Misanthropic Gamer

And---I'm Back

2012-01-13T18:38:00.000-06:00

Two things have happened since my last post in October---well three if you focus on what concerns me and posting here on a consistent basis:

1. I now have a full-time job.

2. I bought myself a new computer.

3. My gut reaction to all things gaming right now can be summed up with silence.

So while I do have much more to write about now, I have less time to actually do it, coupled with the fact that my will to do so is being tampered with a very resolute irreverence to everything going on right now (yes, even more than usual). There are a lot of changes occurring across the board, but the same can be said for me as well, so I'm just kind of coasting along with the flow of things before I take any staunch positions on some of the more relevant points of interests going on (e.g. SOPA^[1], digital distribution^[2], the next console cycle^[3], etc.).

So the topic for today is that new computer and where I've been in regards to gaming for the past few months. It won't surprise most people that I've always identified more as a console player, but even as a preteen I've been known to have little short bursts/phases where I'd just arbitrarily run off to start playing in front of a computer instead. Well that trend is starting to happen again, except this time the landscape has changed to such a drastic extent, I'm predicting things will be a bit more permanent this time^[4]. As of now, I've owned (at some point or another) every major video-game console since the second generation^[5].

It wasn't until the sixth generation that I started to get sick of the entire process (which I'll admit was largely due to my bitterness concerning the Sega Dreamcast's fate at the time). Since the fifth generation however, I've kind of automatically fallen into keeping a Nintendo and Sony console around, but now my loyalty and respect for Nintendo has eroded almost completely, which just leaves a shaky relationship with Sony. Concerning that exasperation that kicked in during the sixth generation, I played the first PC title I really fell in love with as well, StarCraft. I didn't even know what the hell it was called at the time (and I wouldn't until about five years later when I finally got my own computer), but my exposure to the RTS genre was something entirely new to me; it lasted, it was engaging in a way few console games ever come across, and maintains its allure even to this day. So, when I properly got into the game in my early teens, I spent just an entire year playing StarCraft and nothing else.

This is the point at which I'll target me seeing the beauty of PC gaming in general. However, though these 'beauties' are merely shorthand for 'things I identify as positive shit that I simply can't get from console-play', they quickly began to lose their appeal the more I saw how they rippled through other players. I'm certainly not one to extrapolate from a singular experience, but using one particular memory as an example, one of the earliest interactions comes from me discussing/tinkering with the computer of an older player when I was about ten or eleven. I'd guess he was in his late teens or early twenties at the time, but long story short---I tried engaging him on the level as a fellow Star Wars fanatic and ended up at the point where I was coldly dismissing everything he said as the whining of an entitled, effete, and elitist brat, which if you'll note, should be two entirely different topics to begin with.

BUT, I've learned that these things are interrelated for a number of reasons not worth getting into for a blog focused primarily on gaming. What is relevant however, is that I've noticed recently that PC players in particular get sore about being called on this (which I of course take as a defense mechanism implying a certain degree of truth to it). As many times as I've had the similar experiences throughout the years I was always wise enough to assume that just because that's been my experience doesn't necessarily mean they're all like that, and to some extent that's true. I've met plenty who aren't. Sadly though, the bad have always far outweighed the good for me. This segues into my next point which is what I started with and that's the new computer. Since about 2010 I was looking into buying a laptop to use as a gaming machine. Gamers will instantly find out that asking this question on any major forum/outlet in which there are generally knowledgeable PC players is met with the same response:

"You want a desktop, blah-blah-blah opinion---conjecture---opinion."

I was fine with this response initially, hell I even expected the discrepancy between a gaming desktop and a gaming laptop, but this persisted even after I made myself abundantly clear that I had no need for a desktop machine and was positive about the laptop. In fact, the more I clarified myself and what I wanted, the more arrogant/ignorant the response became. Personal standards became unwieldy tools (i.e. dick measuring and whatnot) which these people ran around swinging like a child with a wiffle-ball bat. Overrefined perceptions on things such as framerates and high resolutions become a common point of contention in these threads. Patience or not on my part, I just ended up disregarding all knowledge from people with more experience in the matter (see two paragraphs up for some deja vu), and taking a leap of faith whilst using my own judgement and know-how to make a purchase.

It wasn't the lack of ease generally associated with PC gaming that turned me away from it (the typical response from any console player 'scared' of playing on PC). In fact, I loved learning about any hiccups that surfaced with various computer configurations and why a game was or wasn't working; it was dealing with the players that turned me off of it time and time again (and I'm willing to bet more people have a similar response, if they're looking close enough). I've yet to come across a worse gaming fandom that makes the medium an unnecessarily impenetrable place to enter. Despite the dark outlook I may have on gaming in general, I do believe that a lot of the strife can be avoided through practical understanding and common ground, but the experience of PC players has always been one of more division and fanboyism amongst an even larger sect of consumers who all generally love the same thing. This is even ignoring the casual player derision on-top of the more sophomoric shit like 'console wars'.

This is notably relevant towards the recent petition to get NamcoBandai to release Dark Souls for the PC^[6]. Before last week I was sharing this sentiment:

"I'd gladly buy it again on PC. But even if it's not ported, and I wouldn't fault them for that, I hope their future releases are on the PC." ^[7]

As it stands now? I honestly couldn't give less of a fuck about PC players and their hangups with 'consolization' or whatever insecure tangents and faulty logic they can fly off on concerning one game that wasn't released specifically for their platform. Now I arrive back at the same point of me just getting assy about it simply because I 'went out' and interacted that specific fanbase regarding the matter^[8].

And once again, I'm forced into taking the 'high road' argument on a matter simply because gamers by and large are a very unique brand of fucking idiots^[9].

1. As a unfunny joke, I'm actually hoping it passes, as people don't really learn their lesson in this world until you break their fucking arm and this punishes everybody on the Internet on a idiotically large scale.

2. I have a big feeling this is going to get real aggressive as we transition into a new batch of consoles now, despite the fact that high-speed internet access isn't as pervasive as some publishers would like to believe.

3. I'm interested in what will happen, but I'm done hopping on console releases for a while. It's not the investment I used to buy them for anymore, and I'm much more willing to invest in a PC and simply pick one console best suited to my tastes.

4. My new computer effectively renders both my Wii and 360 library obsolete. The Dolphin emulator actually makes digging my Wii out a nonsensical act and I now own every game on Steam that I've had on the 360 (excluding the first Gears of War, which I could get on GFW if I felt repurchasing it anyway).

5. ...though I don't remember shit before the third generation...

6. I did stillsign it because I still agree with the notion that another Japanese developer/publisher outside of Capcom should consider the platform, but my care doesn't extend an inch past that now.

7. Rayalas's reddit comment [link]

8. It doesn't help that I frequent reddit these days and the fanbase for those particular threads are heavily biased in favor of PC games.

9. See 2-1 [link] in which I note the hypocrisy between all players and their lack of resolve to note the flawed acts of representation in gaming media, despite the fact that I really detest the concept of egalitarianism.

Darkness in Lordran

2011-10-28T11:17:00.001-05:00

Any boss becomes easy once you know how to deal with it,
but jumping into The Abyss with no grasp on how your poise
works will lead to a hateful relationship with The Kings.

I've made it no secret that I've been pretty knee-deep in Dark Souls for the past few weeks (currently broke 220 hours last night), but I've yet to actually articulate any meaningful thoughts on it yet. My weariness with doing so stems mostly from trying to come at writing about it in the same manner that I did with Demon's Souls last year. Dark Souls really is quite a different experience, but the majority of criticisms and thoughts I applied to Demon's Souls can easily be carried over to this title as well^[1].

What's interesting I suppose, is my reaction towards the way the game has been received and looked at, particularly in comparison with Demon's Souls. I wasn't around for Demon's Souls's initial release, I picked it up about a year later, so my secondhand impression of it was just being a decent third person RPG with a wonky difficulty curve. After picking it up and discovering it for myself, I realized what a gem it was, despite a number of glaring issues that I took with it. With a couple of personal biases factored in (i.e. third person, more action-focused combat, narrative ambiguity, etc), it was easily my most favored console game in this generation (probably still is too).

Now comes Dark Souls, and with it I begin to see how both titles affect gamers as a whole and to some extent---the developers that made it. I speak on the developers because most prominently the advertising for the game was geared specifically to emphasize the title's difficulty. This sadly runs contradictory to how I view the 'difficulty' of both Demon & Dark Souls. I suppose my 'methodical and uncompromising' description isn't as catchy and flashy as 'Prepare to Die'^[2],, but I certainly see it as being significantly more accurate. Running up the difficulty as a marketing tagline told me something very important about the game. That was that From Software was digging into their little niche, but they may have gotten a little tunnel vision in doing so.

This is because the difficulty of the game spirals out of control at points. This is to the extent to where someone focused on single player will be forced to use online help or re-outfit and grind their characters (a practice which can take days if they're not using a guide), tailoring a specific build to circumvent getting too frustrated. Demon's Souls only had one fight that I took issue with (the Maneater encounters)---Dark Souls has three (admittedly, one of which works to a positive effect). These are fights where it's not just about throwing overwhelming odds at you which you'll face and eventually triumph, it's simply about beating you into the ground with no regard to anything else. The three bosses are as follows:

1. The Capra Demon

2. Ornstein and Smough

3. The Four Kings

The one for which the difficulty actually works is the Capra Demon. Due to his somewhat wild nature and accompanying dogs, he's a bucket of cold water in the face of anyone trying to come to grips with the game's world. You face him early on in a narrow passage to which he has two massive swords of great reach. The majority of players initially will die, unless they're prepared for it. It's a death meant to throw players off. He requires a shift in gears no matter what class build the player is working on at that point. He also presents the player with a problem they can solve in a number of ways. The most popular is running across an awning to get a couple seconds reprieve in order to gain footing, kill the accompanying dogs, and keep an eye on the Capra Demon as he paces at the player. After facing multiple versions of him later in the game, the player can see how much of his formidable assault relied on his previous surroundings. In short, the encounter(s) with him becomes a dynamic presence in the game thanks to his initial assault. He also allows a sense of progression in terms of what the player will see of him/herself at a much later point in the game.

The other six bosses won't get too much credit from me because they crossed the line for me in terms of being a cheap ploy at 'being hard'. The one positive thing I will mention regarding them is that they are both intense, memorable, and composed of bosses that are aesthetically fantastic in terms of general art and design (the music for both of them is among my top five favorites in the game as well). Playing solo against either however will lead to many frustrated encounters if the player isn't either overly prepared for them or is conveniently equipped with a build geared at taking advantage of a weakness in either one of the characters. I personally got lucky with the latter, but that didn't change the fact that both of these battles are ones in which the player will typically have to break the game's world somehow in order to triumph over them single-handedly. Either one could have been easily solved by the likes of a fog-gate having a Soul Level prerequisite in order to proceed.

Even I'll admit that I only beat these two due to luck my first time through.

Ornstein and Smough cross the line because of how much they complement each other, Smough being a gigantic hammer-wielding juggernaut that literally crushes anything standing in front of him, Ornstein being a nimble and powerful lance wielder with an imbuing of lightning. Beating either one supercharges the remaining fighter and refills his health bar. There's very little the player can do other than strafe throughout the somewhat cavernous area (which is the fight's only saving grace in terms of a reprieve) hitting them when it's only marginally appropriate. Again, this could have easily been avoided if Smough's fat ass actually got tired every five minutes and stop to rest (even if it was for only three seconds). Yes, he's slower than Ornstein, but he's almost always running around so the difference in speed between them is nearly irrelevant when trying to be strategic about it (not to mention the amount of reach he has with his hammer). There are very few sound cues between either of them and even learning the visual ones in terms of reading patterns will hit a wall in terms of what the player can do to counter. Were there some form of reasonable solace granted in the fight, this battle would actually be my favorite one in the game.

The Four Kings cross the line because of how much of the fight relies on time. If the player is unable to deal a certain amount of damage to one, another will join, then another---and another until they're facing all four massive figures in a dark abyss from which there is no means of escaping (apart from picking a direction and running in it, hoping they don't immediately follow you). The Kings I should mention aren't humanoid as the name implies. They're massive ethereal statue-like figures, each with swords capable of striking the player at least fifty feet off. Even when most of them are defeated, they respawn in some capacity just to keep the tension in the fight up.

These fights certainly aren't impossible, but they just show how when compared to the rest of the experience, they only stand out because of how severely imbalanced they are---not because of how 'challenging' they are. One can summon NPCs (while offline) to help with a few (if not all) of these fights, but the summoned characters are hardly any more than mere fodder for the boss to hit while the actual player can figure something out (they don't last long, and the game's AI is just as horrible as Demon's Souls's was). The trouble here for me is when summoning some of these NPCs, it's presented in the same manner that summoning an actual human player is. This created a dissonance for me, as a summoned Solaire suddenly doesn't talk or respond to me at all. He's just there to tank Smough for about two minutes. It wouldn't have killed From to allow a bit more of a lens on the game's lore through some of these summoned NPCs (also introducing more things that depend and change on their survival and treatment).

Speaking on not using a guide is intrinsically important with this game because it reminds me personally how and why I've always played games the way I do. Slowly, methodically, without help---and taking pride in discovering and building a character by myself---for myself. As great as the Dark/Demon's Souls Wikis are, how rewarding the game's community can be, they also satiate an easily rampant insecurity in gamers, to where they just have to create the most tailored builds and allow them to have the least frustrating time as possible. This destroys the entire point of the game in my eyes. A quote coming from Masahiro Sakurai is a nice summation of this problem^[3]:

"The thing is, this sort of thing happens all the time in games, especially RPGs, running into situations where you permanently miss out on important items or story events because you didn't know any better. I make every effort to avoid reading strategy guides or sites because I want to explore worlds for myself, these worlds that dozens of people worked hard to build, with as fresh a perspective as possible. This can have its drawbacks, because there are some things where it's completely to your advantage to have previous knowledge about. In the end, though, there's a lot of fun that comes out from the fact that you can't go back. This game wouldn't have been half as fun if it wasn't built that way."

The joy of making mistakes in a game like Dark Souls is what makes it such an experience, much more so than other games that hold your hand so much---it doesn't really matter either way. It's not just about pride in saying "Well, I'd much rather play the game like this", it's about insisting that you play the game on terms where it's actually worth something to complete even the smallest section or task on your own. Given the number of times that New Game Plus carries over for the Souls titles, the Wiki can easily be picked up after an initial SOLITARY playthrough (i.e. how I played both Dark Souls and Demon's Souls) to appreciate just the number of things one may have missed, messed up, and gotten on their own.

Dark Souls's narrative shares my criticism with Demon's Souls in that it's at many points too restrained. However, it beats out Demon's Souls for the sole fact that Lordran is a large interconnected world that feels more alive than Boletaria did. Like its predecessor, Dark Souls's narrative is gleaned through ambiance, atmosphere, and whatever the players fill the holes in with themselves. Even more than Demon's Souls, Dark Souls's world is more oppressive in the sense that this is not a quest to save the land(s). That battle has already been lost. As a player, you're simply in the hollow shell of what was once a thriving world now gone to hell. There's almost no optimism in the game, be it through characters, the world's design, or even both of the game's conclusions. Lore is gleaned through anecdotes, conversations with NPCs and item descriptions---just as Demon's Souls was. There are also subtle touches of interactions between certain characters in Dark Souls that leave their motives to question and just what place that have played (or do play) in the world.

Initially intimidating as hell, The Capra Demon loses his bite after
you silence his bark.

There are also some praises in design I should note, as most people skimmed over the game without noticing exactly what influenced the design of some of Lordran's areas. It was far more understandable for people to relate Demon's Souls to some singular categorization of a medieval aesthetic. Dark Souls doesn't do that at all. The Undead Parish/Burg are the only areas in the game that evoke this now. The rest are reminiscent of more 'high fantasy fallen very low'. Some areas show influence from periods not seen in games enough these days. For example. When the player goes from Blightown to Ash Lake, the forlorn nature of the game's world quickly becomes evident. That and the player can typically see the outskirts of other parts of the game's world from another, far off in the distance (Ash Lake is viewable from the Tomb of Giants, as is the Demon Ruins). Not only that but, the design is so dense that these far off areas give more sustenance to the area in which the player is currently in. For example, the Tomb of Giants is a labyrinthine cave on a cliffside. It's such an alerting experience thanks to the darkness, that it is almost impossible not to notice that the only natural source of light that the player receives is coming from the far off glow of the Demon Ruins's lava.

The entire thing starts in Blightown ,which is this game's version of the Valley of Defilement^[4]. This quickly turns into the Demon Ruins, which is a crumbling underground (not to mention lava-filled) path leading to the Lost Izalith, a nigh-impenetrable fortress run by a lost matriarchy of witches and showing a Mesoamerican influence (a particular favorite of mine) in its architecture. Personally, even the Izalith paled in comparison to the Duke's Archives which took a couple of features prominent in my favorite Demon's Souls area^[5] and rammed them into an aesthetic which is appreciative towards my current job.

Dark Souls is still mostly a challenging and richly rewarding experience, but it's also much less punishing than its predecessor thanks to the bonfires peppered throughout the world (which are arguably the game's most rewarding things). It keeps and builds upon most of Demon's Souls strengths while showcasing all the same faults. Like I said...tunnel vision.

1. One of my many posts from last year, giving my impressions with Demon's Souls. [http://goo.gl/7qtCy]
2. The official website's url. [http://www.preparetodie.com/en/]
3. Masahiro Sakurai Plays Dark Souls [http://goo.gl/YTdz8]
4. Demon's Souls's poison marshland. [http://goo.gl/DRvna]
5. The Tower of Latria [http://goo.gl/T9Pi0]

It’s All In The Game!

2011-09-28T20:27:00.001-05:00

Over the past seven days, I’ve seen at least three high-hitposts that somehow manage to take two things that shouldn’t be held together inthe same regard to make a statement which can only interpreted as a subjective abomination.I’ve decided to join the ludicrousness here, but I’m going to be a bit morecreative with it. I won’t use extremely biased points to reach a conclusion forthe sake of ‘stirring the pot’^[1], nor will I make some silly tongue-n-cheekreductivist claim at the expense of a myriad of class and race problems^[2].Nope, I’m going to use two of those horribly attention-whoring posts to formone in which both parties can live in harmony!

I recently went through and rewatched the The Wire (which Ididn’t think I’d have a hankering for again at least for a few more years), butupon completion I realized a disturbing number of people comparing the show tothe likes of other high-profile television serial dramas---most likely because of the Emmy Awards (and fans of The Wire remain bitter to this day that the show touted as 'the greatest television show ever' somehow managed to not win any of these awards). Mainly though, I’m speakingof Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and The Sopranos.Now, I’ve seen two of those shows and a bit of remaining one and I’m prettycertain that none of them are even in the same league as The Wire. No, I’m not saying ‘this is objectively better than this’---whatI am saying is that the modus operandi of the former three isn’t the same asDavid Simon’s fictional assault of Baltimore. Despite the fact that theaforementioned three are good and entertaining shows, The Wire is the only one that wasn’t designed with a core focus onentertainment, in fact it might be the only television show that ever has donesuch a thing (at least to the degree it did). Now, if you’re a fan of my blogyou should be able to immediately see where I’m going with this…

There’s a certain game that I’m a big fan of that wasn’tdesigned as pure entertainment either. I covered it in quite a few posts lastyear and I stand by that assertion to this day. Since the spiritual successorto this game is due out in a week, I figure such a post is timely. Yes, that game is Demon’s Souls, From Software’s 2009 ballbuster that pulled none ofits punches and punished the player for even the slightest whiff of stupidityduring play.

Both of these pieces of media are initially experiences thatmay or may not appear too dense for someone to just jump into, typicallybecause their first impression of them are that they are too boring, or toohard to 'get into'. These experiences do not cater to the audiences whims. It assaultseverything they fundamentally hold dear as mere viewers and players.

At this point, I’m going to use an article^[3] to illustratethe similarities between these two (and a little bit of research on my part^[4]). Thereare five dense seasons in The Wire just as there are five dense stages in Demon’sSouls and each are notably different experiences from one another. For theuninitiated, the article I’m using basically uses the opening scenes of eachseason of The Wire to illustrate whatthat respective season is meant to accomplish (something David Simon said wasintentional on him and his crew’s part).

Season 1: The Wire

"The scene:McNulty interviews a witness to the killing of a man nicknamed "SnotBoogie," who was shot after robbing the local craps game once too often.When Jimmy asks why they kept letting Snot play after he robbed them a time ortwo, the surprised witness explains, "Got to. This America, man."

"The theme:America and all its institutions are now so fundamentally committed to businessas usual that they keep letting their own equivalents of Snot Boogie into thegame, since that's the way it's always been done."

Demon’s Souls: TheBoletarian Palace: How many people picked up Demon’s Souls under false pretenses? They might say they werelooking for an enjoying action RPG, but the second that first dredgling leaped upon them, they immediately got pissed. The formula from The Wire is working backwards in this instance, as business asusual was letting gamers into this experience to begin with. Every gamer thatpicked up Demon’s Souls and got pissedbecause it was too hard, picked it up to soothe some weird fucked up RPG standardit didn’t live up to, or even those who picked it up solely because of itsquickly acquired reputation for being hard were all shot down. They were all inessence ‘killed over some bullshit’. The tagline for the DVD of The Wire is ‘ListenCarefully’ and this is something I myself immediately picked up on in Demon’sSouls level 1-2. The famous bridge where a large red dragon comes swooping downto burn any living thing making its way across is easily avoided. I recall acertain reddit exchange where the voice of dissent was claiming that Demon’s Souls offers no indicator ofthis encounter, that the game was just cheap, stupid, and uncessarily hard.Both myself and another opposing redditor were kind of dumbstruck at thisbecause our assumed reaction was simple:

We heard that dragon’swings seconds before it came roaring down to burn us---therefore we avoidedthe attack. This is business as usual in gaming. Players have been trained tojust run across the bridge and if there’s danger, there better be a big fuckingsign that says ‘hey stupid, look behind you!’. Demon’s Souls relentlessly requires that you pay attentionto what is going on at all times, or else you’re just going to end up lost andfrustrated. Sound like a certain television show?

Let’s not forget the sense of familiarity that is associatedwith any ‘first level’ in any videogame. Demon’s Souls being as unforgiving asit is essentially guarantees that the player will not soon forget theBoletarian Palace, just like any viewer of The Wire won’t soon forget the D’AngeloBarksdale^[5] running grounds. Such an opening level easily relates to The Wire’s ‘pit’, where that sameraggedy-ass orange couch holds analog to Demon’sSouls’s infamous bridge.

Season 2: The Wire

"The scene:McNulty, banished to the marine unit, is reminiscing about the now-defunctfactories that once ringed Baltimore's harbors when he gets a distress callfrom a party yacht that's stalled in the shipping channel. The tux-clad hostbribes Jimmy to let his swanky pals continue their soiree unmolested."

