the in-game, in-character reason why I was doing something. But I think this is something that I've only recently started doing in games, since I used to be married to lots of text and narrative in a game. And I don't mind reading information in a game at all. I mean, I spent 4 months at the beginning of the year playing a game that was predicated on just looking at lots of numbers and making decisions based on your interpretation of them. But I do think that lots of reading may be a thing that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past in most games.
4. They Press "Y" to Skip, as Fast as They Can I think I might be in the minority here but generally the first time I am going to see a cutscene, I watch the whole thing. On subsequent playthroughs, I may skip it, but when I am playing a game which a narrative, I sort of want to see how things play out in the cutscenes, even if they take forever to watch. It is part of the overall experience for me, so even the bad ones are still worth watching in my opinion. Like I said, I know others might not agree with that, but that's how I play things. I can see how to some people if you aren't actively participating in the action, then you aren't really playing a game, but I think of cinematics as part of the grander experience. I don't think they are going to go away for a while.
5. Don't Like it? Break It. I have been known to go full psycho with tweaks and cheats in a sandbox. But I never save whatever I am doing... I just use those kinds of codes when I am blowing off some steam outside of the game's larger narrative. But I generally don't cheat in the way the author discusses when I am playing for keeps. Cheats are for fun in my eyes, not plowing through games. If I wanted a tank in GTA:SA to have, well, I'd steal it. If I wanted one just to see what would happen if I drove it off the top of a mountain, then I'd spawn one. I do like exploring how far you can go within a game's programming, with and without cheats, it's true. But I too find myself on the goal-oriented side of things.
Now the thing I am wondering is if I am going to notice my niece doing the same kinds of things when she gets older. She already plays games on the DS/PSP at age 4, so her skipping a wall of text is understandable. However, are those activities something that all kids are doing or just the author's?
And has anyone else who played games as a kid and adult noticed some of these shifts in the medium?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)