"The theme: SeasonTwo deals with the disappearance of American industrial life, as seen throughthe eyes of the barely-employed union men on Baltimore's docks. McNulty'srun-in with the party boat shows how a place like the harbor, which onceprovided steady employment to the city's blue collar citizenry, has now becomejust another playground for the rich."

Demon’s Souls:Stonefang Tunnel: The resignation the player will have at this point iseasily relatable to officer Jimmy McNulty’s banishment to the docks throughoutthe second season. Coincidentally, the enemies here mirror the laborforce in The Wire, being hostileworking goblins (literally, the golbins are mining as you make your waythroughout the level like a small workforce) that don’t take kindly to havingtheir area infringed upon. The docks in general is an easy corollary to stage 2’smining tunnel. The long arduous path to the first and second boss is alsoreminiscent of Frank Sabotka’s situation in which he accepts the compromise ofshipping illegal materials for the sake of making ends meet. His dangerous butefficient shortcut mirrors that of Stonefang’s horrific drop which servesas a infamous shortcut to stage two’s boss, the Flamelurker, and taking on theFlamelurker with anything less than magic is trouble most people are simply unprepared for.

Season 3: The Wire

"The scene: Dopeslingers Bodie and Poot witness the demolition of the high-rise towers wherethey once worked, and discuss how often Poot caught social diseases from a girlthere. ("Don't matter how many times you get burnt," Bodie says."You just keep doin' the same.") The high-rise implosioninadvertently fills the surrounding streets with dust."

"The theme: Two,two, two themes in one! As Bodie and Poot's boss Stringer Bell and policecommander Bunny Colvin each try - and fail - to change the way their side ofthe drug war does business, Bodie's words foreshadow the pointlessness ofattempting reform. Meanwhile, Stringer's partner Avon Barksdale gets caught upin a pointless war with rival Marlo Stanfield, which becomes an Iraq warallegory; the high-rise implosion and its aftermath are framed to evoke 9/11."

Demon’s Souls: TheTower of Latria: Just as stage three is my favorite level, season three ofThe Wire is my favored season. Whatbegins in a prison-like insane asylum ends up branching out in the decayedtower of a once revered queen. Theplayer cuts the chains on a massive heart to gain access to an elevated towerwhere two ruthless and infamous enemies are likely to viciously ^[6] kill you.The decay of a once great tower is shown across the simple aesthetic in thislevel, just as streets show the decay of the bureaucracy inherent in Batltimore’sPolice department. The trip from the hellish depths of the swamplands to thehighest tier of the tower show that no matter where you go, you’re essentiallyfucked. You’re not getting out. The gameis out there, and it’s either play or get played.

Season 4: The Wire

"The scene: Snoop,one of Marlo's chief assassins, visits a hardware store in search of a new nailgun. A salesman, not realizing Snoop intends to use the device to seal up hermany victims in abandoned homes, gives her an elaborate lesson on the value ofpowder-actuated nail guns."

"The theme: Thefocus shifts to a Baltimore middle school and how the city school system isn'tpreparing many of its students for anything but life on a drug corner. Snoop'sconversation with the hardware salesman is the first lesson of many where thestudent takes away something entirely different from what the teacher intended."

Demon’s Souls: TheShrine of Storms: The tagline for season four is ‘no corner is left behind’which is funny considering that the corners in the Shrine of Storms are themost dangerous in the game, featuring cliffsides where any hyper-poweredskeletal guard could be waiting with a giant axe, and there’s no time to think asthe childish manta rays are there toprove just much of a danger at almost every turn. Any small amount of hope seeninside the safety of the caverns is a false light emitted by invisible wraithswho are just as deceptively much of a danger as any potential-filled child whois forced to grow up on the corner. There’s no solace in any classroom if you’rejust fated to go right back outside, and any formidable challenge in the faceof the player is actually just a blind^[7]obstacle to be overcome so you can proceed back outside.

The Wire: Season 5

"The scene: Homicidedetective Bunk cons a very dim suspect into believing that a copy machinedoubles as a lie detector."

"The theme: “Seasonfive is about ‘what didn’t happen’. This is the great joke that we played the newspapersthis year. And I said ‘you’re gonna be angry at us’. Not all journalists. I gota bunch of correspondence from smart journalists who got it. People consumestories on one level for the most part, not everybody—-but a lot of people do.The guts of what happens in The Wire season five is what doesn’t happen.”"

Demon's Souls: The Valley of Defilement: ‘Read Between the Lines’ is the tagline for the concludingseason of The Wire and the archdemon for world five respresents that in spades.Not only that, but she ideally captures ‘what doesn’t happen’. There is no climaticboss battle, there is a confrontation where the player is depressinglyintroduced to the futility of their actions and just what it is they’refighting towards. In a game that places very little ‘in your face’ emphasis onits story, what the player reads between the confrontations with Maiden Astraeaand the concluding encounter with King Allant isn’t a note of triumph. Itseither a potent realization of sorrow or a primal awakening of a lust for power.

Nothing is won, no greatness is gained. At best, theconclusion of Demon’s Souls is like The Wire in the same sense that either onerises to power with a vain lust to maintain and cultivate it further or afailed hope in trying fruitlessly to uphold their sense of right and wrong in aworld that no longer has any meaning for such concepts anymore.

1. IGN’s pointless article comparing Skyrim to Dark Souls.

2. questfolove calls Breaking Bad ‘the white wire’, why? Godonly knows.

3. ‘Keys to the Wire’ by Alan Sepinwall

4. Since the prior article was written while season five wasstill on the air, I added my own summation for season five, mostly gleaned from a lecture I watched DavidSimon give on YouTube.

5. One of The Wire’s ‘babies’, a mascot for what happens whenany real change is attempted in a world that renders you obsolete.

6. Go find Stringer Bell’s eerily similar fate when he decidesit’s okay to cut the heart of out of his own business measures.

7. See Roland Pryzbylewski

Poor Okamiden...

2011-09-26T15:26:00.003-05:00

Yeah, I’m still here. I’ve just been busy.

Kurow is full of weird slang.

While the list of recent games that interests me has beendwindling this year, the urge to write about the ones I have played hasn’t lost itswill at all. I’m well aware that I still owe this little space quite a fewblogs too, it’s just a matter of my finding the time to bang them out. One of thegames that I have been playing off and on over the past few months is Okamiden,the portable sequel to Clover Studio’s 2006 Zelda-killer (which if youregularly keep up with me---was a successful ‘assasination’ in my eyes)[1]. Thetitle for this post is apt because this game will be the middle child in what I’massuming for the series’s future. I completed the little adventure last nightand I was quite impressed with it.

What surprised me is that even with no immediate title to pointlesslycompare it to, I couldn’t help feeling that upon completion, Okami as a potentialfranchise just zapped away a bit more of the small reservoir of love that Ihave for the Zelda series. It’s surprising to me because Okamiden is not a gamewithout its flaws. It’s riddled with shortcomings and questionable decisionsleft and right, but still managed to intrigue me as a game even more than SkywardSword probably will (which I’ve decided to skip until I’m home for theholidays). The question there becomes why?

Well it wasn’t that hard to figure out after immediatelycompleting it, as the game’s conclusion is as satisfying as its predecessor---butstarkly more depressing. Even in comparison with more high-profile AAA gameswith focus on narrative, the game deals with its own in a surprisingly maturemanner. This is the biggest and most obvious thing that I took away from bothOkami and Okamiden. It actually cares about the little tale it’s presentingwhereas the likes of Nintendo only cares about its franchise’s continuity tothe extent that they can tease fans and keep it as vague as humanly possible asto not risk compromising things as ridiculous as its timeline’s continuity (allwhile appealing to the fanbase’s every whim) [2].

I’ve never been one to spare people details just for thesake of avoiding spoilers, but if you’re trying to keep things fresh in termsof Okamiden, you may want to stop reading here.

So the most famous thing about Okamiden is that a maincharacter dies at the end. Kurow, a living doll made by a Moon Tribe member (whowas prominent in the first title) makes a small doll in his image; Kurow isthen sent down from the moon and immediately befriends Chibiterasu (the maincharacter and son of Okami’s main heroine, Amaterasu). What was surprisingabout Kurow is that in reality he was a MAJOR player in the overall game. It’s arguablethat the player will spend even more of their time with Kurow on Chibiterasu’sback rather than Kuni (son of the first game’s Susano and the small childfeatured prominently on all the game’s advertising). That leads into another discussionon the games treatment of its partner characters. Chibiterasu befriends five childrenwho all play major roles in his adventures during the game:

Kagu – A brash young girl who participates in theatre actingas a passion, but is also ashamed of being a powerful Miko practitioner.

Nanami – A young mermaid who the player meets chronologicallybefore she actually first appears in the game proper.

Manpuku – A portly boy looking for his mother in the pastwho has a distinct weakness for eating.

Kurow – The eccentric ‘doll’ sent from the moon. He talksand carries himself in the same style as Okami’s Ushiwaka.

Kuni – Susano’s adopted son who is captured after the secondboss battle for the entirety of the game.

The game weaves these five together as well as a game of itsnature will allow, even going so far as to repeat the time-travel thematic thatthe first game used so ‘epically’. This is the most defining characteristic anddifference I can ascribe between Okami and Okamiden. The former was a massiveand epic adventure encompassing a narrative that worked on multiple scales.Okamiden is about a third of its predecessor’s size (going off my own playtimeas Okami took sixty hours for me to complete my first time through; Okamidentook around twenty five), and made more use of thematic mechanics in terms ofhow its story unfolded. Not only that, but it makes use of subtlety to hammerhome those themes too. The best example I can think of to describe that is theappearance of the ‘Goryeo’ from the first game[3]. What was a sunken ship inthe first title is a thriving vessel in Okamiden, filled with people and doublingas a sort of mini-dungeon. As its arc draws to a close however, a sea dragonappears and attacks the ship. Instead of the expected boss battle with thedragon, the captain and its members proudlylecture Chibiterasu and Kurow on the responsibility meant for them both andforces them off to complete their own journey.

As Kurow carries a cryingChibiterasu off (who is upset because he wants to help the ship’s crewmemberswho are facing dire odds), one can make out the ship being dragged violently underwaterby the serpent. Granted, some of its members do survive and can be met later,but the way in which the scene dealt with the concept of loss was unexpected fora portable game of this type, and as far as I know there was no indication atall that the crew as a whole survived, so you’re left to accept the death of anumber of people you just recently met.

The things that really work against the game are the reasonI almost stopped playing halfway through myself. Technically, the game isinferior to its PS2 counterpart. There’s only so much a portable game will beable to accomplish so that much was obvious. Aesthetically, it’s just ascharming, but not as surprising as the first game. This means that novelty thatwas present in the first game is now lost in a game that is technicallyhindered as well being only a supplement in terms of its own aesthetic originality.The difficulty of the game is not to be overlooked either, as one will probablymake their way through the entire game being able to count their total numberof deaths on a single hand. There’s only so much sense of accomplishment onecan glean from a game when it’s as easy as this, and that ends up workingagainst it. The celestial brush techniques are varied, but don’t deviate thatmuch from the first game and only enjoy the DS’s more-suited touch screenfunctionality at best. The game generally relies too much on retreadingmechanics, themes, and areas from the first game without (or only minimally) garneringappreciation for each. As much as I appreciated the double trip to twodifferent sections of Nippon’s past, we did do the exact same thing in Okamitoo---we didn’t need a checklist crossed off in terms of ‘cool stuff we shouldjust do again’.

So the first ten hours was me fighting that last paragraphin its entirety, but the latter fifteen or so let the young characters shineand Okami’s original game mechanics take center stage in an admirable fashion easilyworthy of its big PS2 brother. The music is just as lovely as it was before andit more than anything else---breathes new life into the old areas the playerwill traverse again[4]. Given the somber conclusion of Okamiden (Kuni isdenounced as a son by his father and leaves home to learn about his past), bothKuni and Chibiterasu could easily appear in a grander fashion on a morepowerful console.

Okamiden makes me enthralled to think about what could bedone with a new PS3 iteration, but at the same time I don’t even think it wouldbe worth it at this point either [5]. Gamers have proven that they don’t reallywant (nor do they deserve) it.

1. There’s a in-depth post in there somewhere, but in orderto capture it accurately, but I’d have to play both Okami again and a Zelda ofmy choosing (probably Ocarina of Time) to figure out why I’m so intent on Okamiproving Zelda’s unequivocal failure. As it stands, I’ve enjoyed the first Okamititle more than I have any one Zelda game.

2. Nintendo has spoken on this countless times, but the mostrecent instance I’ve read is in this month’s Game Informer where Zelda’s series producerstates outright that they purposefully keep the series continuity and narrativedownplayed because otherwise they’d have to give it priority comparable to thegame’s mechanical design (which is about the laziest damn thing I’ve heard).

3. Okami Wikia – Sunken Ship [ http://goo.gl/GI9mE ]

4. Check out ‘Evil King Supression’ – Okami’s Final Boss theme [ http://goo.gl/PNHw9 ]

5. Okami was in the Guinness Book of World records for beingthe least commercially successful game to win a ‘Game of the Year’ award. It failedto break 1 million in sales even including a 2nd release (the PS2 andthe Wii).

On Arkham Asylum...

2011-07-30T12:23:00.003-05:00

I really don’t like Batman…

I always feel as if it's necessary to initially point that out when talking about him. As far as mainstream comics go, I pretty much draw the line at anything that isn't Spider-Man (being that he was the only mainstream Caucasian 'superhero' I could even remotely relate to), but I've always been able to find appreciation in some of the others. One of those others is of course---the dark knight.

I've honestly never bothered with him past the obligatory childhood phase where I watched the Tim Burton movies and just had to have the accompanying toys. However, I was cynically surprised when Nolan rebooted the films to their mostly-deserved critical acclaim (though I recently flew off on a rant about how The Dark Knight should be a mediocre film^[1]).

So, apart from genuinely enjoying Nolan's recent trilogy, I've had no real exposure to the comic hero---then I purchased Batman: Arkham Asylum this past week. While I was initially impressed by the demo I played last year, it still wasn't quite enough for me consider shelling out for. Then on a whim I decided on Arkham Asylum instead of Nier. I don't regret the purchase (especially considering it's a two-year old game that only ran me $20), but once again I'm a victim of knowing who and exactly what I want out of my games^[2].

First and foremost, the hype for the game itself far outclassed it, but being that could generally apply to any 'well-recieved' games, I guess I should clarify even further that games like this only stand out as paragons because they have no relevant competition. The last Batman game I personally remember playing is the accompanying Batman Begins game on the original X-box, which wasn't actually a terrible game^[3]. What Rocksteady did with Arkham Asylum was only notably exceed the basic formula for what will make a decent Batman game. They didn't evolve it, they even didn't innovate it, they just expressed competence while navigating it (and threw in a few goodies for the fans to lull over).

What I find really taxing about the whole thing is that Batman is an inherently different figure to design a game for. When compared to the other biggies such as Spider-Man or Superman, it's instantly recognizable that Wayne only has one thing---his wallet. That wallet allows access to neat little gadgets and gizmos that almost scream 'Hey! design game mechanics around me!'. Now I'm not arrogant enough to say that this inherently makes it easier to design a game for, but I will say it should throw into question to how all games featuring Batman's family^[4] should be designed. Hell even the general navigation of Batman is more fitting in gaming than the likes of Spider-Man, Superman, and any number of heroes that designers think it's more 'fun' to focus on in terms of their 'powers' (e.g. Parker can swing everywhere and this is something that most of the Spider-man games consistently get right because that's all that most people care to deem 'important').

Stealth shouldn't be an exclusive trait to Batman in the 'gameverse', but it seems to be given the general familiarity to who he is and what he can do (e.g. things such as Nolan's summation of Wayne's ninja training help aid this perception these days as well). Through these types of consistencies in the character, AA makes it very clear that Batman isn't invincible, as a couple of shots will put his ass down for the count---thus this makes the game at times a very methodical experience (which is mostly to its merit). Like I just stated though, it shouldn't be exclusive to him as a character, as other more aptly named superheroes are just as susceptible to gunfire and the like and just as accommodating to other type of genre-work akin to stealth (again, Spidey is a great example there^[5]).

If I go any further with that, I'll just diverge too much into what I want out of an ideal Spider-Man game, so I'll stop here today.

Harley Quinn is cute though...

So the greatest compliment that I can give Arkham Asylum is that it is a fantastic new template for how any superhero game should be approached, but that's where my compliment ends. As a game on its own merit, it's just another reminder of how much lower gamers' standards are and how quickly they're willing to dote on something just to pass around geek communion (in this case the comic & game community which have always been in close proximity to one another). I'll give Rocksteady a deserved vote of confidence by purchasing Arkham City in a few months, but if it's not moving the concept's general milieu along in terms of its mechanics, characters, and interweaving between the source material's conflict translations^[6], then I'm not bothering again.

1. A quote from a Salon article that I recently read concerning comic heroes which hit a number of valid points but diverged way too much (and wildly) to be taken seriously past a certain extent.

[ http://goo.gl/bQB8d ]

2. My post here from two years ago where I identified the hype for what it was in regards to me.

[ http://goo.gl/Gzflk ]

3. It was just yet another unbearably medicore cash-in licensed game.

[ http://goo.gl/NqlTc ]

4. That is---any damn superhero.

[ http://goo.gl/hRCVL ]

5. Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions, I still haven't played this, but I'm guessing that even if it does acknowledge what I'm talking about here, it's still blatantly guilty of focusing on his superpowers instead of his limitations as a 'superbeing'.

[ http://goo.gl/sDEiu ]

6. This is just a shorter way of saying how a the source material's concept is translated to the player. In this case, that means how much of Bruce Wayne's conflict and 'I am Batman' the audience gets to feel instead of just the 'I'm Batman dude---fuck yeah!' design methodology that I picked up on as a substantial force driving Arkham Asylum.

Why Would Capcom Ask Such a Stupid Question?

2011-07-19T14:14:00.005-05:00

“As a fan of Resident Evil, what do you think we're doing right and what should we be working on?”^[1]

One would think that enough fans yelling the answer to this since 2004 would have left more of an impact on the series. Given that it actually HAS been seven years since Leon S. Kennedy traipsed through Europe^[2], inspiring a notable number of other developers to forgo one of the media’s longest lasting muscles^[3], it would only be sensible that such an echo chamber be created. The answer to the question is of course, atmosphere--- or at the very least some semblance of a narrative (the former of which can make the latter always seem more qualitative than it is if done competently). The answer of atmosphere should only inspire ‘fans of Resident Evil’ to ask their own question, which is:

“Why in the hell haven’t you delivered on it already?”

Even to the answer to that is obvious, as the action of RE4/5 easily pandered to a generation of gotta-shoot-shit-junkie gamers, understandably making them the best-selling entries in the franchise to date. Money was the answer, so the question then becomes:

“How much of that fanbase can you see yourself realistically parting with Capcom?”

The answer to this isn’t as cut-and-dry and would rely mainly on hypotethicals of optimism and pessimism that would be up for debate by any of the various fanboy camps involved. The current formula being tampered with would irrevocably alter the income generated by the games. What does a new Resident Evil even mean in the context of this late age of 7th generation console survival horror? The only reason Resident Evil is even still relevant is because it’s had no worthwhile competition to spur it on. I wouldn’t consider something like Silent Hill as competition like most would either, because it mainly provides a different type of fear in the new rhetorical age of what all of these games could potentially convey.

Resident Evil easily flew off into the action-cliché arena for another reason apart from money. That is---that it was simply more of an action-based game in the basest sense. The horror was always more external, rather than internal (something I intend to post about on its own when I get back to playing a ‘certain’ pre-4 Resident Evil title). Players were always better armed and they were consistently more powerful in the space of the game’s narrative context. Resident Evil 4 capitalized on this gloriously, abandoning all prior atmosphere and external horror in the face of power and a cathartic sense of action; instead of horror acting as an overbearing supplement for the latter two in the franchise, it was laid on top of an action game more along the lines of a mere aesthetic filter instead. The little horror that the games started out with has never progressed forth since. Capcom merely used all of the flashy design bells and whistles to ‘put the band-aid on a broken arm’ (i.e. HD optimization, inclusion of co-op elements, potent design focus on being a shooting gallery, etc.). There were also plenty of stagnant design decisions that when analyzed, become questionable in themselves (such the inability to move whilst shooting).

So many of the comments on that Facebook Status resonate with the older titles, but few give articulation towards what it would mean to make a new Resident Evil game that’s not just a mere remake^[4] or extension of an older title ^[5], but rather an admirable evolution in the design of the older games’ synergy. I don’t want to dwell too much on this post-because as I’ve said---I’ve got another one coming somewhere down the line concerning a pre-4 title specifically. So, here’s a short list of things off the top of my head that better-delve into the inadequacies of the franchise as it exists today.

1. Something Resident Evil 4 did right was depict Leon get butchered in a plethora of brutal and vicious ways^[6]. This was strangely absent in Resident Evil 5 where the dynamics of various socially-retarded design tropes began manifesting all over the place (e.g. Sheva wouldn’t be shown getting graphically mutilated simply because she’s a woman). So, less timid design choices would always be a plus in evolving the likes of fear, vulnerability, and gore that’s not specifically for gore’s sake. If you Capcom can GRAPHICALLY show a pair of tits shaking whenever a woman blinks her eyes^[7],they can GRAPHICALLY show them get ripped apart as well. At least grow a pair of testicles if you’re going to be GRAPHIC.

2. Something else Resident Evil 4 and 5 did well was introducing an exclusive air of tension into progressing through the story-mode. This of course, is undermined by how the AI will still react (i.e. running full speed at you then stopping just so the player can have a sort of ‘reaction reprieve’ and can see how much work the animators put in as the infected leer at you before launching a scripted strike). This has its ups and downs in both games, but putting an emphasis on how the enemies react or act at all is key. They can be mindless, but that has to be conveyed through their action (which is why the older games hold up, as the zombie’s action is consistent with the general perception of how a brainless undead corpse would act). It doesn’t hold up in the recent games because the Ganados and Majini are semi-intelligent entities that are part of a larger hivemind. When the illusion breaks on that (which is fragile as a spiderweb holding up a two-ton truck), the game devolves right back into a competent shooting gallery.

3. What the latter two entries in the main franchise remain utterly terrible at is the distribution of power available for the player. There’s a similar problem faced in stealth games where over-equipping the player kills the entire point of the genre. Resident Evil 4 basically said ‘fuck it’ and gave the player everything from tommy-guns CONVENIENTLY-useable rocket launchers. When finding weapons and ammo in the older games, it was complemented by the direness of your situation, requiring you constantly keep an eye on and maintain it. RE4/5 only do this in the superficial sense of the player managing the layout and organization of their weaponry rather than the content of what they have (yet another example of ‘the band-aid on the broken arm’).

4. There’s only a slight difference in the variance of monsters between the pre-4 titles and those afterwards, but there was better sense of unpredictability in the pre-4 titles. For RE4 and 5, the game had begun to hit the point of ‘going through the motions’ with what it offered in terms of its creatures instead of giving more interesting dynamics and systems to the ones that were already there. Sometimes the inefficiency of the combat system in the pre-4 titles worked in favor of gaining those titles atmosphere. If Capcom designed the over-the-shoulder shooting-mechanics to expose themselves with similar deficiencies (which are only alluded towards in certain areas of 4 & 5), then the franchise would begin moving forward again at least.

5. Narrative-wise, there’s no coherency in terms of the game’s scale. For the first three titles, which were confined to a small Mid-Western American city, more of a global sense of doom was available than that of the latter two games (which ironically take the player to two different damn continents). It was obvious at the point of RE5 that Capcom was more excited with ‘traveling’ for the sake of SAYING they’re doing something different rather than actually doing something different.

6. Then there’s the massive number of Japanese design problems inherent to their whole culture in terms of social inertia. This includes things such as the way both females and males are shown aesthetically, how the design of both the narrative and characterization have always been hovering just between camp and plain dumb, and just the general tendency for the Japanese to rely on their over-disciplined design principles out of the sheer sake of not wishing to shake up certain aspects of their games.

As usual, I don’t expect any of these to be acknowledged within the next two or three games---that is if they ever even will be. Too much experience with the franchise has run me dry towards being optimistic for it in any realistic sense. Someone like me is better off playing one of the older games and theorizing how they could be better-built upon, which is exactly what I’m doing these days anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

1. Resident Evil’s Facebook fanpage question [http://www.gamefreaks.co.nz/2011/07/18/capcom-seeks-resident-evil-feedback-facebook/]

Note for #1: Yes, I realize the fact that this being a fanpage question means that such a query is not likely to have been generated or even be accessible to the actual developers of the game and is just a pandering attempt by the fanpage itself to interact with and grow its fancount. I just used it as an excuse to write this. ^_^

2. Resident Evil 4 – Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_4]

3. Gears of War – Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gears_of_War]

4. Gamecube Remake of Resident Evil – Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_(video_game)]

5. Resident Evil: Revelations – Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_Revelations]

6. Resident Evil 4 Death video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHsHjrC6BXY]

7. Excella Gionne – Resident Evil Wikia [http://residentevil.wikia.com/Excella_Gionne]

No Comment

2011-07-15T11:29:00.034-05:00

"You're not an easy person to talk to."

This really originated as a response to some recent activity on my Tumblr (where a surprising number of people acted as if they paid for some type of strict gaming/art microblog without doing two seconds of work to figure out that I post everything from nudity to highly-offensive opinions and jokes), but before the backlash gets out of hand here as well, I thought I’d at least make one post explaining why comments are no longer enabled on my blog. Most of my readers HERE have just been expressing a bit of confusion on whether I don’t ‘allow’ them anymore, or it’s just their browser acting funny. Those actual readers do deserve an explanation in that regard, but people with some axe to grind on this topic can READ my two cents as well (especially given that the latter is really who this blog is aimed towards).

I’m not going to waste my time offering any academic muscle/backing for why I will no longer entertain feedback (and even calling it ‘feedback’ at this juncture is somewhat of a problem). Such work would be a waste on the ears that are likely to contest it on any ground inconvenient to their perception, so I’m not going to waste my time simply humoring the dense. I’m just going to address what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard and what I’ve gathered in response to not only my recent decision, but a conversation that went down earlier this year at Critical Distance.^[1]

First of all, not everyone wants or needs feedback as much as others (and even then, not in exactly the same way). This also applies towards how all blogs handle comments as well, which should be enough for the intelligent mind to settle at but obviously it isn’t. Many have begun working the pro-comment stance off that assumption alone, and it’s just as inherently flawed as any accusation made with it. This blog and its predecessors have pretty much just been 80% me expressing myself in regards to thoughts on various gaming topics. Occasionally, I did ask for feedback---sometimes my wording was even specifically geared to provoke it, but the structure of my writing style often called for a comprehensive understanding of one’s own individual dynamism, which would be better suited to a blog in itself (which I’d always gladly read when notified or if I found it on my own). Occasionally, people actually would e-mail their commentary to me anyway, as they felt odd publishing it on the post itself. I can even recall one quoting my blog here on Tumblr and offering her own commentary under the blockquotes.

"Personally, however, I feel this marks the beginning
of a new era of despair. What's your opinion?"

There’s also the reductionist accusation of this action being an ego problem. EVERYBODY HAS A DAMN EGO PROBLEM, but people who accuse others of ego problems generally are those with far more troubling self-image issues themselves that they're trying to conceal behind weak opinions and pseudo-true accusations, so the whole ‘ego-trip call-out’ is a wild shot in the dark against anyone who’s taken a similar route with their postings (the reason behind which could range from a sense of comfort and confidence in one’s own writing to overwhelming distaste for the ‘noise’ which the Internet is so effective at facilitating). If you have a need to assert an opinion towards the ‘originator’ of some kind of concept or idea, THAT in itself is an ego problem. The neurotic need to be ‘heard’ on the Internet is one that many people have given into, and announcing slavishly that others be branded with a similar mockup is borderline counterproductive to all of the arguments I’ve seen in favor of comments---or more specifically, in criticisms of the option to not allow any.

Anyone who has entered into my illusive circles of friends is always free to use any of the ever-growing list of social linkups to engage a discussion with me.^[2]That’s not what this is about. I’m not against comments, not at all. I’m against my ideas being challenged, questioned and engaged in a very particular fashion, as my idea of what that information will mean when it is will cause its value to degrade in my eyes. That’s it. One could make the statement that it’s simply too cumbersome to ‘go out of their way’ to offer their thoughts to me elsewhere, but I’m fine with that thought just being lost if the person is too busy, too apathetic, or outright too lazy to convey it (e.g. if you’re too lazy to sit on your ass and click open an e-mail to throw me your opinion, then I don’t really care either). The Internet has become an overbearing collection of noise and filtering it out for myself is my goddamn right these days. Manipulating the negative space is the forte of any competent crafter and that’s what a lack of comments represents to me (to offer an analogy to aid that metaphor, I very rarely take photographs of people for a somewhat related reason). I don’t necessarily operate off the assumption that I am actively encouraging conversation to happen elsewhere, but lo’ and behold I have an option that says put up or shut up’---at least enough to say that ‘I’d rather it be that way and this is the step I’ve taken to make it so’.

If you happen to be one of those people who just ‘shuts up’, an idea will be lost, but the world will NOT end. Get the fuck over it.

True enough that once a post is made public, it doesn’t necessarily belong solely to the author anymore. In effect however, disallowing comments allows the author to ‘vanish’ in sense. Such a sense has most commonly been described as liberating (with which I agree with). There’s also the assumption that the vanishing author (in terms of simply not engaging with his/her readers in comments) is not an action in itself---not only that but that such an action isn’t equal or possibly of more value than allowing comments/engaging. Asserting so is a dangerously short-sighted stance in favor of an (AT BEST) optimistic lure of debate and discussion which have more immediately tangible (and increasingly more often redundant) ‘results’.

And here’s a quote concerning the author who sparked such an action (no matter how unrelated it may or may not be to my particular related actions here).^[3]

“Ben Abraham is famous not only for having a very clever blog, but for having a blog at which it is impossible to comment. A little while back, Ben produced a post that prompted a good deal of controversy and discussion but because Ben’s site does not allow comments, it is now incredibly difficult to find out what was said. In a round-table discussion recorded for Critical Distance, Ben defends his decision to not allow comments and there ensues quite an intriguing chat about the value of different forms of online communication. Does not allowing comments encourage ‘the conversation’ by forcing people to write their own blog posts and argue on twitter or is it reducing something worth preserving to a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it trend on Twitter? You decide (Please RT, comment and pay attention to meee!)”

"Yes, it was because of that I became a vanishing mediator."

Comments such as this one make a valid point and further throw darts at certain problems in the sphere of game-blogging in particular. Obviously from this paragraph I’m referring to Twitter. Anybody that does follow me can easily note that in the past six months my style-usage for Twitter has transferred mostly to my Tumblr, which has taken its own monstrous form^[4]. There’s a reason for this. Twitter is a horrible medium for any type of realistic discussion/debate, so in essence that was the first move I made towards ‘vanishing’. Anytime a concise point CAN be made, the perspective can consistently be shown to reveal a facile and willfully-ignorant assault on the complexities of any given situation, all under the guise of being succinct. Given that this blog is about a relatively young medium that most of the populous is still growing up with, the pains of such a social structure (based profoundly on personal and biased viewpoints) that’s in itself built on the foundation of malleable digital information is dubious at best.

A comment is useless to me on numerous levels given that vast majority of the time as it's either:

A) Simply sympathetic towards my point.

B) A reactionary contrarian situated atop some nonsensical or irrational argument.

C) A troll looking for provocation.

D) A sparse critical look in which the basic foundations (or some irrelevant minutiae) of my ideas are questioned.

E) A comment without an exact goal or ‘message’, but a mere expression of stance/opinion as a reaction to my own (these are typically very long comments that deserve to be explored in posts in their own right). These are what usually get e-mailed to me.

Now does this mean that most of the comments I’ve received up until this point are 'worthless' (i.e. 'worth less') in the terms most relevant to this particular post? In regards to the criteria I just mentioned---yes. Are they the incentive for the lockout? Not---necessarily. Hell, 'E' is what I'm after most of the time (with a bit of D sprinkled in). Mostly it’s just a minimal factor in why I decided to do it. My negative and positive experiences with comments overall is irrelevant because my conception of what ‘negative’ or ‘positive’ even means is subject to debate in itself.

It has nothing to do with privacy. If I didn't want anybody to read or engage with my idea, I wouldn't have posted it at all, especially not on the vicious and cacophonous cesspool of opinion that is the Internet anyway...

It's about distance. It’s about my weariness with the ludicrousness of syntax and semantics that so many arguments these days are based on (gaming-related and not). I'd rather the discussion (if there's any to be had) take place away from me for a countless number of reasons both personal and logical; and even if it’s in my reach, I want the option continually open for myself where I’m not simply obligated to launch a response towards someone that may not see a certain discussion in the same light as me. This is especially in regard to people I'm not already familiar with and doubly so for arguments I’ve repeatedly come across in my years of posting about games.

"As your captive audience, I've listened to your words,
now I have a few for you----"

It’s not about me not caring what someone has to say, it’s about allowing the audience to make up its own damn mind and not waste its time trying to fruitlessly and gradually proselytize me towards their own viewpoint. By all means engage with my thoughts and ideas, but don’t you ever assume that you’re entitled to engage with ME on them. Quote me, praise me, eviscerate my entire posts piece by piece, or simply call me an idiot, but don’t expect to do it here. Forced attempts to do so have already seen me tossing all cordiality out the window and acting as troll and/or malicious manipulator (and anybody who knows me beyond a superficial level will instantly attest to this, as I’m notorious for purposefully manipulating information for various ends) to provoke people in fashions that most likely will be more affective towards communicating any idea I deem necessary.

It sure as hell isn’t about controlling conversation. Well---it is controlling towards conversation with me specifically, but if you knock on my door I have no obligation to answer (something else plenty of people will attest to concerning me). People saying the existence of the door does actually obligate me to answer is tickling. People saying they have the constitutional right to stand on a soapbox in the face of any author on the merits/demerits of their work is downright hilarious. Hell, it’s actually leaving the door open (though it may not be as encouraging as I’d like it to be) for a more tangible sense of ‘free’ conversation to blossom.

Ironically though, where my reclusion has kicked in on written expression, it has receded in visual (i.e. my two-year-long ban on the likes of future commissions and finished illustrations/paintings being posted here from now on).

The Internet along with too much recent Ghost in the Shell re-viewings/readings has given birth to a newfound contempt for discussion that is pointless in cyberspace. Welcome to it manifesting on Misanthropic Gamer.

“DARN IT! THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF WORD-USE IN THELEAST! THIS IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF INFORMATION THAT OUT TO BE RELAYEDELECTRONICALLY! WHY DID THEY WASTE TIME WRITING OUT A NOTE JUST TO TELL METHAT!? THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WORDS ISN’T THE SUPERFICIAL ABILITY TO CONVEY FACTS,BUT RATHER TO STRUCTURE THE SELF-PROGRAMMING QUALITY THAT’S INHERENT INLANGUAGE ITSELF!!! THEY DON’T GET IT!!!”^[5]

Thank you, and good day.

1. Critical Distance Podcast, Episode 7 [http://www.critical-distance.com/2011/02/10/episode-7-a-post-comment-world]
2. Misanthropic Gamer, Hypocrisy Tab [http://snakelinksonic.blogspot.com/p/hypocrisy.html]
3. On Magazines and Conversations [http://ruthlessculture.com/2011/02/24/on-magazines-and-conversations/]
4. My Tumblr [http://snakelinksonic.tumblr.com/]
5. Tachikoma, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex Episode #2, ‘TESTATION’ [http://ghostintheshell.wikia.com/wiki/Runaway_Evidence]

The Ridiculousness of Pokémon, Part IV

2011-07-13T12:50:00.009-05:00

The experience of playing through any of the Pokémon titles often naturally leads to a place of extreme player-entitlement. To be honest, this is something that most games in general are guilty of, but focusing on the franchise at hand leads to some interesting questions to say the least. The world that players are meant to inhabit is so skewed narratively and mechanically, that nearly no illusions are present in which they aren’t ‘the special one’ (i.e. the game doesn’t even try to pretend you’re just another trainer rising to prominence).

Sure, we’re consistently given things such as rivals to serve as wannabe illusions/complements, but at no point do the actions of that rival manifest in such a way that would challenge the player to honestly think of them as such (and in turn, think of themselves outside of the ‘I’m the special trainer’ mindset). The only one that even came close was Blue and this was mainly due to the fans running amok with nostalgia and deifying him as a meme as time passed.^[1]In reality, he wasn’t that much different and at best, was only a notch above the others due to the limitations in the software/hardware at the time. Also, take a look at the situation in this sense---very, very, VERY rarely does the player actually witness an in-game battle that is not their own (for example, two regular trainers engaging each other or two legendary Pokémon clashing in the wild). Of course there could be a plethora of situations that would call for simple spectation (off the top of my head, an example would be coloring a Champion as a formidable fighter long before the player has to engage them him/herself).

Exacerbating this even further is the fact that over 60% of the NPCs in the games are barely even that---‘Non-Player Characters’. It’s possible that the original Japanese versions of the game are able to hide this better, but I’m assuming for the sake of argument that at best they’re only minutely less embarrassing. Most of the time, NPCs are just ‘grindstones’ or ‘event-dispensers’. They exist mostly for the player to gain EXP from (which is a can of worms in itself to engage in most RPGs period) or they exist to give the player some tool (such as a Hidden Machine) that they need to proceed further in the ‘narrative’. To ask for anything such as ones with actual writing or creative existences (e.g. importable characters across different games) would be stupid on my part, so I’ll spare you the ‘what I wants’ in this paragraph. However, to keep this entitlement rant going, I'll also assert that this applies to the base moveset in the games as well.

Bullshit.

The total number of moves actually rivals the number of creatures in the current roster (i.e. 649 pokemon sporting 559 moves).. This stifles any sense of individuality the games could possibly have for the sake of having control over the stat-play that's so popular among the hardcore players. If the moveset were say---double the number of current creatures (i.e. 1,200 moves between 649 Pokemon), we’d be looking at a much richer experience, but only special legendaries and mascot fodder have noteworthy signature moves, and most of them can learn the same moves. The moves themselves don’t differ that much between most Pokémon and when it does, it’s only in the most extreme cases.

Fittingly enough, where individuality is positioned up front and center, it’s pissed on within the same game or one title later. The previously-mentioned OT/Nickname dilemma is one of the more prominent ones (e.g. when a player loses their status as an Original Trainer when transferring any Pokemon across gens). Another example is one of the sneakiest and one of my most personally reviled: Shiny Pokemon.^[2]

The concept is intriguing, but the execution is nothing short of insipid. The rarity between any player catching a shiny Pokemon without any kind of aid is pretty damn rare and THIS is assuming they play any of the games for well over 200+ hours.

First and foremost, shiny Pokemon are simple palette swaps in the franchise's current state. In generation II there was a slight difference in IVs (1/2 of the underlying code that individuates the overall battle efficacy of any given Poke), but after generation III it was scrapped and left these catches as rare aesthetic ‘treats’ to stumble across through extensive play. A palette swap Pokemon in itself doesn’t bother me, but the method to which they are applied in every single game I’ve seen them in is as I said---nothing short of stupid. Personally speaking, more than half of them are just plain ugly. The colorings reek of programmers childishly turning the tone meter all the way in the opposite direction and expecting players to freak out when said ugmo jumps out at them in the wild.

There’s nothing wrong with questioning why each individual species of Pokemon don't AT LEAST have a dozen different colors.

(and if I really want to be demanding, differing sprite positionings between each one), because current Pokemon variations such as Shellos^[3], Spinda^[4] and Unown^[5] are just bad arguments. Such a drastic variation between each Pokemon species could realistically turn a 649 roster closer to 8,000 if done with a certain level of expertise. As it stands for any of the current games, I don’t begrudge any player that has hacked a shiny Pokemon (or got it ’off the back of a truck’) over the course of their play, as the rarity of even encountering these butt-ugly palette swaps is ludicrous to begin with. I’ve seen children and adults act like idiots to get their hands on them, trading away hard-earned Pokemon for these things, all in the name of grasping a jokingly superficial status of individuality and expression.

Just so you have more of a sense of what it takes to get a shiny Pokemon the ‘legit’ way (speaking towards something more removed from flat out numbers), it recently took me three weeks of Soft-Resetting^[6] (basically just cutting the system on and off) my DS in Pokémon Diamond to get a shiny Giratina^[7]. I spent at least two hours every day doing it nonstop and came away getting one fairly easy after about 3,000 resets. And yes, I only did this just to say I did (and to also palpably grasp the insanity of catching one personally) and also because I’m a stubborn idiot.

And us idiots compose 90% of the Pokemon fandom and most of those are unquestioning slaves to the little scam that ‘NintenFreak’ has set up. A smaller amount are fans that are so dependent on the franchise’s system that they---inspire this quote from Morpheus:

"And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependant on the system, that they will fight to protect it."^[8]

The rest are in my arena---and are arguably the worst. These are the players who are well-aware of the inanity of the franchise but continue to give our vote of approval with further purchases. Either way the coin falls, it’s not likely to matter. Why? Because gamers are known for a lot of things, but speaking with their wallets isn’t one of them. GameFreak & Nintendo now UNDERSTANDABLY rely on this basic rule of thumb, which is why the series only grows in popularity.

1. Gary Oak – Know your Meme [http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/gary-oak]
2. Shiny Pokemon – Bulbapedia [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Shiny_Pok%C3%A9mon]
3. Shellos – Bulbapedia [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Shellos]
4. Spinda – Bulbapedia [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Spinda]
5. Unown – Bulbapedia [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Unown]
6. Soft-Resetting [http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Soft_reset]
7. Shiny Giratina Image [http://www.flickr.com/photos/snakelinksonic/5797261042/in/set-72157626883811256]
8. Quote from Morpheus in The Matrix [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheus_(The_Matrix)]

A Throwaway Experience...

2011-06-29T13:20:00.003-05:00

After completing the free-download inFAMOUS, I had no incentive to write about it. Being a fairly old game now, I assumed my problem with it would easily be echoed by others in a quick Google search and it didn't take long to find this passage (among many others) that resonated with how I felt on the game.

"I made a choice that I wasn’t entirely proud of, but it was MY choice. The game felt so much closer to me now, I had imprinted myself into it. It had let me imprint myself into it. Except that it had not. A cut-scene explained that I had not really saved my girlfriend, that I had been tricked because she was among the doctors. OK, I thought, I’ll replay the mission and save those guys then. Hmmm, well no, not really because this time you were not tricked, see? Basically, she was going to die either way.

And I must say that sucks. That moment right there threw every other choice I had made into the dumpster. For a moment, it felt as if all the small choices were in preparation for this big, truly meaningful choice. And when that moment shattered, so did all those other, small moments.

When I reached the ending, I had very low expectations. The ending was surprising, tying the story in a cool, unexpected way. But again, it was identical regardless of any choice the player had made during the game. In the game’s defense I will say that it could be interpreted differently, but the words and the imagery are the same. The only reward, the only difference comes after the credits, when the character makes a final statement that sums up the player’s behavior and how it has affected the world.

Every choice made dies with the game, with the virtual world. When we power the game off, the choices made lose all meaning, they are turned off along with the game. We are never left to deal with the consequences of our actions, never allowed to really care about our choices. We are given the Illusion of Choice. And when the illusion breaks we see the game for the piece of plastic that it is, and go to bed so we may forget about it."

(via Intelligent Design)

I have no incentive to try the recently released sequel now because of how cheap the above situation laid out the game's experience. Admittedly, I was interested enough to spoil the entire thing for myself via the game's Wikia, but this only backed up my stance that I wasn't missing anything. inFAMOUS is certainly an enjoyable title, but without the comic-homage plot wrapped around it (which in some areas, wasn't half-bad), it's just another superhero simulator that's merely enjoyable to play (i.e. if I want to run around and blow shit up, games such as it are a dime a dozen).

Sketch #3 Amaterasu + Shiranui

2011-06-18T09:59:00.001-05:00

I recently cleaned out all of my pre-2010 artwork and threw the rest of it away (all that's left sketch/mechanics-wise is what's in the posted sketchbook). The main reason for such a massive purge was that I decided to turn over a new leaf with my work, as I've always avoided posting any of my finished artwork online (which is why the illustration/painting section of my blog has been neglected for the past year). These days I'm in a far more playful/apathetic mood about how the Internet consumes such things (to clarify, I've never been concerned so much with artists rights as I've been with the entirety of how art is perceived in the particular space of the Internet), so even that section of my e-corner will start to fill up soon.

I decided to cap off the release of that irritation by fleshing out one of the old sketches, which is what I've posted today. Chosen mainly because I recently purchased Okamiden and am slowly making my way through it, this is a mixture of the visage between Shiranui & Amaterasu (which are honestly the same being regarded as different creatures due to the perception of 'incarnations'), I basically jammed the imagery I had of the two together and got this. A far less feral looking canine, but still much less reserved than what Amaterasu would normally appear as.

...and she's pissed because, well---I just like angry women. ;)

The Ridiculousness of Pokémon, Part III

2011-05-31T17:36:00.001-05:00

My biggest pet peeve with the series is what I railed against last year. Well now I have a few more layers to add to that stance . For those who aren’t in the mood to dig back through to see those posts, I basically voiced my disdain for the series’ treatment of its battling.

This includes things such as the prioritization of the entire game’s fighting system to the extent that everything else suffers because of it (i.e. if you take battling out of Pokémon, you’re left with pretty much jack shit). Of course one could argue that this is the main premise of the game, but I’d take issue with that in itself. It’s always been my assumption that the designers simply relented at outright laziness to keep pumping out (at best) not only a math grinder (and not even a remotely deep one), but to exploit fans to the point where they don’t even want anything more from it either.

Let’s take that example I just used and run with it for a second. If you were to take battling out of Pokémon, what exactly are you left with? Pretty much a shell of nothing but another generic Japanese RPG. There are vistas to explore, some people to talk to but they are all contingent on not only just the concept of Pokémon, but battling with them. This can easily be tested by trying to find one NPC in any of the games that talks to you about something other than Pokémon or just something moderately distanced from them (you really have to fucking try to do it). You’re only ever acknowledged as a trainer within the world and nothing else. Even the other media outlets of the franchise offer options to the characters such as coordinating and breeding. In the games however, such things only exist as side-novelties; they’re superficial, they’re quick, they’re worthless (e.g. beauty contests). Yes, you can breed, but you’ll only be doing it for battling and not as an end game in itself (and you certainly won't be rewarded for it). You’re supposed to be cockfighting your Pokémon and anytime you try to ignore or deviate from that fact, the game simply becomes inane. Some of the features that actually do have promise get abandoned long before a new gen is even initiated (one of the first examples of this that pops into my head is the types of Poké Balls that players are allowed to use), and the others are just contingent on showing off the current hardware’s gimmick (color screens, touch screens, etc). Things like the Pokétch function in Generation IV showed such promise (especially for the DS) for those who wanted to do more than just constantly battle, but it got left behind as soon as HeartGold and SoulSilver rolled around (whose Pokégear was further left behind for the sake of the C-Gear which I ranted about in the previous post).

One of the few pleasures that I’ve personally eked out of the games aside from battling is hunting legendary Pokémon. I’ll state upfront that this is decorated by my bias for what I want to see rather than what’s actually in the game (i.e. I’ll play it up wherever I can to make things more enjoyable), but it’s definitely one of the few things I’m able to really enjoy when I’m not grinding through some cave in hopes of getting to the next gym. The issue with this is that the games don’t efficiently acknowledge legendary Pokemon outside of a few vague NPC remarks (if you’re even that lucky), leaving the player to IMMEDIATELY run to the Internet, guides, or friends to get the information that the game doesn’t make them naturally curious to explore enjoyably for themselves. The mythology of Sinnoh for instance is a fantastic example, as the majority of legendary Pokemon in that particular region have almost deity-like statuses. Dialga controls the flow of time, Palkia---space, Giratina---antimatter. The game doesn’t say much more beyond that though and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

It would be easy enough to make up some bullshit mythologies to add to the canon so that fans would have more to obsessively fawn over, but the designers don’t do this. Why? That’s easy enough for anybody to speculate on, but let’s just assume my aforementioned reason is the culprit (laziness). Even the Pokédex itself suffers from such things, as it doesn’t help illuminate on a legendary or unseen Pokémon for the player apart from one or two sentences (which range from generic information to outright fucking creepy). The mythology and general information is not played with and such information isn’t just sparse, it’s almost non-existent for anyone who would like to explore the regions further through the creatures themselves. They don’t play up these fantastical creatures that we’re all meant to be in awe over. It’s not just a suspension of disbelief thats required to confront this, it’s an outright limitation in the core design of the game. The titles merely allude to the fact that they might have the possibility to do it---someday. I’m calling bullshit now and fans should have as early as the late stages of Generation III. Imagine if the Pokédex entry on Pikachu could be built up to rival its Bulbapedia page (which in itself is the collection/collation of information from various media sources) in the game as well. It would certainly be a start.

And just to put some more of that in perspective, consider the possibility of what it would mean to add more depth to a legendary Pokémon in such a fashion. The mechanics themselves would have to be changed to complement it. Things like the catch rate would not only have to be altered, they’d need to be expanded. To process the information like the kind I’m proposing here and not have it come off as mere superficial design---you’d have to redesign the entire game in the background too. This would go miles towards giving the players such options that I vocally yearned for last year and in this post, and this is just one example.

I don’t really respect games where fans do most of the work for its overall allure, and the Pokémon franchise is pretty much the mascot for that entire concept.

The Ridiculousness of Pokemon, Part II

2011-05-27T14:05:00.002-05:00

I'll get to the cross-media discrepancies soon enough...

Continuing on the note of connectivity, how hard would it have really been to allow Entralink access through WiFi (a feature of Black and White)? As it stands, it’s only a local wireless feature and one that determines pretty damn stringently how well developed the player’s exclusive city (Black City/White Forest) are. If the player isn’t diligent enough to participate in battles and chat up redundant NPC every single day, not only will those NPCs vanish, but the population will as well (this includes buildings selling rare items and wild rare Pokemon in the area). This in-game quota wouldn’t be as bad in the U.S. if the feature was able to be used through Nintendo’s WiFi connection.

Pretty much what you have to relent
on when playing these...

And yes, I get the nationality argument that runs along the lines of the game being native to Japan and pointedly-marketed to the small and tightly-networked nation but I also know that the Western World makes a significant chunk of the franchise’s money too. So, wouldn’t it be logical (or I should say---SENSIBLE) to say that other Western nations would be prioritized in some fashion as well? I’ve had Black and White for almost three months now and I’ve yet to come across another person who has the game as well. Of course I live in a rural Southern U.S. state (meaning I’m on an extreme end of the spectrum), but the point is that most of the country isn’t New York City (which judging from Black and White superficial setting, this is pretty much what any other country overseas thinks we are, that or Texas…). Most people that I DO know with the game do not live in densely populated areas so a major feature of the game is pretty much wasted on them. Given that the entire bottom touch screen is dedicated to the C-Gear (the in-game device that allows use of the all the game’s networking capabilities), I may as well be playing a fucking Game Boy Advance title (i.e. the bottom screen is essentially fucking worthless in a 2011 game).

Exploring the game’s ‘online’ features even further will lead the player across the Pokemon Global Link, where they can seemingly upload their save file to the internet and eke out the game experience even further. However, all that awaits them is about three or four extremely lame flash games and about 15-30 minutes sucked out of their day ‘clicksploring’ a sparse and bland interface. This is all to get Pokemon with differing abilities which range from ‘okay to admirable game-changers (a popular one is the Vulpix with the ability ‘Drought’). Now if there was say---a plethora of shitty flash games to play and a server that didn’t spasm every time someone blew on it, I’d be much less critical of it. I’ve also heard the defense that this shouldn’t be held against Nintendo with the recent Tsunami that took place in Japan, but I’m also aware of a few sensible points that were made to me making that particular natural disaster almost entirely irrelevant to the Global Link’s operating quality. Regardless, the Dream World feature is a completely worthless addon that didn’t need to make the player go to a computer to access the games features further (the DS itself could have done that damn crap much better).

I was also under the impression (which I admit was rather foolish) that the game somehow allow the uploading of their save file serve as a more tangible version of their backup. This is not the case as far as I know, as the game just barely logs the stats for the file itself, so not even a record of your game-log/achievements/location is available (and I’m only referring to game time outside of competitive battling). For someone like me who has poured almost 700 hours into the series in just the past year alone, it would be a nice gesture to offer me some security for my wasted time. All I’m left with is the ‘hidden’ backup save that the game secures automatically and I’m supposedly just meant to rely on that (which I have no immediate control over on just a DS).

This entry's detour into Black and White specific faults is emphasized by the fact it's not even three months old and it's still riddled with problems that would only be plausibly forgivable in the early-mid 2000's era title.

The Ridiculousness of Pokemon, Part I

2011-05-24T16:14:00.002-05:00

I’ve been burdened by a very bad case of Pokéfever over the past few months, but since it’s all I’ve really been playing these days I knew I would have to get around to writing this eventually (which is why my presence here has been so sparse these days). This is also me continuing my rants last year on the franchise, as I was fine to stay silent on the issues so long as I hadn’t played Black and White yet. Well now I have---extensively…

…and I’m more irritated with it now than ever.

Anybody that’s even remotely familiar with the series will find no surprise in the criticism of it being a incremental franchise, that is---it only makes changes and alterations in its formula very slowly across the myriad of games that have been released to this date. Also, to keep it simple and on track, I am only referring to the main five generations of games that serve as the bulk of its fanbase.

Welp, first of all---it will help to illustrate where I’ve been exactly for the past few months in terms of the games I’ve played in the series. First would be the recently released Black & White duo which encompassed most of March. As April rolled around, I decided I wasn’t in a rush to play anything else so I arbitrarily decided to catch every single one of the little bastards. I had most of the legendaries so the rest was just a grind to accrue all 646 of the attainable ones. This was aided by a few friends who provided some necessary past games/gear for me:

An extra DS (phat model)

Pokemon Sapphire

Pokemon Diamond

With those in hand, I played through Pokemon Sapphire (and Generation III) for the first time, bolstering my Hoenn collection which would have been a pain to simply trade for otherwise. After that, I moved on to replaying Diamond, as Sinnoh was (and still is) my favorite region across all the games so far. Well after about two weeks of obsessively mining away at the Pokedex, I managed to join that 100-club of having them all. Since then, I’ve been mostly just been helping other people catch what they want, holding random giveaways on reddit, and leisurely exploring the games proper. I’ve since bought FireRed as well, which means I now have access to all the generations and regions in some form or another (which is a first for me):

Gen I (also III)– Kanto [Pokémon FireRed] Like I previously stated, I had never played Generation III before I laid hands on Sapphire so this game is a whole new experience to me despite the fact that I own and have played through the original Blue & Red in the late 90's (which this game is a remake of). This also grazes an issue which I’ll get to later on, but let’s keep off that bridge for the moment.

Generation II (also IV) – Johto [Pokémon SoulSilver] The first Pokemon game I had played since Diamond & Pearl’s initial release. Also a remake, I probably prefer picking this up to play to anything else in the main franchise due to the sheer amount of content in it (the only thing that comes close is Diamond and that’s just simply because I like Sinnoh as a general setting best). The ability to get 16 badges and access two regions in a single game lets this game actually get away with the quantity over quality argument in my eyes.

Generation III – Hoenn [Pokémon Sapphire] The main thing I missed out on regarding gen three was the major structural change that affected all subsequent Pokemon games since. After playing the original Silver and Gold on the Gameboy color , I pretty much stayed away from the series entirely until Pokemon Diamond (about a seven year gap if I recall correctly). Though there was a significant change in the way the games played from Gen III onwards, it was still a relatively simplistic (and mostly technical) shift that hasn’t been altered in any mentionable fashion since (sans highly-irrelevant stat arguments which I’ll also address later). Now that it’s 2011, that’s almost a decade of Pokemon games with minor tweaks here and there. The formula isn’t so much ideal as it is ‘safe’, so the if-it-ain’t-broken stance is on thin ice when talking about this particular series. Given how pervasive the franchise has become in that time frame, not taking advantage of its massive audience is pretty much a crime from my perspective, and it’s one Nintendo and Game Freak are frequent offenders of.

Generation IV – Sinnoh [Pokémon Diamond] This is where I actually jumped back into the series in 2007. I was surprised at how much hadn’t changed since I last played the games and this is also where I became one in the millions echoing in pain due to the incremental nature of the series.

Generation V – Unova [Pokémon Black] At this point I had become somewhat apathetic with the series. I’m still able to enjoy them as I always have, but the fact has finally sunk in that these games will continually make the same mistakes and perpetually piss me off in the same exact way(s) they always have. The best I can do at this point is what I seem to be exemplary with, pointing and laughing.

Most people still live for the dream of a hypothetical game where all regions are accessible and/or an MMO-like space (I include myself there)? Of course---we've got larger problems.

The first thing I came across when drilling my way back into the series was the concept of connectivity. It’s borderline offensive first of all, being that the games have an inherent message on trading and interacting with other players of the world. The first major annoyance for me was one I was extremely vocal about, being that there’s no alternative to requiring another DS to move Pokemon that the player has earned and captured on their own to another gen (which is also a one-way transfer by the way). The transfer itself is riddled with numerous irritants such as HM moves needing to be removed, items being unable to transfer (e.g. the Griseous Orb), and just the general way in which the present games acknowledge the prior entries through a Pokemon’s summary page.

Adding to this is the issue of being an OT (Original Trainer) in any Pokemon title. Being assigned multiple signatures (Name, Trainer ID, Secret ID, etc.) with each new game to identify oneself is a sure-fire way to avoid establishing an ‘identity’ (which would prevent any hypothetical ‘assault’ from glitches, hacks and the like), but it’s also a fantastic way to sever any creative or interesting branches for the player to assert themselves in the Pokémon world altogether. It’s simple to write off a bulk of the complaints I’m raising with ‘They had to prioritize the connectivity with the previous games’, but it’s also only sensible to question the very foundations these types of mechanics have been built upon over the years. Let’s take the initial one I just mentioned as an example here:

I’m an OT in FireRed (a gen III title)

To get a Pokemon to Pokemon Black, said Poke would need to be traded up through Generation IV’s Pal Park and then put through Gen V’s Pokeshifter.

Getting the Pokemon from Gen III to gen IV wasn’t that bad as it could be done with a ‘single system’ (which was only possible because the pre-DSi model DSes had Gameboy Advance compatibility).

However, the switch to Gen V meant that the Pokeshifting process required an extra DS to make use of the wireless capabilities. Between all of this, the aforementioned annoyances all begin to eat away (e.g. item stripping). It does add a certain degree of finality to decisions and whatnot, but even that's just a perk that must be stretched to be appreciated.

If a Pokemon that you were an OT of in Pokemon FireRed is traded to your file in Pokemon Black, it also becomes an outsider Pokemon, stripping you of certain privileges you had on the original file. So, things such as a permanent name given to the Pokemon by the original trainer does have some merit if genuinely traded away to an alternate person, leaving an impression of the person who raised it, but what about the person who’s still trying to raise it? That group of people probably isn’t as much of a minority as I myself would have initially assumed. I am curious behind the methodology for why traded Pokemon gain extra EXP, but apart from that, it's a forced incentive to trade, which is far different from a sort of nurtured option to.

Having some type of unifying code that can be transferred across games does present a danger (e.g. hacks that affect a singular code could tear up the entire game far more effectively), but the payoff would be having one established presence across all the games. It would certainly leave a far more lasting impression than the jerry-rigged system built into the games now. This would require Nintendo hone their networking and infastructure skills though, which I won't lambast further being that it's far too easy. With a game franchise such as this, where such a system would complement the social architecture of players worldwide, the flaws are simply glaring and obnoxious. They always have been.

The Third Penis

2011-03-08T02:31:00.004-06:00

It seems that I'm now back to one home gaming console and that would be my Playstation 3. I sold the 360 almost a year ago because X-box Live is more of an annoyance to me than the well-received service that most take it as. Most of the other titles that I'd even consider buying on it would also be those I'm more willing to play on even an underpowered PC. As Steam gets better, my interest in the likes of such a console significantly deteriorates.

Well, the same thing has essentially happened with the Wii (instead of Steam, it's picking from Nintendo's more lucrative handheld offerings) and I'm beginning to tighten up on what I spend my time with again---to an even greater extent. For the past two console cycles, the Sony + Nintendo combination has been enough to keep me content, but now Nintendo is grating my nerves again...I very rarely played my Wii and any time that I did was in the company of family. It was only fitting that I sell it to my sister and niece at a reasonable price (which I did less than a week ago). This way I still have access to it and can still play the few titles that have always trickled out of Nintendo and a few third parties here and there (e.g. Epic Yarn, Skyward Sword, Epic Mickey, etc.).

I took the money gathered from the Wii and purchased myself a DSi XL. Mostly this was for Pokemon Black (as I'm positive hundreds of hours will be poured into it easily), but I also know that I now have access to a vast library of DS games that I'm more likely to pick up and play than any Wii game. This is where the fun starts too, as I began noticing something that I was quick to write off a year ago as me just being a jerk. This would of course---be the 3DS. The concept has begun to fundamentally annoy me. To be fair and honest though, it's not the system itself (when is it ever?), but the way the gaming populous has begun crowding around it.

Everywhere it's been perceived and touted as the exciting new 'successor' to the DS, but when I see the software, the design, and just the fundamental crux of the system, I become agitated. It was an odd thing that triggered this reaction too because it began right around the time I began reading reviews for the XL. You can peruse them for yourself here, but the common denominator in them all are these:

They're all superficially positive, with a hidden layer of confoundment and negativity on who it's meant to be on sale for, some even saying that it's not a worthwhile upgrade---even if you only own a Lite.

They all advise waiting for the 3DS instead, forgoing this gimmick in hopes that the new one will please the insatiable and unwarranted need for a new frontier (which I'm assuming Nintendo sees in the whole 3D thing).

None of the impressions that I read even remotely addressed the fact that the XL even nurtures the fundamental gimmick of the entire system (i.e. the larger screens are much easier to engage most touch functions with).

Seeing the ironic negativity surrounding the XL combined with the blithe endorsement of the same system with upgrades just stirs up even more antagonism towards Nintendo (and I've not been happy with them in particular for a long time now). This was exacerbated at GDC when it was presented as the handheld to finally showcase that Nintendo can competently occupy an online space as well (when it can't even maintain some of its biggest franchises as is).

Nobody seems to notice (or they're in denial about) that even if the handheld does every single thing it's shown to do, it will still falter in light of the fact that it's a system geared for one specific country (Japan), has one 'on-the-box' draw that can't be accurately marketed or presented as a long-term interest-holder (the 3D effect), and most of the software shown for it is simply available elsewhere at least two times over (and often in better form). Whether it's Zelda, Metal Gear, or Netflix, the 3DS's biggest muscle right now is hollow and people are completely oblivious to its reality. It's almost reminiscent to an old episode of Spongebob Squarepants (why that popped into my head, I've no idea) where the titular character buys inflatable muscles and gets away with being seen as one of the strongest people in his area, until he's actually put on the spot to showcase his strength.

What's really hilarious here is that Nintendo and its inflatable arms will never be asked to 'test their strength', so they'll get away with the entire farce. You know how I know this? Because it happened with the DS and it happened with the Wii. These are two systems with two specific gimmicks that very few developers outside of Nintendo even used admirably, and even Nintendo could have (and still can) push the features much further if they desired it. They won't though because the audience doesn't demand it (outside the vocal minority of 'core gamers' that forever complain about the system[s]). The infamous slogan of 'it prints money!' is at its zenith here, as Nintendo's business has been changed by the way it's begun influencing everyone around it.

The more casual players, Nintendophiles, and the me-too designers (i.e. Kinect, Move) are pushing them along in their dominance. Nintendo has boldly gone forth in trying new things in the past six years and some of it they should definitely be commended for (e.g. getting 3D in gaming without stupid and superfluous accessories), but they've screwed gaming and its supporters in a lot of ways as well (some of them significantly), and people do not want to admit it, as it would demand they take some responsibility for the problems as well. By implying a certain degree of abandonment for the 'older' DS and even the Wii to some extent, Nintendo---and gamers have simply acknowledged its latest handheld as a 3rd Dick.

...and gamers apparently like it anal now.

And I honestly invite you in the comments or elsewhere to give me at least three valid reasons for purchasing a yet another souped-up DS for almost $100 more.

Hating the Video-Game Industry

2011-02-15T10:56:00.000-06:00

That I even own and continue this blog is proof of the opposite concept so don’t give me that positive aspects bullshit. That and I think those reasons are more-often indulgences that most can no longer afford to even hear now (as all it does inspire lethargies). Keep in mind the wording and perspective this is coming from as well. As a consumer I ‘hate’ the collective world of gaming and this a just a short list rattled off the top of my head.

The Rationalizations From Growing Up

Many people begin to complain of burnouts and changes that stem not from games, but their own inability to recognize that their lives aren’t the same when weighed in tandem to how they experienced games many years ago. If one is in college, has children, or even a semi-demanding job, the lens through which they view video games will become irreparably affected by them. Given that the average gamer is over twenty years of age, it’s safe to say that they’ve all crossed a threshold where life’s responsibilities have begun to weigh in on them. What gets under my skin here is that inability to recognize that plenty of a game’s demerits are no fault of said game. Indeed design has started to change because of this, but it’s been a sporadic and indirect process over the past ten or so years. For example, games such as Portal have benefitted almost disgustingly because of such a landscape (i.e. gamers with less time on their hands).

The Homogeneity That Accompanies Gaming As a Sole Passion

"If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's slow death."

If one has no interests outside of gaming, it will be apparent almost instantly. This will almost always form an overreliance on games to bring form or meaning to a person’s life. When one has no other interests, gaming is left holding up baggage that doesn’t even belong to it. There are plenty of games that exist which can easily be mined for years of experience, and every gamer has come across at least one game that can accompany other passions that are arguably more valuable to that individual’s life (even if said individual would seek to deny such a claim). When there’s a co-mingling of different experiences, new ideas and appreciations are created and less of a focus is demanded of so many titles. Speaking of…

The Retarded Pace At Which The Industry Moves

A favorite of mine is watching people attempt to keep up with each other in terms of what and how they play now. Given how hyper-connected gamers are allowed to be these days (i.e. the Internet, online gaming, social networking, etc.), it was only a matter of time before the snowball began gathering momentum. It’s a form of peer pressure taken to absurd lengths. It extends far beyond the simple nature of rebelling against playing what our friends are too (which most can’t accomplish as is, leaving the discussion to end there). Many ‘news’ sites benefit from this in a horrible manner (some of them knowingly perpetuating it), stringing along gamers to play ‘what’s hot’ and in turn---generating an army of pseudo-critics who don’t have the access or funds to keep up with them (which is simply a status-contest and/or simple dick-measuring anyway). Not only that, but a sense of entitlement begins spewing from every party involved, corrupting any sense of happiness, satisfaction, or contentment they’d claim to be seeking to begin with. It’s one thing to play a game you’ve been waiting years for on day one. It’s another entirely to aimlessly wander around throwing money at titles, making an already-fat industry more bloated than necessary, all in the name of a superficial self-satisfaction. People who ‘like everything’ are just as dangerous as the person who only plays Call of Duty titles, their damage ending up more destructive in the long-term scheme. Generally speaking, If one’s personal intake of new titles exceeds ten in the span of a year (and I’m being generous), they’re most-likely part of the problem.

The Clueless Consumer

An immediate sister to the pacing issue is the general gamer that will complain about the nature of games and then proceed pay money that they often don’t have for their next 'fix'. As ludicrous as the addictive games accusations can be, gamers sure do provide ample ammunition for their beloved medium to be pegged as such. Actions speak louder than words and this industry a solid proof of concept. Most of us simply can’t grasp the concept of talking with our wallet because we’re afflicted by the above sole-passion dilemma or are hopelessly bound by the superficial leash of being guinea pigs (look at the next section). Gamers are also even more entitled to think they’re above playing flawed (or even significantly flawed) games. Part of the ‘Rationalizations’ section that belongs here is that many audiences have unfairly hiked up their standards to unreasonable expectations, letting hype, publishers, and even nostalgia color their every opinion.

“Dur, remember when I could play a game for hours on end?!”

Yes, I also remember when climbing a fucking tree and masturbating provided the same joy for free (for even longer!). Luckily for me, I can consider the age I was then and the age I am now and I account for the variance myself. I don’t go around wantonly blaming developers for failing to keep up with every subjective vagary relevant to my life. Yes games have changed, but they haven’t changed to the degree to hold a forum vigil/lamentation/eulogy for them every goddamn week. Most don’t even consider that they might be the problem---and that’s the real problem.

Developers Absent-Mindedly Exploring With Technology

With the aforementioned hyper-connectivity becoming more and more prevalent in today’s gaming landscape, it’s easy to pinpoint the effect that developers and businesses are having on each other. There’s the easy target of how the consumer is prone to bandwagon, champion, and suck off companies with extreme bias, but the gray area truly starts in how the games are made. The 7^th console generation for example, is ripe with this type of exploration, the type of fumbling in which gamers are buying experimental products---almost flagrant attempts by some publishers just to see what they can get away with .

HD-optimized consoles, 3D-novlety visuals, sub-par motion control, petty DLC---all of these are gamers being used as guinea pigs for trials that costs them more than they gain. The tech could be used to actually make gaming more efficient, enjoyable, and lasting---but it’s instead less user-friendly, time-guzzling, and transient. I honestly don’t like the righteous tirades about ‘way back when’ but consider the following analogy; from the early nineties to early 2000s gaming was the equivalent of spit-balling a wall to see what stuck. However, for the last decade or so, the transition has been so that the paper-wad has been removed entirely---leaving so many just blowing water out of straws and acting genuinely surprised at how quick the effect evaporates and vanishes.

When the Culture bends to Stereotypes

Let this sentence serve as the redundant warning that I usually try to steer clear concerning this particular exasperation. It keeps increasing in pervasiveness (or at least my perception of it) and I can’t seem to stamp out the growth either. The narrow range of creation with games is based almost solely around culturally biased, racist, and sexist foundations and nobody seems to care. If they do care they certainly don’t mind launching righteous blogs about it and then continuing to purchase said titles (and just in case I sound too accusatory there, I do include myself in that category). Generally speaking though, gaming has been just yet another manifestation in where my general ire against white people feels vindicated (particularly the males who deny, ignore, and perpetuate it).

What’s really ridiculous is that I’m not even a racially proud person, yet I always feel like I’m being wacked across the face with Western male pride in every game I play now (EVEN THE GODDAMN ASIAN GAMES). It really does irritate me to no end that I now side with the morally righteous (i.e. people whose beliefs fly in direct conflict with my own) out of necessity and sanity. Ever get put in that group in school that was composed of all closely-knit friends excluding yourself? That’s where I am now and I’m quite pissed off about it. Pulling my redundancy card again, it’s not even the existence of such games that gets under my skin, it’s the abundance and acceptance of them. It’s the nigh-active will to undermine any type of diverse paths for games to take mechanically, narrative-wise, or just in a general artistic sense.

The Neglect of Already-Existent Technological Gifts

Despite the fact that we’re not flying around in cars just yet, gaming has made significant leaps and bounds in the past twenty years. For example, did you know we’re about to get a pocket-sized PS3? It has multiple touch screens wireless capabilities that can put some cell-phones to shame. Yup. Oh---but did you also know that such a ludicrous media device is completely unnecessary by even today’s wacked-out standards? *nods head* What almost left me in complete shock is that both Sony and Microsoft have made no significant attempts to fix their backwards compatibility hiccups. Particularly the Playstation 3, with all of its financial woes---can find no better plan apart from shitting out a completely useless iteration of the PSP in order to fruitlessly keep up with Nintendo.

Sony could easily carve out a chunk of the market for themselves by making PS2 Classics for PSN (or at least fleshing out the PSOne’s section). Last I checked, the PS2 had one of the largest game libraries in existence, but I guess that accounts for absolutely nothing. I don’t really care to hear legalities in these situations either, as more is left to be lost by a game being held back because the rights are being held by some dumbass with a ‘property issue’. With corporations like Gamestop trollfacing the entire industry, such a true digital boom could easily undermine their often-cited ‘financial fuckery’ and it would go a long way towards making someone like me (i.e. a physical media whore) actually trust the changing digital times. Personally, I’d pirate a hell of a lot less if I could simply buy reasonably priced older games on PSN, XBL, Steam (btw, at least Valve tries), or the Wii Shop channel without feeling the lubrication of some publisher being slathered in my backside too.

When the Bottom Line Leaves the Medium as What Most are Insecure About…

…and transient distraction. That’s really all games have been seen as for the past two decades and I’m starting to care even less about that pigeon-hole now (and that’s saying something). Misplaced apathy, cognitive bias, selfish perceptions---they’re a given in the gaming industry be it developers, gamers, publishers, critics or even people completely unrelated to games. The entire industry has become a satire---and it’s jumped the shark.

Bayonetta | Sexpot Fail

2011-01-27T15:29:00.002-06:00

One of the things that I genuinely enjoyed about Bayonetta was also a double-edged sword. While I still consider the character a titillating, exploitative, and one-note icon, she also formulated an undeniable 'shell' of empowerment for herself. This served as a lightning rod/catalyst for many 'beneficial or detrimental?' arguments that took place last year. Sex plays a large part of this game's appeal, but its actual use in the design is wielded with the sophistication of a twelve year old boy who has just found his first Playboy. This is why I came down on the side of her as detriment myself.

It shirks its own potential left and right, and what we're left with as an audience is a game full of nothing but gigantic and crass cockteases. The following is but a few of the most obvious ones.

Female Bonding

Bayonetta's only form of interaction with other females comes mainly in three forms (that are relevant anyway): her younger self, Joys, and of course---Jeanne. Now I've already seen what Kamiya thought he was doing with the Joy introduction (something about girls and competition) and I think it's safe to say that the man may have missed a few tenants on making social commentary on female interaction. Though, if we're going to get snooty with the game's own canon, Joys aren't technically female---they simply choose that form. That's besides the point though---what I'm after here is how solitary Bayonetta actually is in her own damn game (as a negative). I don't really count Joys because as I said, they're not technically female AND their only meaningful presence comes in the form of a humorous dance-off which is over just as soon as it starts.

I don't count young Cereza either because yes---it's Bayonetta herself, and anytime time-physics are essentially introduced anywhere, they just become silly story mechanics to be manipulated to the designer's artistic license (and I'm being generous there). At best, she irrationally plays out the mother trope towards herself due to an innate and subconscious recognition to who the child actually was.

And then there's dear Jeanne, the only saving grace in this situation is also tarnished by the fact that she's a brainwashed bitch who actually turns out to be Bayonetta's long-lost friend. Of course this is alluded to in the game's literal first five minutes---but consider this: Jeanne as a character doesn't make an actual appearance until the last two or three chapters of the game. The first thirteen chapters is her simply being controlled by Balder. The aforementioned opening sequence teases more of a relationship between the two and by the time the audience finds out what it is, the game is throwing about a dozen other things that cancel it out entirely. Jeanne's motorcycle sequence towards the end of the game do help things (especially considering the player actually controls her for that sequence) but only a minute amount.

The point here is that Bayonetta's sole feminine presence in this game makes her one big walking and unintentional 'fuck off femme fatale'. It's the equivalent of sticking something consumable such as pizza behind a fourteen-inch glass case and expecting its appeal to last. It's just simply not going to happen. If you're going to make a game (that isn't a nuanced character study) that plays off the sexuality of a woman or just general sexual feminineness, you kinda need more than one woman.

Cereza's Infuriating Figure

I'm going to snatch out my artist card here once again and simply say that Bayonetta's figure is fucking ridiculous. No, I don't necessarily mean her legs, head, or something specific that can't be rationally discussed. I mean how's she was designed and placed into her own world. To emphasize, I'll quote my own Tumblr for a second:

"Something that bothered me about Bayonetta's figure is that her exaggerative features that accentuate her height (e.g. the legs) are still outclassed by characters like Luka. She looks as if she’s well over six feet tall (hell, probably seven), but when standing side by side, most of the others (with the exception of Jeanne I think) still come out taller. I don’t know if this was done to make said characters (namely Luka) appear sexier as males, but it was kind of weird that she’s freakishly tall but still not tall enough. Yeah, it’s kind of dumb on my part (not to mention the developers), but they cheapened her amazonian frame by pulling slights such as making the male co-star taller. Lame. Part of her sexiness to me is how absurdly intimidating she is/should be. Making the guy(s) just as tall to adhere to archaic styles (or even worse, sexist archetypes) is simply a gip."

This almost cancels out the next section but Bayonetta simply being taller than Luka would have done wonders for a game whose appeal lies so much on aesthetics and style. This is especially since we don't see such a thing that often, paticularly out a Japan. A strong woman? Sure, we've got a few. Promiscuous? Definitely. A sexually domineering icon of femininity? Nope, gaming has NONE---at---all, but Bayonetta was/still is ideally poised to take this title home for herself. Perhaps I am being demanding though, but quotes such as this one from The Game Overthinker gave her far too much credit in my honest opinion:

"Take a good look at Bayonetta in motion and ask yourself if you can imagine such a creature actually being eh—-satisfied by anything short of a six-foot seven teddy bear hooked up to a jackhammer."

She never approached that level of intimidation for me, but I actually wanted her to, which was kind of a letdown.

Sexual Intimidation

Personally, this was my favorite slip-up concerning the game's usage of Bayonetta as a sexualized symbol. She's untouchable in almost EVERY sense of the damn word (even by the game's own goddamn canon). Over the entire course of the game, she flirts, flaunts, and fraternizes, but she never ever capitalizes on what would seem to be a monstrous libido. This takes things beyond simple teasing too, in many ways this game places her in the same category as a stripper. Feel free to ogle, feel free throw your money at it, but never touch it---never engage it beyond anything that's purely on a superficial level.

It's a shame too, because what I'm describing isn't really meant to taken solely into context concerning the game's story. I also mean in play, during combos, and just random movements on her part. Like I said in last year's post, anytime I hit a Witch-Time clock or engaged a Wicked Weave attack, I would have honestly preferred her character model just appear entirely nude. IT WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY MATCHED THE CONFIDENCE SHE SEEMS TO SCREAM AT EVERY CORNER. She comes off as a lady who's got nothing to hide in that particular area, so why's she still doing so? Sure, there's a lot of practical answers to this, but it doesn't stop the odd and often dumbass execution from poking its head out dozens of times over the course of the game.

Of course this is something I don't expect to ever see corrected in a sequel or even later on, but as far as elaborating on why I took the silly and exploitive stance last year, I can back it up now that I actually own the game. Things like this---the ways that social context permeates such a game (from such a culture) across multiple countries, come off as FAR more absurd than the game's narrative.

Bayonetta | The Shit I Was Wrong About

2011-01-25T21:24:00.003-06:00

When Bayonetta was first announced I was pretty apathetic towards it, despite it being the brainchild of Hideki Kamiya (aka the father of Dante). I had no problem voicing this uncaring attitude either, and it even manifested itself in a few of my posts last year. Well, I'm here right now to revise a few of those concerns and criticisms before I make any more posts about the game.

The cardinal virtues in this game are what I initially called bullshit on for being too much in the same vein of what God of War makes bank off of (a kind of reverse inspiration considering what Jaffe never shuts up about concerning the Devil May Cry series). While aesthetically there's no difference between them, the callous nature of Bayonetta herself and the pacing/structure of the fights would serve to contest me here. It's one thing when God of War makes Kratos out be some generic screaming icon of masculinity, but Bayonetta's over-the-top trampling of her enemies almost severs the tie completely (both through the game's actual mechanics and the character's one-note presentation).

The downside here is more of a problem with the game in general, as it's much easier than any of its spiritual predecessors (the Devil May Cry series), even on its maximum difficulty. This is a shift that I and many of others have taken offense to in terms of how some Japanese designers are looking at how the West perceives difficulty. That Bayonetta even has a totally restrained easy mode incorporated into it just worsens the matter (and furthers my point). So, that little bit kind of rekindles the tie to God of War which me.

What I was wrong about concerning the game's music was how many people actually enjoyed the score. I expected a lot more 'lol this is stupid's flying around, but the whole Jazzy+Jpop angle worked for the game, and in some essence, I'll even go as far to say that I prefer it instead of the 'screamo' that Devil May Cry is known for. The more original and distinct ambiance/action tracks are pretty much what I expected when weighing in how it's used in the actual game (which is a very good thing in this case). I suppose it's a good thing that a lot of us (particularly guys) were able to hop so graciously on board with skewering angels to Fly me to the Moon.

I mostly described the difficulty problem above, and I even tried getting a few people to play through the game on its easiest automatic setting, but the response was that the game was still too overwhelming for them. The difficulty downgrade became something only noticeable to someone like me anyway, one who has nigh-religiously mined through such titles for his/her enjoyment (thus it making any slight variance in the name of accessibility becomes a detriment to some extent as well).

I was only partly wrong on the whole dilemma of 'exploratory or exploitive' deal, as this line from my blog last year still rings true to me now more than ever:

"Perhaps it's problematic for some people, but every time I did a combo that required her hair-clothes to come off, I always ended up feeling that I would love this game 100% more if they just went ahead and showed the character model totally nude when such sequences were triggered. Having them zip across her private areas is just so abashedly titillating, it cancels itself out for me."

I'll hold my tongue there though, as it could have a blog on its own.

So while it's most certainly a worthwhile successor to Devil May Cry, its potential is somewhat limited in the end. It's lasting power, stylistic muscle, and even ludicrous camp all have lines drawn around them, stating where and how things will go. It's kind of infuriating as well, considering the game is well-placed to do some real damage (just imagine how magnified the game's reception would have been if my quote above had more truth to it).

I also think I was pretty accurate in my concerns about how the game would sell though, as I found it in a damn Blockbuster bargain bin for nine dollars not even a year after its release. It's a shame too, because like I said---it's an exemplary Devil May Cry 5 (to be insultingly blunt that is). I am kind of surprised that Kamiya is talking so soon about doing the sequel to this game, but I think he also may be rushing to make the character 'surpass' Dante somehow, who he hasn't had any real hand in designing since the first title, and if he's doing that, it's going to eventually show in the game...

...and I'll be the first to call bullshit on it.

I'm Back...

2011-01-25T04:26:00.000-06:00

I suppose I could apologize for the extended hiatus, but we all know that wouldn't be very sincere---now would it? The holidays were full of weird things on my end, and the most prominent of them was that there was actual paying work floating around so I snatched it. Any of my spare time was obviously spent buried in my Tumblr, shouting obscenities and firing off random sparks of hatred. The good news is that I actually played quite a few things between November and now, certainly more than enough to gallantly ride straight into 2011 here. I'll open with the first in my next post. I just wanted to use tonight to metaphorically burst my hand from the ground in front of the gravestone that's been 'Misanthropic Gamer' for the past few months (though my views have surprisingly stayed consistent for whatever reason).

As intrigued as I am to see what games like Catherine and Deus Ex: Human Revolution offer, I don't really see myself looking to purchase them right now (which isn't surprising all, considering the number of day-one stuff I've picked up in the past two years). In fact, the only blip on my radar is the upcoming Pokémon Black, which is rather ironic considering the targeted number of bitchy posts I did late last year regarding the series at large. It's that same traditionalist structure I'm actually looking forward to burying a couple hundred of hours into this year. If it just so happens that it actually is the game of change I described a while back, then we can officially announce that the world is determined to undermine me in the most ironic possible way (which I can live with).

Obviously, I'm not interested in the 3DS or PSP2 apart from conjecture and theory, but I will be absolutely mortified if Sony actually pulls the same crap that they did with the Playstation 3 (i.e. putting out an overly expensive feature-ridden machine which will spend years trailing its competition).

Hmm, let see---oh yes, I was interested in Mass Effect 2 for about two hours, but then got lazy and spent an entire night on the series' Wikia, destroying any incentive I had to actually purchase the title (which was a hard sell in itself---buying a full priced game that's already a year old). Apart from that, a lot of the stuff that I would pay attention to for this year is actually kind of hanging in limbo in terms of even being released here over the next eleven months, if ever (e.g. Xenoblade).

That's essentially it for right now, a quick blurb on where I've been, where I am, and what I'm currently doing. There will also probably be an update tomorrow as well sometime.

Because it's been a month...

2010-11-19T23:52:00.003-06:00

...and this gathers more meaning than a simple retweet.

Shattered Perversion | 'Dying to Speak' | Demon's Souls

2010-10-18T17:43:00.001-05:00

Demon’s Souls never explicitly states that it’s a hard game (which is already a lot less boastful than most titles), yet everyone has resigned to parroting their collective frustration with it. This also applies to those singing praises in its name as well (I include myself in this category). There’s even a consistent tendency to announce what an acknowledgement it is to older games too. While I don’t think the game itself is an embodiment of older game design tenants (which would require an abundance of mentionable intent on From Software’s part), I do think that any one player’s interpretation of it now is proof that games are simply not changing as fast as their players are. Not only that, but the players are oblivious to this fact (which is key here). It’s in this respect that such a game should be viewed, not simply analyzing whether or not it’s too hard and/or if its difficulty should take precedence in any kind of useful analysis.

As I stated in the first section of this SP, games such as Demon’s Souls often get viciously lumped around and misconstrued by people who are at best, simply voicing a rebellion in the name of their own exclusion. This isn’t necessarily wrong on their part, but it’s an aspect of detailing that should always be up front in whatever discussion is going on. Mostly this is due to people being prone to forming identity around their ‘not being able’ to play a certain game. Whether or not they can play is certainly worth discussing, whether or not they will play is worth asserting to them, but whether or not they should play is something that’s always left in the dark. This is the most important piece of the pie too, yet it often (and ironically) gets ignored by ‘selfish advocates’.

To further illustrate this cacophony, I’ll use this vaguely similar confusion that has surfaced while viewing the Demon’s Souls as well, the survival-horror note. The second that any title sparks an even remote tie to mortality, the survival-horror genre gets called into question again¹. Demon's Souls is a game that constantly whacks the player in the face with such a topic, and in spite of these things, the corollaries get cheapened by those looking to ‘relate’, be it the game to their own tastes (a subtle bias), their limited scope of play (which we all possess), or simply a subconscious form of the bandwagon effect (which isn’t something to be that ashamed of either).

There’s also an intense cultural schism people are quick to eschew as well². It’s no secret for example, that the Japanese are often more ‘disciplined’ than Americans when it simply comes to playing through their games. Demon's Souls was developed by the Japanese, so trying to seperate their characteristic diligence out of the equation would simply be idiotic. This leads straight into the ‘hardcore’ can of worms though, and many wrap their identities and egos up in their button-mashing prowess. This is certainly fallacious, but it’s far more understandable (at least to me anyway) than those who are quick to run off to the opposing side of the spectrum. This side favors an impractical execution of widening audiences (often for that reason alone too).

The very idea that all games should aim to be all-inclusive is indeed an honorable one³, but it's a potentially threatening one as well. Anyone that's not willing to at least admit that either has some personal axe to grind or is embodying the same thing they're constantly accusing the ‘hardcore’ of, a superficial and egotistical fear.

“This whole hardcore gamer nonsense is just about protecting the egos of immature individuals. If still upset, consider not defining your being with a consumer product mass produced by employees for a company concerned with stock shares. That's what music is for.”

“I agree with that, though I could conversely offer that the 'let's all play' notion is an idealistic oversimplification that often masquerades as a valid criticism of certain games when it shouldn't. Everybody is not going to be able to play certain games, everybody doesn't have the same amount of time to invest, and we all certainly don't love the same titles. Those simple factoids will forever confuse the hell out of most gamers.”
---Palchez & myself, reddit⁴

Finality

Engagement between the player and the game happens on multiple levels in Demon's Souls. You’ll probably see this doted most often when concerning the somewhat sophisticated construction of its online setup. However, there's much more than just the connectivity at work in this game. The basic dialouge between the player and the game is pretty much a top priority in any title honestly. Demon's Souls however, specifically represents a type of game that wishes to debate with those who play it, to an almost excessive extent⁵.

Not only does Demon's Souls make it a priority to emphasize how weak you are in its world, but also how frail the people in the kingdom of Boleteria are as well. As easily as the player can die, its nothing compared to the NPCs around them. Players have to be intensely careful of the buttons they're pressing, as well as who they're speaking to. Just making the player aware of that connection (i.e. the buttons they’re pressing) is removed from simply making them forget about it (which most love to muse over as being the most exemplary state). Death carries some significant weight in this game, as crucial NPCs can easily be killed in a number of ways. The most prominent of these is accidently striking one of them. Most aren’t weak, and they don’t easily aggro, but they will die/rebel if hit by a strong enough player. Thanks to the way that the game saves progress, a critical NPC can easily be permanently killed off until either starting that game over entirely or making it to the end so that the world resets for the next go-around in the New Game+ cycle.

This almost insults the general relationship that the player typically has with NPCs in other mainstream RPGs, as they’re simply avatars that give them their shit to proceed. In Demon’s Souls, a new layer is added, allowing the player to engage such characters beyond them being item-for-currency ‘unlockers’. Granted the situation is still kind of hollow, but the frailty and degree of awareness that one makes when addressing say---Yuria⁶ for example, is resolute. If the player is a magic-build, they more or less rely on her and Sage Freke. If the player decides to get cute and strike her because they’re not getting a deal they want, don’t like her character, or are simply clumsy enough to drop the controller---they’ll most likely hit her. If it’s done enough to aggravate her, she’ll treat you as an enemy and any chance you had at cultivating that illusion of a relationship with her is destroyed, if only BECAUSE you can truly squander it.

The topic of morality in games is a relatively new and common one, but Demon’s Souls is one of the few to introduce finality into the mix as well. The player is very restricted in terms of dicking around with saves in order to ‘flesh out’ their experience (which is one of the reasons that the game gets the rougelike fanvotes), and any actions they pull off will likely be instantly saved if they’re not willing to hop up and shut the PS3 off in hopes of quickly backpedaling a mistake. Where other games feign consequence, Demon’s Souls actually demonstrates it. This is not the product of a binary or chartable character/dialouge option, it’s a fluid representation of interactivity, which is what games are majorly about.

Just placing up my own experience as an example here, I’ll use Patches the Hyena⁷.. This is a shady thief vendor who I instantly decided I didn’t like after he initially lured me into a trap. As soon as I was able to, I stuck my sword in straight through his back, killing him. After I completed the game for the first time, I learned of the items he’ll sell the player in the Nexus afterwards. Although I didn’t regret my choice, I was still surprised at how much help his items would have been in retrospect. The game makes it a priority to show the player that life and death is a key focus of its experience.

This is also where it stumbles as well, being that of the things that Demon’s Souls blatantly trips on is not coloring death in particular with some sort of narrative (or more meaningful) intent. This could range from anything as simple as an aesthetic change all the way to NPCs treating player differently if they were dead. One can argue the relevance of the World Tendency system>8, but in my eyes that system is so distanced from what’s actually affecting it (i.e. the player’s death), it loses its relevance call here. The way that the game treats death is too ingrained into how the player can generally engage with it to not take better advantage of it too. This goes back to Demon’s Souls weakness in its narrative though, it’s just simply too reserved in some aspects. This is just one of them.

Designed to Destroy

It's hard trying to convince some people that sometimes, they just suck. It's hard trying to convince people that God FORBID, they may be just a smidgen impatient, under-skilled, or simply playing the wrong fucking game for themselves (proving that they have no idea who the hell they are). The trip to and through Boleteria is not a relaxing one unless you’re a certain type of player. Variability exists here of course, but it’s usually not going to be a wide enough margin to allow more than a niche amount of people to enjoy thoroughly, but I’ll play around with that notion further down in this post.

There’s a long running trend among most real-time combat games that the e-factor (exclusionary factor) is overweight. That Demon’s Souls features such combat is no doubt further complicating what some people already can’t handle. This is what alienates a lot of players from the more dedicated hack-n-slashers as well. There's just a baseline prerequisite in terms of mechanics, leaving many out in the cold. If a player decides to take pride in any aspect of this area, they usually get the lame time-based argument to oppose them. It's insultingly easy to apply the logic that 'if you pour enough time into it, you'll get good at it', but that logic also so vague and general, it can be applied to basically anything---in life (i.e. shut the fuck up). It's not moving the discussion forward; it's simply circling it to round up voices in a sort of makeshift demagoguery. The truth is simple: There’s room for both kinds of games you dolts. One side of the equation shouldn’t be so concerned with a selfish and integrity-smashing ideals and the other needs to let go of its unfounded ego trip.

There’s also the question of worth in Demon’s Souls’s specific type of combat. If anything, this aspect in particular opens up the discussion to critically look at some of the most basic mechanics and design details of the game. However, I’d also assert here that it’s the ones on the more favorable side of the e-factor whose opinion will be of more value at the end of the day. Hell, it's only logical. This is assuming quite a few things though, most notably that said person is reasonable enough to entertain a wide range of opinions on such a topic. It’s in this case that bias has more worth than critical distance (as the two essentially conflate to a more productive end). For example, I’m going to listen more intently to the criticisms of an avid player who may also be afflicted by the aforementioned ego-burdens concerning Devil May Cry, rather than the ‘axe-grinder’ who was simply frustrated that they couldn’t make it past the first marionette.

“As such, whenever I seek to find out the truth about something, I always look for someone who is strongly biased in favor of it. If I were seeking to find a religion that is practical and matches reality, I wouldn’t ask a Muslim what he thought about Buddhism, since he clearly remains unconvinced of the Buddhist worldview and therefore probably won’t offer good reasons for why I should accept Buddhism. But, a dedicated Buddhist monk, the most biased person possible, would be able to best present a sound argument for why I should accept his way of seeing things, since he truly believes that Buddhism is the most truthful and meaningful religion.”
---Silas Reinagel⁹.

Demon’s Souls is plagued with common problems inherent in all real-time combat games. Locking/fixed animations, cheap enemy behavior, environmental design, they’re all in the game. We can’t talk about these things though, because people just won’t shut up with the praise or frustration-ridden commentary. It’s one thing to raise a practical questioning of a game’s design, it’s another entirely to assert an inferiority complex and call it criticism. I stink at cooking and making music, but I'm not going to try and invalidate the activities of specific dishes and pieces as crafts (or even as art). I'm certainly not going to try and interject my own inadequacies into interpreting such forms unless the inadequacy is an inherent part of the discussion too.

I’ve not been able to find an official statement from Atlus or From Software, but I always come back to the same statement when running around forums in search of more Demon’s Souls discussion. The consensus consistently boils down to this statement:

‘They wanted the player to feel vulnerable.’

This is why ‘life’ quickly finds meaning in Demon's Souls (and why death struggles so hard to catch up).

From Software left clues all over the place for this to be discerned, here’s a few off the top of my head:

Stone of the Ephemeral Eyes – The only reviving items are an abundant but not excessive presence in the game (i.e. it’s likely you’ll only see about 20-30 stones in a single playthrough if not using a FAQ). It’s through their use that the player has a miniscule amount of control in terms of dictating when they’ll be in their body form or not. Whether they’re trying to play online or defeat a difficult section of a world, the stones play an integral part of how one experiences the game 80% of the time.

Boss Reward - This game gives you your body form back after defeating any area demon (i.e. boss fight). Why do this at all if the designers didn’t expect most players to spend a significant amount of time ‘dead’? This also helps force a working relationship in terms of playing with random people online too. You’re granted your body back as a form of accomplishment. It’s precise and it’s tactile almost each time it happens. It’s never something that the player takes for granted.

The Cling Ring – This gives the player about 75% of their max health, which is much better than the 50% players normally get while in their soul (dead) form. However, items like this also introduce a ‘gray area’ into the experience and they also contribute to why death loses some ground, as it actively detracts from the above-mentioned joy of gaining one’s body form back. If nothing else, Demon’s Souls is generally much easier due to the accessibility of this simple item (which can be found in the first level at that).

Death - The game has two levels of introducing you to death, one narrative-based, one game based. The two are in some ways interchangeable as well. The Vanguard’s tutorial death is more interactive and gives the player the illusion of control (as they’ll most likely die anyway). The Dragon God’s tutorial death however, is almost literally the game punching the player in the face (i.e. your death is mandatory here).

What constitutes as 'hard' in Demon's Souls?

Seriously, this is a question that not enough people are asking, and the game is already a year old. Most just relent at the fact that they've died and are somehow in a fatal error of the game's system. Some are even introducing ‘hard’ into a long-standing conflict that games of this type represent some sort of misshapen exclusionary force. The truth of the matter is that is that it does represent an exclusionary force, it’s not misshapen though---it’s congenital---inherent even. It’s extremely important to this game as an individual experience. The player must experience death in Demon’s Souls, it’s often not as much a mark of total failure than a mark of player-error. This game is once again---uncompromising and methodical first and foremost. It’s not porn-hard (no pun intended) and it’s not punishing you for dying repeatedly (you do subtly get punished for dying while in body form, but that’s a divergence).

The only genuinely poorly designed encounter in Demon’s Souls is the infamous Maneater fight. It’s not difficult, but excessively cheap¹⁰, (which fluctuates depending on your character build). It’s the only fight in the entire game in which the skills you’ve acquired mean little to nothing in practice (unless you’re ridiculously overpowered).

The fact that you cannot pause, that death is permanent for the characters around you, and the save feature is out of your manual control are factors influencing this game substantially. It’s something that not enough games have experimented with either.

Inclusive Difficulties

Plenty of games would, could, and should do much better by implementing more accessible gateways, I won't argue that. In case you haven’t picked up on it yet though, I’m of the mindset that Demon’s Souls simply isn’t one of those games. It’s earned that much for itself.

One of the largest reasons a title like Demon’s Souls is getting any praise at all is because games like it are quickly losing ground to the ‘all-inclusive’ ideal (or at least this is an illusion most dedicated players see as a reality). This means that it becomes a lightning rod for such players looking to grasp any number of cathartic releases (and they’ll recklessly defend it on that ground alone). This is also where most of the criticisms of ‘hardcore gamers’ are focused on too. Pride, status, and 'accomplishment infringement' are all becoming subject to more scrutiny as more people rally behind widening up the medium as a whole.

There’s also the question of not appreciating what’s already there too. As an example, to illustrate Demon’s Souls already including an ‘easy mode’ I’ll call this one out, as cheap of a blow as it is.

Turn your PS3 on with an online connection enabled. There, Demon’s Souls is now an infinitely more accessible experience. The soul levels scale to keep players within range of one another, while still providing a substantial challenge to players as they make their way through the level. Some people aren’t looking to actually honor the ideas they’re arguing for, they’re just pissed they didn’t get invited to sit at the ‘cool kid’s table’ (which is only a creation they themselves have contributed to).

The problem with most people attempting to affirm their experience is that they often stupidly stand on the on the resolve of others (in my case maliciously). Gamers especially are prone to oversimplification. Thanks to this, the whole 'easy game' conundrum that ‘hardcore’ gamers have bucked against since the 5th generation of consoles (that’s when I first began noticing its growth on an exponential level anyway) has been exacerbated and overblown by factors ranging from pride to outright laziness.

The trouble with the argument from bias is wading through a certain person's opinions and retrieving value and/or what constitutes as a sensible argument. It's probably wrong to shut someone out completely because they're whining about something, but it's almost equally as suspicious to let said decrier tie his or her identity around whatever topic is being discussed. I'm redundantly channeling the above passage of mine here, but once meaning is formed, base logic often gets altered too. This is an extremely destructive process, and something to be wary of constantly, especially concerning those ignorant to its effect.

As a whole, Demon’s Souls represents something that’s only semi-new. It represents intelligent difficulty---it’s just so basic and rudimentary that people can’t see it. Since they can’t see it, they project whatever they wish onto it instead. Just as an amusing metaphor, I’m a pretty reserved kind of guy in person. I easily notice the rate at which talkative or even normal people will often project their own assumptions and statements out of me to compensate for feeling socially isolated, especially if I’m only giving one-word or simplistic responses. I’m completely removed from the equation in cases like these, in lieu of them talking to themselves for themselves, BY themselves. If you take one lesson to take from this post, I hope it’s the recognition that Demon’s Souls is trying to speak for itself, and gamers simply won’t let it.

Demon's Souls is actually a pretty creepy game at times, but this comparison doesn't really help clarify why ↑

Plenty of good points here, but it also uses too many convenient touchstones to assert its point that 'more gamers = better'. It doesn't effectively explore the causes and effects of its own premise ↑

To both its merit and my annoyance, this Border House post is rife with what I derisively responded to here when addressing 'inclusive difficulty', mostly manifesting in some of the comments ↑

I reddited the above Pixel Poppers post, and this was the result ↑

This guy thinks the online aspect made the game harder ↑

"Yuria, the Witch is a practitioner of a darker form of Soul Arts the likes of which are often looked upon with great disdain by Urbain and the community. She was imprisoned by King Allant’s personal executioner, Miralda, and left under the watchful eye of one of the king’s deformed jesters."↑

"Oh, see that treasure over there? Go on and take it! My gift to you, just to show that we're friends."↑

"World Tendency influences difficulty and controls additional events that occur. It is independent from Character Tendency for the most part."↑

A False Fallacy - Argument from Bias ↑

"Opinion: Maneater is cheap."↑

The White Van Speeds Off | Sonic the Hedgehog 4

2010-10-14T04:01:00.006-05:00

Sonic the Hedgehog 4 is an interesting game in quite a few contexts, I mean that. Before I start ranting though, I should open up with a few things.

After completing it for the first time today, I'm even more adamant that Sega either has absolutely no idea what they ever had with the series to begin with, or their perspective has developed into a radically sick sense of humor (in the latter case, BRA-fucking-VO). I personally 'gave up' on Sonic a few years ago, as even if I got the game I actually wanted, my apathy would likely take precedence anyway. I'd much rather learn how to make my own ripoff of it than bitch too righteously about Sonic Team these days.

You see, many have come to rest at Sonic's status of never being that good, hence his troubles now. This is usually lazy thought processes at work though, as the arguments presented behind these stances can typically be used to tear down the likes of any platforming series period. Yes, Sonic was actually good at one point, get the hell over it. If you didn't like the damn game, that's on you. Trying to use arbitrary rulings to justify why the entire formula is broken is just plain idiotic.

I should give the game some praise though before I attack it, so I'll admit that while I hate most of the soundtrack, some of the music actually does mesh with the rhythm of the levels' play. Mad Gear and Lost Labyrinth in particular get away with this successfully. The entire package did eventually come together for me, but still only managed to leave a mediocre taste in my mouth.

The game proves that at even such a level, it can maintain a certain spark that can't be crushed when Sonic is running around in 2D format. The only problem is that it's in such a decayed state at this point. This is where I'll begin bleeding things into a rant, as the game is just Sega tossing an elaborate comforter on top of it all and telling us it's pretty.

If one can play through this game and tell me there's no difference in palpability between it and the games it's trying to pay homage to, I'd love to hear their statements (seriously). The game does get pretty fast, but the premature complaints of it being floaty and 'weird' weren't off the mark at all. It took me about an hour to get used to how Sonic even moved. It takes him a full three seconds to actually get going, and this becomes a very big deal for some of the platforming too. He comes off feeling rather clunky as hell, so it's not really all that nit-picky given how much it bleeds into the basic flow of the game.

The game would have been a much easier pill to swallow if it weren't 2.5D (or whatever the hell this is) either. Did I miss something here though? Is it just harder to design such a game? I'm not a programmer, I honestly don't know---so somebody needs to enlighten me here. Would more resources be required to use something like handrawn animation to bring Sonic back to life instead? And yes, the whole initial green eyes post-2000 look backlash by fans was excessive in the complaint department, but it wasn't necessarily unwarranted. This is mostly because Sega touted the same bullshit since the game was first announced:

"DIS GAME IS SO CLASSIC, ITS GONNA MAKE YOU REMEMBER YOUR CHILDHOOD YO."

Adopting a true 2D aesthetic would have actually honored the hype that the fuckers built up. Instead, it appears as if everything was meant to scream this instead:

"THIS IS SONIC NAO, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT."

The HUD, Sonic's basic appearance, and even the layout of the levels just feels cheap and forced. Here's my brief breakdown of the entirety of episode one, just to further illustrate my point here:

Splash Hill - This could be the culmination of any of the generic 'vegetative first zones', but mostly it just apes Emerald Hill in feel (Sonic 2), while masqurading with a Green Hill Zone disguise. It concludes with the obligatory swinging-ball fight that's from Sonic 1's Green Hill Zone.

Casino Street - This one jacks Sonic 2's Casino Night zone almost completely, with the same exact boss (with one dumb new move of course to spice things up!).

Lost Labyrinth - Yup, the Labyrinth Zone from Sonic 1, complete with mine carts and torch lighting. It half steals the boss fight from Sonic 1's Labyrinth Zone with a pinch of the game's Final Zone encounter too.

Mad Gear - This apes Sonic 2's Metropolis Zone and end-act boss. It's actually one of the better levels, but still suffers from a lack of imagination like the rest.

The final zone rips off (out of all things) the Mega Man franchise, with a boss rehash Sonic has rarely seen before, complete with a nonsensical difficulty spike. Oh yeah, it also climaxes with the same damn robot we fought at the end of Sonic 2 (you just have to hit it like thirty more times now...).

All of these levels feature cheap touchstones that are meant to harken back to the 1990's era Sonic games. The trouble is that they do it arbitrarily and specifically, so it feels insanely forced. An example would be the Lost Labyrinth's Zone's 'infinite fall', in which Sonic keeps sliding down the water surfaces until the player jumps to hit a switch in order to change the layout.

It's creepy, it's one of the creepiest fucking games I've ever played. It tries to appeal to me in such a way that's not unlike a child molester's tactics¹ (get the relevance of the title now?²). Is Sega really trying to transcend time and creepily appeal to the child in me? I can guarantee you that kid would tell you to fuck off with this too.

I could go into the aesthetics of Sonic as well, but do I really need to bring up the whole Dante thing
again³? Most of those same rules apply here, so just go read that instead.

Many have tried fruitlessly at satirizing, addressing, or expressing indignation at claims similar to mine, but most (i.e. all) have failed miserably⁴.The problem there is that fans can rarely articulate any kind of dialect to make a worthwhile point, so they just wind up ranting about rampant subjective perversions instead. This lets the indignant silly-heads win, as they simply appear as the more rational beings. Granted, Sonic fans are insane, but wait a minute---can't the same be said about Nintendo fans too? Or let's put it this way---fans of anything?

You see, the classic defense mechanism for such claims usually revolve around the methodology of derailing⁵ otherwise worthwhile topics for some personal idealistic nonsense and exaltation of thought-terminators⁶. Just what the hell is it with people doing that anyway? I'm going to chalk it up to some spineless need to avoid conflict. It's not all that bad to be hostile and you know---raise standards. God forbid you make yourself look like an ass to someone, can't have that.

I'm going back to Boleteria now. Just make me another Rush game next time Sonic Team/Dimps, don't waste my time with episode two if it's just more of this.

This isn't funny---ignore the fact that I'm laughing.↑

Sooo not funny.↑

Where I bitch about bitching about bitching (yeah I know, shut up)↑

Jim Sterling makes an idiot out of himself, nothing new.↑

God forbid we talk about anything worthwhile, right?↑

Classic tactics are classic ↑

Shattered Perversion | Maiden Astraea | Demon's Souls's Largest Narrative Boast

2010-10-11T16:42:00.011-05:00

I know I'm not the only that took the Valley of Defilement's Archdemon as a slap in the face¹. I hinted in the prologue entry that this would probably stand the test of time as Demon's Souls's strongest narrative moment. Here's how it affected my perception of the game overall.

I suppose if I cared enough to actually put a spoiler warning up...it would go---oh fuck it. If you're reading this already, you likely don't care.

Maiden Astraea is the final demon of world five, the Valley of Defilement. Up until meeting her, the player is forced to fight a large boss made purely of leeches in addition to a monstrous form of decrepitude that is only referred to as the 'Dirty Colossus'. While navigating between these two precursor levels, the player treks across old wooden structures overhanging a chasm to which only darkness can be seen in. After that, they finally greet the bottom of the valley by crossing a poisonous swamp they're most likely going to be poisoned in (it's nearly mandatory too). It's almost Silent Hill-esque in the style of descent that's made. It's raining, there's constant moaning, and the only other sounds heard come from the player's own feet making the wood creak. The moaning comes from the enemies, who are mutilated humanoid figures that aggro whenever the player gets close enough to be smacked.

However, after the player defeats the Dirty Colossus, they'll soon make their way even deeper into the core of the world, and they're introduced to Astraea. This is done via a cutscene in which she wishes her knight and bodyguard (and also speculatively her lover) Garl Vinland good luck as he rises from her side and walks off. Astraea appears radically different from everything else in world five. It's not mind shatteringly new or anything (it's actually a pretty classic trope), but it's almost always a good juxtaposition to place two opposing aesthetics beside each other. In a world that emits nothing but decay and death, Astraea is an almost purely white figure calmly sitting on a root she seems somewhat embedded into. She's cradling a glowing white orb and she doesn't appear to be too concerned with the player's presence as they first enter.

Demon's Souls Soundtrack - 'Maiden Astraea'

As the player does pass through the fog gate into her area, they see that the enemies they've have been slaying for the two previous levels are no longer concerned with them at all. They're making worshiping gestures towards a faint white glimmer light off in the distance below---Astraea. They don't even attack if the player walks right up behind them and starts smacking them off the cliffside. A somewhat chilling organ track begins and Astraea begins to talk to the player with a calm, but firmly melancholy tone:

"Leave us, slayer of Demons. This is a sanctuary for the lost and wretched. There is nothing here for you to pillage or plunder. Please, leave quietly."

-Maiden Astraea

The player can then begin making their way down the side of the valley here, but they'll come across Garl Vinland as they near Astraea's resting place. He laments on the player's resolve to go forward and stands his ground, cementing his place as a necessary force to overcome if the player wishes to confront Astraea. Garl makes no real offensive attacks, but if the player comes within a few feet of him, he'll quickly send them flying back with a swing of his Bramd hammer/mace². Throughout the fight, he'll make some disdainful remarks concerning the player and their motives, and proceed to demand that they be left alone, as they're both humble and at content. If they are in fact stong enough to kill Garl however (who fades away with Astraea's name on his last breath), the player can then begin walking the rest of the way to where she's still sitting, gazing somewhat passively at her orb (which I'm assuming is her soul).

It's necessary at this point to walk into the large plague swamp that forms the ground level of the entire area. It's wisest to avoid this section entirely until after Garl is defeated, as touching it almost instantaneously affects you with the plague and begins to drain your health. Not only that, but the swamp itself is infested with an area-exclusive enemy, plague babies³. Unless the player has a stat build that allows them to fend off these things, they will quickly surround and kill them despite that player's strength. These things don't tend to pursue beyond the final twenty feet of where Astraea's is sitting, so it's somewhat safe to walk through the swamp towards her. It's also important to note that the swamp slows your movement as well, so this pretty much forces the player to walk right up to her.

Upon reaching her, she sadly remarks that the player has killed Garl and then accusingly acknowledges their victory. She remarks that she will not try and fight back then sardonically offers her soul up to the player---then she kills herself, completing the world encounter.

There's a couple of variations depending on who and how you attack first (e.g. Astraea will use a powerful area effect spell if you ignore Garl try and attack her first), but the entire battle always equates to one big guilt trip in the end.

It's certainly on the top five list of moments for me in the game, if only because it extravagantly snaps Demon's Souls's three most exercised components:

Silence - Part of Demon's Souls's desolate manner comes from the near-total lack of music. The game does have a pretty well done OST, but they're mostly reserved for boss battles and 'big moments'. Make no mistake though, the majority of one's time with this title will be spent listening to howling winds, enemies' roars, and various sounds cues that help play towards recognizing attack patterns.

Maiden Astraea Encounter >> None of the bosses up until this point in the game vocally engage the player. Astraea isn't the only humanoid figure either. Foes like The Fool's Idol, The Penetrator, and even King Allant are all silent antagonists, preferring to talk with their tools instead. The first thing the player hears after entering Astraea's area however, is her---softly telling you to leave.

Solitude - Yes, for all my rambling on in the previous entry of how Demon's Souls is basically an MMO⁴, it's also a pretty lonely game as well. Unless one has an obsessive need to play through levels with others by use of blue eyed stones, they'll spend most of their time figuring stuff out on their own (as opposed to just running around the place whacking crap until it dies). This also goes a long way towards nurturing the game's ambiguity. Even if a player is being invaded by others constantly, they're still prioritizing their well-being first, with no real interaction other than conflict.

Maiden Astraea Encounter >> Again, all the boss fights up until this point have been pretty far removed from being 'social'. There are certainly demon encounters in which the player confronts multiple bosses at once, but Maiden Astraea still stands alone in that she has her 'questionable' knight fighting on her behalf. There's a relationship continuity in the fight that carries over to transferring guilt onto the player. Even if one doesn't wonder about the nature of Garl and Astraea's relationship, their devotion to the area and each other was suggested. The player isn't treated like an idiot in regards to what they are, and it pays off.

Simplicity - The game also makes it a point to give the player the bare necessities and have them make what they will with them. This is that old trick of less being more, as the game can easily get complex as hell once one understands the core concepts of playing. The simple nature of two handing your melee weapon for example, can make the difference between winning an hour-long boss fight or getting slapped across the room to your death.

Maiden Astraea Encounter >> This is also the only encounter where many factors are being presented up front. Most just pit you against a huge or formidable creature which you must adapt to merely surviving. Maiden Astraea's confrontation is a mixture of rich aesthetic, musical, and narrative underpinnings. The fight and mechanics themselves are elegantly gliding under the surface at this point. Typically, the health bar appears on the bottom of the screen and you know you're in for some shit in the coming moments. Astraea is the only one in which that effect is just turned on its head.

Not only was it this fight that actually comepelled me to look at my actions within game under a different 'light', but also it was the first to have me go back and analyze my encounters with every boss encounter beforehand (and given that I tackled the levels roughly in order my first time through, Astraea was one of the last I faced).

Most will quickly state that Demon's Souls falls into the practice of 'emergent narrative' as well, but it does so with a subtle twist. I'd even argue that the game doesn't so much let you 'make your own' story as it simply sends you into a dark room. You know you're in a room, you don't know exactly what's in it, and as your eyes adapt, you can pick out small things here and there to make sense of for yourself as you navigate. There's no point in 'turning the lights on' in Demon's Souls, as part of the appeal is how dark the room is. The game's lore operates off ambiguity and detail. The player may find the corpse of an important figure in one area, but this only goes so far for one to notice that the game is only faintly outlining what that person was to Boletaria. The title rarely explicitly states such events and figures, it just makes a multitude of implications.

The degree of the variability present is also one I should make note of as well. One of the largest examples I can make here is how the game is structured in a mock-open world way. I tackled my first playthrough purely offline and the levels in order (with the exception of 1-3 & 1-4). The player can almost go anywhere they wish after defeating the first demon in 1-1, and it will affect their entire perception of the game too (keep in mind that this is all also supplemented by the game's infamous 'difficulty'), but the small story hooks set in place will be there---in the same places all the time. As stoic as Demon's Souls actually is, the playtime with it is satisfyingly (not to mention ironically) flexible.

Dynamics of NPC Interaction

There have been quite a few notable steps forward in how player characters interact with their narrative counterparts this generation (e.g. various Bioware titles). However, even in something as simplistic as Demon's Souls, the same potential lies in wait, and people will quickly ignore it for what it is. The difference is how much of the above muscle gets flexed, how egregious it's presented to the player. There's far more room for manipulation of the player in games rather than striving to write some self-crushing epic tale, or some open world make-it-what-you will cliche. Demon's Souls certainly isn't the champion of such a concept, but it is one of the few making note of its existence at all.

The methods in which the characters of Demon's Souls interact is stilted and somewhat limited, but consistently enough, it will play up to the player's imagination while still holding some authority for itself as well. Some of (*coughmostofcough*) the lore in the game involves cross-examining information with various NPCS and information written on the archstones before you enter the various worlds. While encountering characters like Yurt, Miralda, and Mephistopheles, the player will easily notice how these characters make use of playing off the other NPCS too (especially if the player is ignorant to their motives without using a guide/FAQ beforehand). One of those characters begins assassinating others (this includes people who you unlock in the game's main hub world) in a somewhat random order after you rescue them from their encounter point. Demon's Souls biggest flaw here is what I mentioned in a few posts ago. It has an agonizing tendency to not follow through on some of its otherwise rich framework, preferring the give the player a minimal reason to proceed and/or form meaning.

The Colossi were dumb as hell too but...

Giving the bosses some kind of vocal presence wouldn't really achieve what I'm after, but something should be supplementing the universally lauded (albeit gruesome) boss encounters. On the surface, this runs the risk of cheapening encounters such as Astraea, but I'm merely asking for the bosses themselves to have their individuality punched up. Their importance in this game easily rivals that of Wander's sixteen slain⁵. The driving force behind this is due to the ambiguity of the lore and the presentation of the bosses as well. Astraea should theoretically be the weakest of the bunch, but she stands out above the rest for a rather cheap empathy call instead. For the more intense fights, the AI is rather---stupid. Yeah, it's stupid as hell. I'm pretty sure the only reason I defeated the Flamelurker the first time through was because he kept getting himself stuck in various areas. At first, I thought it was simply the thief's ring causing him to lose track of me, but he got stuck whether I had the damn thing on or not. Astraea avoids this because she doesn't technically do anything, and Garl just tenaciously attacks in her stead, which elicits said empathy.

In fact, it's the Astraea fight that highlights Demon's Souls being at its strongest when the player isn't fighting some hulking beast. Most of the humanoid fights were just as intense, but the only 'bigguns' I can recall not being totally wasted on me as fodder for my attacks were the Old Hero and the Storm King. The notorious Maneater fight is only memorable because it's the only fight in the game that's just genuinely cheap. The bosses of this game deserved far more personality than they were given, much like the characters---speaking of which...

NPCs = Not Particularly Compelling...

For a game about the unfathomable consumption of people’s souls, each character in Demon’s Souls has a disturbing and distinct presence. It’s extremely faint, but it is a change from what I’m used to seeing with games of this type. Particularly this is because Demon's Souls is kind of an original concept, while at the same time being somewhat of an updated revision of old focal points as well⁶. Part of this originality involves the failure of some of its NPCs too. Typically this comes in the form of the vendors that the player can find and unlock. People like Yuria and Freke are always in same area, but are opposed in the soul arts they practice. Yuria specifically seems to express remorse and insecurity for her aptitude with dark soul arts. Freke seems like the middle ground of specialty, with an apprentice who snidely comments on your involvement with him. Saint Urbain is on the opposite side of the spectrum, being a devout follower of the game's form of God (i.e. Umbasa). He even talks down on Yuria when the player engages with him.

There's rarely any kind of movement around these relationships, the player is just given food for thought instead. This is kind of disappointing too, as the game clearly knows how to handle such characters. People like Patches move in and out of worlds seemingly acting on their own ends and even the Maiden in Black wanders about the Nexus, performing idle animations while awaiting to aid the player in his or her quest. This is a small minority though, most of the characters don't play up to the illusion of 'their own will', and the game ultimately suffers for it (when it could have been much more powerful instead).

It's also an odd and yet humorous observation to dwell on the schism of just how many people forgo or eschew the discussion of the Astraea fight in particular on forums and such by quickly devolving into talk concerning 'pure mechanics' instead (i.e. "omg, you sux, use the midrian hammer and garl is nubsauce"). It's a darkly humorous string that one can see everywhere in the gaming community these days and it's also one that's pretty easily extrapolated into the somewhat passive narrative vs mechanics war for games at large. The point is that the discussion can be fused, it simply takes a little more work to articulate it. Gamers would do well to emulate (if even only in thought) the people that are busting their ass to make games with that goal in mind now . Yes, I actually just defended developers for once. I hope you brought ultra balls to capture the moment.

Will continue this sometime later in the week...

Forums » Demon's Souls » 'How was Maiden Astraea evil?'↑

He knocked me about twenty feet back when I first tried to pass him.↑

I'm still not confident enough to jump into the plague lake, and I'm almost at 150 hours.↑

My previous post, 'Difficult Lonliness'↑

Demon's Souls has quite a few moments that remind me of this game.↑

Matthew "Saijon" Weise - Tracing the Design Heritage of Demon's Souls↑

Shattered Perversion | 'Difficult Loneliness' | Demon's Souls

2010-10-08T13:11:00.000-05:00

Demon's Souls is a game meant to be played online, yet it got judged and praised by gamers such as myself for the torment that is playing it offline. This is somewhat ironic coming from me, as I'll most likely continue to tirelessly bitch about the growing necessity of 'multiplayer' in games.

Demon's Souls isn't Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker however, it isn't hindered by an obtuse structure of unfair design inherent in its boss encounters. It's a pseudo-MMO, to the point where that genre's lexicon becomes framed around typical actions in the game (e.g. farming Storm Beasts¹). Like the narrative in the title, there's a focus on fundamentals, which become hangers on which the player can put whatever they wish. The aforementioned farming of Storm Beasts for example, represents a player-response that's as old as games themselves. This is the circumvention of the system. This hacker-esque credo is also the progenitor of what has come to be known as 'cheats'. Demon's Souls almost invites this sort of play, while also mocking it at the same time. The most prominent 'ridiculer' here is how the difficulty grows with each successive playthrough². The initial New Game Plus mode is probably the most noticeable one (it's a 40% spike in difficulty).

The problem with this setup is the noise pollution caused by people who play Demon's Souls without exactly knowing what it is. True ignorance, both on the gaming/audience side and the marketing/journalistic side. It's confusing, as the word-of-mouth presents a very mixed message. The most prominent deception here is the constant labeling of it as a 'hard game'. It's not really relevant that the game is 'hard'. What does matter is that it's methodical, almost against its own end (and perhaps one of the most I've ever played). It's not a very 'feel-good' game, and for some perspective---as a collective whole, we still have morons arguing over whether or not the medium at large should be entitled to the 'art' moniker. This makes Demon's Souls' very presence appear as a very timely launched spike right into the back of videogame players (not too unlike a certain enemy I just mentioned). Some people can only get irritated at such a presence, and some are wired to ask why and how they're being shot at in the first place (some of us even fight back!).

"This is probably due to the word of mouth popularity on the Internet causing the wrong people to pick up the game. Demon’s Souls isn’t for everyone. There are people who like to play games to relax after coming home from work and turning their brain off, which is fine. But Demon’s Souls is literally the last game you should play if you’re that person. It’s refreshingly minimalist, only giving you what you absolutely need and nothing else, requiring you to pay close attention to everything that’s going on."

—DanteDyas³

This is actually why I was a fan of Final Fantasy XI (and why I'm quickly losing interest in FFXIV). Having a multiplayer title exude a state of genuine lonliness is rare. There's certainly a point in which things can be taken too far⁴, but it's not something I've ever really been intent on finding until it started breathing down my neck in Demon's Souls. Fortunately, Demon's Souls conveniently avoids such a complication by being a single-engagement experience first, with a multiplayer component that's competently prioritized in the background. Just for the uninitiated however, I should explain basically how Demon's Souls works. As long as you have your PS3 connected to the Internet, the game automatically logs you into Atlus's servers each time you start up the game. As you go through the game, you can see other people playing as well (usually about one or two at a time), but only as faint white ghosts. One can't directly interact with these ghosts, but players can leave preset messages on the ground to warn other players (or deceive them) of upcoming traps, enemies, and weapons to use. You can also interact with various bloodstains left throughout the levels where previous players have died. Touching these bloodstains allows the player to see exactly how said players met their end (which can be useful or just plain funny).

"The isolation I felt was the most polarizing experience I’ve ever encountered in any game, especially in an MMORPG where being surrounded by people is the game’s raison d’être. To this day, I’ve never felt that same sense of loneliness while playing a multiplayer game–or at least, I hadn’t, until playing Final Fantasy XIV last week."

-Ashelia⁴

The more traditional form of multiplayer comes through the use of colored stones, which allows a player to directly invade, help, simply fight with other players. There's still no voice/text option or anything of that matter, which helps keeps up a barrier between you and those you're playing with. There's simply a single list of emotes to be expressed and nothing else. This also limits the social aspect of the game somewhat elegantly, as most people would use such features to let the can-kicker effect⁶ run wild. In this respect, the game keeps the focus on you as a player first. The collective pot runs second to what you experience first, and it lets the game continue to identify as a single player experience before anything else. There have been various attempts to make a system like this work over the years, particularly on consoles. However, there's always a problem with the practicality of the experience. Examples include the highly esoteric Final Fantasy XI (PlayOnline was a fucking whore mind you), and the abysmal failure that was Resident Evil: Outbreak (which I still have kind of a soft spot for sadly).

Demon's Souls is one of the few titles to even remotely get the damn thing right. Still, with the above mentioned 'effects' (i.e. 'noise poluution, can-kicker, etc.) still eating away at the audience at large, it's kind of a small miracle that the game ever gathered the attention it did to begin with. Like I stated before, the 'difficulty' of this game has confused the hell out of some people⁷. Usually, the most symptomatic presentation of this issue manifests itself in those who are worthlessly trying to compare the game to various hack-and-slashers. Demon's Souls certainly has some relations with those types of games, but it never initiates an actual relationship with them. It's sad how many gamers are only concerned with the amount of times they die in the game, without ever discerning the meaning behind what death actually means in such a game (we'll get to that in another entry).

This title is one of the very few to remind me what type of gamer I really am⁸. Ever since I've been old enough to walk, my first response to playing with other people has been outright disgust. With the exclusion of a select few (i.e. I can count them all on my hands) I've always preferred to be alone in my room, working shit out by myself, for myself. A game like Demon's Souls illustrates this, and allows me to keep that innate-yet-healthy urge for human connection with my distance still intact. That's a fucking accomplishment to say the very least. I don't mind multiplayer at all in games like this, which is quite the statement coming from me.

This is part one, the next should be up this weekend sometime...hopefully.

These damn things began irritating the hell out of me during NG+, so farming them was incredibly rewarding.↑

Yah, this gets vicious pretty fast.↑

This is what you end up with when lurking forums in the early hours of the morning.↑

I'll give it a try when the PS3 version releases, but I'm already kind of tired and flustered enough just reading about it.↑

Ashelia's The Final Fantasy MMORPGs: Roads Less Traveled↑

People yammer on about pointless crap that I don't give a fuck about everywhere, I don't need it permeating every aspect of my life, including digital simulacrums of it AND death too ↑

The Wrong Kind of Challenge: Why Demon’s Souls Represents Rudimentary Game Design↑

Leigh Alexander's The Gamer I Really Am↑

Light & Darkness | Kingdom of Souls & Demon's Hearts

2010-10-06T16:34:00.011-05:00

I've been having quite the itch to play through Kingdom Hearts lately, and at first I couldn't really figure out why. Obviously it was intertwined into my recent playtime with Demon's Souls, as I've been obsessively plundering it for the past week. It was a specific animation that I identified in the end though. This was that I was holding my Great Axe in a similar manner to Sora and how he typically wields his keyblade. After realizing what was causing the itch, I began to draw comparisons between the two. I was kind of stunned by what I found.

Contrary to what some may easily assume, this is not merely a response to a similar comparison I've seen this week¹. I've just been slowly eking this one out since last week (though I am startled by the coincidence and appreciative of it as a supplement). The main factor that slowed writing this down so significantly was---well, let's just say I broke 100 hours in Demon's Souls earlier today.

I'm actually a big fan of the first Kingdom Hearts title. To some extent, I still harbor some love for the second game as well, but I've had no intent or desire to pick up any of the new games beyond Chain of Memories. Why? Well because KH2 easily allowed me to see where things were heading, and I've been angry as hell at Square-Enix ever since.

If one looks at Kingdom Hearts's' general fanbase/haters now, they'll generally boil down into two distinctive camps:

The obnoxious and overzealous fans who are hellbent on selfishly defending their own meaning and experience without any regard to criticism.

and...

The worthlessly pretentious RPG elitists who are simply bewildered as to why such a franchise has the above following to begin with.

Of course we could identify these in a substantial number of other titles and franchises as well, but Kingdom Hearts stands out for the intensity that both parties tend to exude. It's not really all that hard to discern 'why' when meaning has been found, this is why the elitists are just as moronic as the unquestioning. Simply watching or indulging pretention as it gets stuck on such a question is akin to getting enjoyment from listening to a broken record skip. It's very rare for any 'story-based' experience to not confront a certain line in which pandering narrative mechanics are called into question (this is different from, but not the same as 'jumping the shark'). Kingdom Hearts formally accomplished this confrontation with the second title, and the roots were presented in Chains of Memories.

This is what leads me into Demon's Souls, as it's another game where the common descriptors often rely on the basic assumption that it is a storyless game. This is a fallacious claim, just as it is to call KH strictly narrative-based. The problem is that the two titles are truly at diametrical odds, each to their own detriment. Kingdom Hearts relies on its narrative when it's often questionable whether or not it should and Demon's Souls exercises an almost unbearable amount of restraint in terms of how its lore unfolds to the player.

If we're looking at this from a strictly narrative basis though, it's almost as if the games are exhibiting a Dunning–Kruger effect² for themselves.

Insecure Games

Kingdom Hearts appears to be lost in its own darkness, as since Chain of Memories, superfluous instances of narrative scale simply take all priority from the game proper. An example of this is the degree of linearity inherent in each Disney world that can be explored within the games. It's arrogant to the point where it seems disconnected to the very same narrative it's trying to tell.

Demon's Souls on the other hand, seems almost overly focused on the most stubborn glimmer of light that's ever been seen. This is what makes actually playing the damn thing so addictive, it just comes off as a timid dungeon crawler basically. The illusion that the game is empty is also further obfuscated by the now-infamous thick haze of challenge provided through the game's ruthlessly uncompromising nature. Some people just simply cannot get over a game kicking them in the nuts and tits when they do something stupid.

Social Simulation

The characters in Kingdom Hearts are all handled rather haphazardly considering their origins. This includes both the Final Fantasy cameos and the Disney ones. Most people got so enamored with having the potential of the two world's juxtaposition in front of them, they never really noticed how odd it got at times (I count myself among these). It's really the original characters that the player should be focused on (Sora, Riku, Kairi, etc.), but the games are quite comfortable with hiding behind the cacophonous reality that is slamming Simba next to Sora instead. It's also mildly amusing to note that the Final Fantasy protagonists got dark fangirlish makeovers for their appearance in the game. Yeah, Cloud was NOT that cool. I actually liked him in Kingdom Hearts, thanks for the crossover confusion though.

Demon's Souls gets described as an intensely lonely game and for good reason. There is a definitive social aspect to it though, even when looked at in a pure offline context. The trouble is that From Software designed most of the characters to be engaged at highly impenetrable times (mostly through the World Tendency system, which I'm still not sure I get the point of). The ones that can be accessed without the world tendency prerequisites hint at the above restraint once again. As an example here, there would have been nothing wrong with giving Yuria an abundance of dialouge (especially since there is a 'Talk' option for most 'unlockable' NPCs anyway). Almost every confrontable character in Demon's Souls is interesting in their own respect, but they come off as just hollow and lightly designed characters when closely looked upon.

Narrative Nitwits

Kingdom Hearts as I mentioned above, is obsessed with itself. It prefers to unnecessarily adorn its own world with worthless characters, predictable tropes, and fuckyeahfriendship thematics that almost make me sick. This is actually a betrayal of both the Disney and Squaresoft worlds that most of the characters originate from, especially since most of them stand the test of time by including some of the more darker sides of life within their overall messages (the extent of how contrived THOSE are is another story entirely).

I don't know why people say Demon's Souls is completely devoid of a tale though. Yeah, it's certainly hiding, but it's not exactly doing a good job of it. The game stumbles upon how this is presented to the player in almost every world. On one hand I can see how this was designed and purposeful, on the other---I just see an awkward implementation that would have been far easier and worthwhile to just fix. There's one popular instance (which I'll get to in the next post), in which everything about the players' motives gets called into question. A certain boss who is almost a pure embodiment of 'light', must be murdered.

Boy/Girl & Women/Men

Kingdom Hearts comes off as an action RPG 'for the kids'. On default settings, there isn't one specific encounter in which I couldn't imagine my preteen niece not being able to simply 'mash x' through. The sense of accomplishment in the game is very minimal, often traded completely in lieu of Sora and co. superficially yammering on about 'the darkness'. It consistently takes backseat to the story it's trying to convey, which in tandem with the actual play---just makes the entire experience come off as obtuse (paticularly the second title).

The first thing anybody's probably heard about Demon's Souls however, is most likely that it's a nigh sadomasochistic experience. What's actually up with this game is that it's uncomprimising, nothing more---nothing less. If one walks into any fight simply 'mashing x' (in Demon's Souls case, R1), the enemy will quickly light your ass on fire---even the Dreglings, the lowest peons in the game, adhere to this rule.

"The Daddy Mac will make you..."

I have a bad habit to immediately form a liking for any game that simply lets me jump around, which is why I'd assume I'll never be able to completely let go of any Kingdom Hearts game. Jumping is inherently part of maneuvering the worlds and even if the platforming is questionable at every turn (which is being generous), I'm rarely left in the dark trying to navigate the environment. It's a cognitive connect I've perverted since I was a kid.

The bitch that is Demon's Souls does NOT let you jump, and yet there are instances of platforming in the game. Mostly this is done through simply letting your character fall off cliffs to reach small alcoves below for treasures, secrets, and shortcuts. The most notable one is in Stonefang Tunnel, which presents an optional route to the Flamelurker boss that would otherwise take ten-twenty minutes if the player decided to take the less dangerous path instead. Demon's Souls continually makes use of dropping off into a a pit of nothingness to explore some dim light shining some 100 feet down.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This was actually part of much longer post, but I’ve decided to split it up over the next few weeks as I continue to play through Demon's Souls's ‘plus modes’. I’ve also currently hopped on the Minecraft train as well, but I don’t see myself slowing down in Demon’s Souls anytime soon. So I think I’ll just cut my audience some slack and just break the posts up into digestible chunks instead, as I come across new concepts to articulate and whatnot.

The point of this post however, isn’t to hate on Kingdom Hearts or even Demon’s Souls for that matter, but merely to express my perspective that Kingdom Hearts as a franchise has prematurely become messy. It will continue to sell as well, because it has its hooks in enough people to do so, which is the greatest tragedy. It will descend into oblivion³ as that continues too. This is once again, in stark contrast to Demon’s Souls, which has done fairly well for itself given the type of game it is---in the landscape of gamers that now exists. From Software is even keeping its oath⁴ which was 'voiced' with Demon's Souls mere existence, by developing a spiritual successor⁵ to the game.

I'll seal this entry off by acknowleding how pointless it's become to simply argue over the 'emergent vs authored' narratives, and I’ll quote Michael Abbott’s post speaking on that specific note:

"For what it’s worth, I don't see the question as simply emergent vs embedded narrative because that binary frame oversimplifies, in my view. Parts of Etrian Odyssey III's story are authored, parts emerge from the player's experience, and parts seem to fall somewhere between the two, provoked by the game's design, but interpreted by the player in individual ways."

Demon's Souls fits in that quote as well, and I intend to voice why over the next few posts.

Michael Abbott's Brainy Gamer, 'Impotent narrative'↑

This cognative bias was the first thing that jumped into my head.↑

Yes, it's a Keyblade↑

Oh God, it's ANOTHER Keyblade↑

From Software's spiritual successor to Demon's Souls↑

The Limbo Level | Pokémon Black & White

2010-09-29T04:02:00.008-05:00

I intended on putting up Forwards Compatible Reduxes over the week, but a string of Siliconera posts recently caught my eye. The most pertinent one is dealing with 'levels of reality', which of course inspired my typical esoteric titling. The limbo level is simply where I'm at with the recently released generation V games, and I think I might be trapped there---indefinitely.

I'm also trying out something new here in terms of formatting with this post. Mainly taken from Andrew S.'s Tales of a Scorched Earth, I've always been partial to how he cites his posts in superscript, so I'm gonna give it a whirl myself.

I've seen quite a few articles within the past week praising 'change' in regards to Pokémon Black & White. I can't really filter out the voices due to an overwhelming suspicion alert going off in my head. This alert is merely the reaction towards the toleration of incremental and 'commercially safe' changes that the series has seen over the years. It also seems that Black & White are just the newest fad for people to pointlessly mull over whether or not 'the change' question is even worth asking to begin with. Yes, some of us still think that a radical change is worthwhile for this series. In the end though, maybe I'm just the only one that's still persisting in seeing whether or not that goddamn top falls over.

"If they were to develop a new game thereafter, they would have to change all but the most basic aspects of the series."
(via Siliconera¹)

As seen with most other 'change issues' concerning gaming, when a well established franchise tampers even slightly with a well proven formula (or even an aesthetic icon), our little haven virtually explodes.

Recent Examples:

Go to any forum board concerning StarCraft 2 and take your thinking-cap off.

Everybody seems to have an opinion on how Devil May Cry should look, but the fans are the last ones we should listen to (even the ones with a reasonable negative reaction).

The Pokémon franchise has arguably 'needed' to change since the third generation; everybody notes this---yet none of us can articulate a message forceful enough to leave any lasting impact on the matter.

I've not played Black & White yet, and I'll have to wait until next spring like everyone else. However, judging from the few hours that I've watched, the above quote seems as if it's becoming all the more relevant now². I just don't really see the series ever reaching a state of 'actual change' at this point. That's the easiest part of this to identify. One doesn't just change something that's generating that much cash and pleasing that many fans at the same time. Yet, I'm always left wondering 'hasn't this series been one of the few that's actually earned a bit of experimentation room for itself?' One also has to understand that when I say change, I don't mean simply stripping the clothing off the games and dressing them up again. I'm talking about something even more basic and fundamental here. The core concept itself. How do we deal with it? Both players and the developers would do well to ask that question to themselves.

Yes, the core concept itself should be reconsidered entirely. Everybody has become so comfortable with it, they don't even care to think about what it would even mean to question it.

Continuing on from the metaphor above, Black & White appear to be at best---the equivalent of plastic surgery, ultimately 'cosmetic' changes that satisfy the needs of everyone but the 'core principle'³ (which it also ironically counteracts). The core principle in this case is Pokémon's goal as a game. Dare we use that blasphemous argument here, one which so many gamers are becoming more and more impassioned with evolving? This would be the argument that games can extend meaning beyond mere entertainment. Pokémon's appeal is often tied up in its pervasiveness. This is an aspect of 'the core' that I don't think should be touched; there's certainly no logical reason to do so right now. It's fine as is, it appeals to children and adults alike.

The problem though, is the perception of going back. This has to be done in order to construct a new foundation for anything. In Pokémon's case, it's neither a slight nor merit to admit that the series has tried and failed at this repeatedly⁴. The design and development teams may perhaps add new features or tweaks that inevitably cause ripples (e.g. TMs changed? Big. Fucking. Deal.), but they're always built upon that same foundation---always. Criticizing this process tends to infuriate fans who have become entrenched in the habitual surroundings of what they love, and their first knee-jerk reaction is to irrationally defend all change at all costs.

The easiest solution that I've seen and have railed against for years myself is what Pokémon would mean as an MMO (one that's officially licensed anyway).

"Trading is a core concept of Pokémon. So when you're trading, you meet with a friend and decide which one you want and which one they want. I would like to emphasize real-world communication. You don't see each other online."

---Junichi Masuda⁵

There it is again, that 'core', that sacred line they dare not cross. In this particular case, I'd even say it's hypocritical. In what world is the Internet not real-world communication? I don't need Nintendo and Gamefreak to dictate the implications of a filtered online presence to me. They're terrible philosophers in that sense⁶. Indeed there's a difference, but it's not vast enough that this should be thrown out all together, especially out of some insane notion that they're imbuing physical contact as some sort of superior gaming mechanism. If they really honored that belief, they'd keep the concept intact while cultivating the MMO-prospect as well; suggesting mutual exclusivity here is just totally unwarranted though right? I mean, why give us players a choice at all, especially when you designers can excessively pervert arbitrary ideals? Silly Asians...Pokémon's for kids.

That typecast is a problem too. Despite the series' aforementioned pervasiveness, it still to this day---retains that 'children's game' persona. Now I'm not saying the series should go Mortal Kombat or anything, but introducing some actual maturity in the series wouldn't be such a bad thing either (it wouldn't even have to change its aesthetics). The franchise at large suffers from this, coloring the entire thing in a somewhat Saturday morning cartoon identity. I'm not even suggesting that be removed, merely complemented. We live in an age of nerdom where the most exalted forms of animation blend the two (i.e. maturity and puerile fantasy)⁷. Pokémon, despite its proxy to this arena, has remained staunchly immune to such a potential strength for well over a decade now (and the fans are the ones that empower it). I've already noted earlier that Black and White appeared to be an admission of the series' developer recognizing this and preferring to lazily parody it. So, at best, I'm expecting Gen-V to simply say "Lol". Baby steps I guess?⁸

The base settings of the game show how 'cosmetic' this change is as well. With Black & White, we're introduced to Isshu, a fictional region roughly inspired by America's cultural capital⁹. I'm willing to bet too that the game does nothing but passingly exploit that setting through a rather thick Japanese lens (which we tend to find humorous and nothing else). America's going to laugh at any 'cleverness' expressed in this title (and I'm being generous), and America has also been known to exhibit a definitive global trait, a tendency to want to smile without thought. Earthbound can get away with this sort of parody¹⁰, Pokémon however, cannot, not in my eyes anyway.

"Another complaint Masuda had heard was that children were having too much trouble completing the main story of the game, and that they usually ended giving up. Along this line, the map was designed so that it would be a linear adventure and younger players wouldn’t get lost. Since most of the appeal of the game was what you did post-story, Masuda wanted as many people to reach that point as possible."

(via Siliconera¹)

I'm sorry, but I'm never gonna be the type that strives to make kids even dumber than they already are.

These guys appear to have been busting their ass over the past twelve years to give gamers what they want, and to be fair---they already have. I won't deny that. My question now however, is what do gamers need, and furthermore, what do the designers want? Anytime I read design insights into this particular series, I'm painfully reminded of the old saying 'work smart not hard', except the words are always jumbled around...

The good news here is that I think I'm done talking about Pokémon for the time being. I'm sick of it. Until I get my hands on B&W and see for myself the context of what's been 'changed' or not, I'm gonna go dark on the topic for my blog. Since I see myself playing through those before I finish my little drawing project, that's the earliest I see myself coming back with all of this.

The Methodical Destruction of Pokémon In Black & White↑

The Matrix Of Pokémon↑

What? Your Pokemon is Evolving into Black and White!↑

The Goal Of Pokémon Black/White Was "Difference"↑

Meeting the creators of Pokémon Platinum↑

The Philosophy of Game Design (part 1)↑

If you play video games and can't name one Pixar, Disney, or Miyazaki film that appeals to you, you are a true aberration.↑

The Pokémon Ego Agenda & Its Response are still getting quite a few hits for me↑

It will take quite the force to ever get me to go back to New York City in this lifetime.↑

Shattered Perversion | Earthbound (Mother 2)↑

Forwards Compatible Redux II

2010-09-23T17:58:00.001-05:00

Originally Posted: June, 2009

'The Downside of Motion Control'

>>> By Dustin Rodgers

As games become more expensive to produce, developers want to maximize their profit. This often translates to multi-platform releases, making games available to as wide an audience as possible. This is a good thing for gamers, but for console manufacturers, fewer exclusives means fewer reasons to buy your console.

This generation, Microsoft and Sony have each had a difficult time separating their release lineups from one another. Services like the Xbox Live Marketplace and the Playstation Network have provided several exclusive titles for each machine, and console-specific downloadable content for Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto 4 has also been successful. New distribution methods like these are worthwhile for console manufacturers, but they are not as alluring to gamers as full retail exclusives can be.

Thanks to the Wiimote, Nintendo has found a way secure exclusive game releases without having to pay for them. Because many Wii games cannot be played without the motion controls, every Wii game (including the ones ported to the system) is an experience exclusive to the Wii. In conjunction with other factors, the unique control scheme has actually resulted in more exclusives for the Nintendo’s Wii than exist for the Xbox 360 and PS3 combined.

By changing the way we play, Nintendo was able to overcome the bidding war Microsoft and Sony had fallen into. That was until last week, when both of the lagging companies arrived at E3 with their own ideas to change the way we play. Microsoft’s depth-sensing camera, Project Natal, and Sony’s motion-sensing wands, are both unique and exciting ways to play a game, but just like Nintendo’s Wii Remote, they open the door for more exclusive console games. This controller diversification is a move opposite to a single-console future.

Gamers are always interested in new ways to play games, and the new technology offered by Project Natal, the DualStalk, and Wii Motion Plus fascinates us. The prospect of 1:1 detection of movement sends gamers reeling from the potential applications. We seem to be impressed by each company’s shift toward motion input, but what negative effects could this have on our future? Do we want our gameplay to be console-exclusive? Do we want to play with more peripherals? What effects will this have on PC gaming? Could precise motion detection actually make games less accessible? Even if you think it can do no wrong, I’m still interested to hear your thoughts on the implications of motion control.

>>> Second Take, Matthew Armstrong

I’m all for diversifying the market, but if all of this mumbo jumbo is nothing more than a subtle farce to achieve some blind goal that games should be accessible to “everyone”, well I’m totally against that. It could also be the first real progenitor-leap at virtual reality as motion-control is a fundamental movement in how that eventuality will work. How does Natal really plan to make Milo something worthwhile? As harsh as it sounds, I’m leaning more and more towards the opinion that the developers are caught up in the novelty of the technology, more so than the actual practicality of its usage. Even if this technology works precisely as intended it will reset the way games will have to be made for a while (further exacerbating my earlier stance here that they keep leaving behind already-amazing tech in lieu of something that MIGHT be more superficially profitable).

I honestly just hope the technology can find the fruition it deserves. Even the Wii selling as well as it is, only managed to mildly dent the design of its own motion controller interface. If you have an argument of contention, please present it. The Wii Motion Plus is an outright admittance at this fact. Think about it…how many games have really made us appreciate the worth of motion control? For me, I honestly can’t move past the pack-ins party games like Wii Sports and Wii Play (and even those can only keep my attention in the company of others). It’s always been on the slower end between a simple gimmick and something uniquely surprising (which only a few games use either way). I appreciate the idea of things like Wii-Fit and Wii Sports Resort, but that’s not for me so it’s kind of irrelevant to my point.

My point is pretty much that all these developers are simply throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. This in turn causes a chunk of the gamer population to develop built-in noise filters when dealing with the fact. It’s not because they’re bad ideas, bad technology, or even bad games. It’s because developers are now striking out to aimlessly wander around in even darker territories than they have been and it’s a little more than annoying at this point.

Oh, and don’t even get me started on how much all this crap is going to cost either.

Roundtable Discussion

>>> Jeff Grubb
Editor, Forwards Compatible

It is as if Sony and Microsoft didn’t get the memo. The technology behind these devices almost doesn’t matter. Sure, it matters to those of us that are writing about games every week, but it doesn’t really matter to the typical consumer. The normies have already decided which machine they want to buy for their family’s waggling needs. The Wii has already won this race. Even the Wii Motion Plus has won the 1:1 race, as if that matters.

Natal and Ball-on-a-Stick are going to have their great games, but what is the potential that either of these technologies will be bundled with every single system sold in 2010? Zero. There is no chance of that. What exactly is the business model for Sony and Microsoft to lure the companies currently making exclusive Wii games to more barren pastures?

Natal isn’t going to be cheap, how much do we think that thing costs? Two camera technologies and a built-in processor? I think the technology has great potential, but its potential in the market is meager. Sony has a better opportunity, they should have several PS eyes already in the wild and shipping glowing balls on a stick should be relatively cheap, but how hard is Sony going to be pushing this? Sony will have to abandon its current posturing as the high end one box for all needs. Also, I’m not sure that I’ve heard anyone talk about this before, but Sony might also need to cut the price of the PS3.

These concerns are only the ones that I could think of, just wait till the third parties actually sit down and consider this. There will always be early adopters, both on the consumer side and on the development side, but does Sony or Microsoft have a plan to take these motion technologies into the next several years?

>>> Matt Spayth,
Editor, Forwards Compatible

When examining the possible downsides of motion control, I believe Itagaki put it best a few years back in an EGM interview. Below is an excerpt summarizing his early impressions of the Nintendo Wii:

“Games are all about input from the player and output from the game. Obviously, increasing the number of inputs increases the number of possibilities. What makes videogames fun is that the output the game gives you is many more times more impressive than the input- you push one button, and your character does amazing things.

The formula starts to break down as the inputs get greater. If you have to shake the controller madly, you’re upping the input for the same output. When you get to a point where the balance favors the input, and the output remains the same, well, if I have to do all this jumping around, I might as well ride a real Jet Ski.”

Itagaki made these comments before the Wii was released, and for the most part, his observations hold up quite well. Personally, I’m also concerned that an over-reliance on motion controls could eventually destabilize the balance between the input and output. As of right now, many Wii titles still uphold the formula that Itagaki addresses. Take for example Punch-Out!! The motion controls simulate real punching, but it nonetheless feels like a traditional gaming experience.

While technically impressive, I’m a little concerned that Project Natal might fail to keep this time-tested formula intact. Do I really want to kick an invisible soccer ball around when I could reenact the same movements in my backyard? This is where 1:1 controls can become problematic. The relationship between the input and output doesn’t have to be perfectly balanced. In fact, too much precision could undermine the gaming experience.

Don’t get me wrong, I was very impressed with the demo that Microsoft showed, and I believe the Natal provides some potentially excellent gaming possibilities. The real trick though to making this technology work is by preserving the balance that Itagaki mentions. Can this be done? I think so. However, if developers get too carried away with motion controls, the end result could be the demise of videogames as we currently know them.

>>> Daniel Sims
Editor, Forwards Compatible

I have responses to everyone’s view on this presented since the Second Take, but I’m gonna start with Jeff’s and snakeLinksonic’s. I don’t think motion control is really going to come into its own market-wise or game design-wise until we’re fully into the next console cycle.

Jeff is right that Microsoft and Sony aren’t going to get anywhere near Nintendo-level market penetration with their current motion control devices. This is why the Wii remote wasn’t simply an add-on for the Gamecube. Some have already speculated that the Natal launch will be like a console launch - an “Xbox Natal” that will be as the Wii was to the Gamecube.

Whatever they do though, it won’t truly matter in the market until the next console cycle when motion control will come standard with every system. The same issue struck online gaming, which penetrated barely 10% of the gaming population on the PS2 and Xbox but is now integral to each console’s working and is used by roughly half the user base. This is also true for game design which sLs addressed in the second take.

Console gaming has always come in generations of innovation followed by generations of refinement. 3D gaming when popularized with the N64 and PS1 was still embryonic and not as refined as 2D gaming was by that point, refinement of game design in 3D didn’t really come until well into the PS2’s life cycle.

I think that the Wii2, real Xbox 720, and PS4 will come standard with probably more refined motion control schemes and by then developers will start to have a handle on what kinds of games they should be making for motion control. We’re already starting to see the beginnings of it with Wii Motion Plus games.

In response to Itagaki’s quote about input and output, I think it’s absolutely true that we play games partly because they let us do amazing things with less input than they would really require. While one can argue that the gap between input and output is closing on the Wii, I think that if developers are careful it won’t close completely or cross over.

Right now I’m playing Virtua Tennis 2009 on the Wii, and its’ perhaps the first Wii game I’ve seen that is actually deeper and requires more skill compared to its PS3 and Xbox counterparts because of how much more control over your character is afforded the player. Despite this, the actions played out on screen are still exaggerated as Virtua Tennis is still an arcade game. What matters however is that you can feel a more refined difference between your inputs now.

Enrich or Expand? | BioShock Infinite

2010-09-21T18:43:00.005-05:00

I enjoyed you BioShock---really, I did, but I never loved you. I apologize for leading you on.

You see, I'm one of those people who played System Shock for the first time afterwards, tracing Rapture's lineage 'through the looking glass' and subsequently having my prior enjoyment of the game irreparably damaged because of it.

This is so much in fact, that I've still not seen it fit to try out BioShock 2 yet. It's also in spite of the frontlash (for lack of a better term) I've recently seen for it as well. This means I've been in a consistent position of apathy with the 'Bioseries' since 2008 (i.e. when I played System Shock). Of course I have my biases like anyone else, idiosyncrasies that dictate why such a 'robbery of affinities' would even occur. Yet, I do find my reaction towards the new BioShock: Infinite rather---bewildering.

Mostly this is because I actually liked what I saw. I have my usual complaints of course (we'll get to a few of them in a bit), but for the most part, the things that have troubled me about the prior games have taken on a new form now. This new form is somewhat enduring to me. So, first let's look at three appeals---the ones to my emotions.

1. Not only does this game take place in the skies, but there's a sense of infinite scale that the original BioShock was pretty much cut off from entirely. That game's entire modus operandi was in a failed underwater utopia, which pretty much enforced claustrophobia at all times. Columbia however, looks to be expansive, with some sense of placement that allows the player to 'feel' beyond their immediate surroundings. This doesn't exactly seem like a hard thing to do with a first-person game of any type, yet I see it so rarely (especially outside the realm of RPGS). This makes Infinite stand out to me.

2. It also takes a very industrial aesthetic and lays nationalism all over it. I suppose I could share in the descriptions some have drawn up here, most notably calling it a Steampunk-looking game (which isn't necessarily wrong or anything), but that's not what it shouts to me---not first anyway (it's personally not Victorian enough from what I've seen). It takes a more general retro-futurism approach and almost cleverly splashes 'America, fuck yeah!' all over it. This gives it a bit more breathing room visually and distances the look from just being generically in-tune with a commonly seen look that inspires nerd-boners these days.

3. We're now using an actual character (who is ironically voiced by Garrett's voice actor, whom I've often complained about not speaking enough in the Thief titles)? To be fair here, I have to reiterate that I haven't played BioShock 2 in any form, so I don't know exactly what players are controlling in that game. From what I gathered with today's released footage however, I'm going to make a guess and say that this is not a generic form we're meant to transpose ourselves (in that lazy free-form way) to accommodate for. It's always going to be more appealing to me to have a character who is written into his or her own world.

Where'd You Come From?

One aspect of the original BioShock that I found disappointing (which was exasperated exponentially by System Shock 2), was the placement of a single emotion:

Fear.

I felt fear in System Shock 2, whereas I simply felt in place 'doing what I was supposed to do' whilst playing through BioShock. One of the initial trailers for the game that I still kind of love is also one that I kind of tag as being a bit misleading now.

Now, while Infinite doesn't really look like it will pick up on that horror-thread to any mentionable extent (I'd be an idiot to expect that), it also looks like it could instill in me what I was supposed to get from two other games that I'm a bit 'against' these days. These two other games (and my complaints about them) are not new if you've known me for over a year, as the revulsion occasionally builds up and spills out at fixed points now. If you don't know what these two games are yet, bear with me for the next few paragraphs while I have a little fun (assuming you don't just scroll down to see what they are). I've only seen the correlation in one other place today, so hopefully it hasn't been spoiled for you yet.

What BioShock (as a general series) and 'those games' seem to have in common is an excess of weaponry, a distinct quota of control that's never taken away from the player. For me personally, this kept all moods in a rather close proximity to one another as I played through the original BioShock. Be it plasmids or firearms, I was always able to customize everything to my liking, which ironically---I don't always happen to actually like. There's also the question of who's opposing you in these games as well. In 'those games', there was an easily dropped (and stupidly controversial) ball, concerning the color of the pursuers' skin. With Infinite, I see something else... I don't see mutilated and mutated 1950's mascots wearing ball masks and shouting incoherently. I don't see the depiction of third world fodder slinging primitive weaponry at me (did you get it yet?). What I DO see is a gaggle of ultra-nationalist white people, and lo' and behold---that actually DOES kind of leave me unsettled.

It doesn't help that Infinite appears to be at least a partly 'tag-along-girlie' experience either, further relating itself to 'the other games'. Elizabeth's importance mirrors that of an equally important character in one of 'those games' (though fittingly enough, the other one features a permanent tag along).

Though I think Corvus, Kate, and Michael's commentary were fairly healthy given the abundance of shooters we already have, its this title---probably one of the few, where I'll welcome the presence of firearms in such a manner. Depending on how the game turns out to be designed, I'll even extend that argument to encompass the above mentioned aesthetics as well. I can't firmly take this position quite yet though, as there's a lot that's still left to be seen, and this game is well over a year from being released. In short, I think the sentiment against guns were far more fitting for BioShock, BioShock 2 (possibly), and yes---Biohazard 4 & 5. You're a tad late there guys. =p

Worries

If Infinite does in fact degenerate too far into that Post-Biohazard: CV state, I'm going to have a problem (and judging from the trailer, it looks like that line will be easily crossed too). I suppose it's a good thing that Irrational inspires such a problem with me now, but it's still a problem nonetheless. The way the player interacts with denizens of Columbia looks to be very similar to Leon's first hour or so of Biohazard 4. If Infinite can somehow manage to keep that specific form of resident evil (no pun intended), it will actually do what those games failed to, inspire a newfound sort of tension in me.

Despite another personal appeal dealing with some of the game's 'supposed political thematics', I really hope it doesn't mishandle the theme which appears to be the popular 'addressing' speculation at this point, anarchism. If it does do this, I'm hoping it doesn't juggle the concept akin to what BioShock is called forth for constantly in terms of Objectivism.

Another thing troubling me at the moment are the potential for 'safe roads' in this game. Infinite seems to be contingent on building somewhat elaborate thematics around extremist politics. The worry here is what certain circumventions will be made, be it its writing or just in general milieu to avoid certain 'controversies'. A video game making a funhouse mirror out of American nationalism is a desire of long odds at this point, but still something I'd love to see.

Yes, it could turn out to be a bitchy and rather nit-picky complaint, but the transport systems are going to weigh down down on me, as will any other spectacle moments and enemies (e.g. apparently the Big Daddy was replaced with something that wouldn't look too out of place in Fallout). I'm simply hoping they're kept to a moderate level at this point. Gaming has enough roller-coaster rides, it doesn't need a popularized literal one too.

All that said, I'm actually looking forward to this game. It's far off enough that I don't simply feel pressured and annoyed by its release (as well as its fans), and perhaps I'll even find the will to pick up the second game now as well.

Video Games Industry | Better Than It's Ever Been?

2010-09-20T13:53:00.001-05:00

Hardly...and I'm fucking sick of hearing it.

I mean yes, we could spout off some quick numbers and irrelevant facts that would seem to suggest as much, but I can guarantee you each and every one of those claims are made by a person who most likely has passed some sort of twisted and hedonistic event horizon, rendering all their opinions as amusing conjecture at best.

The claim that things have been the same however, has far more of a lasting significance here (even if that's somewhat fallacious as well). The growth in this industry is akin to that of a human being. It's easy to long for childhood (i.e. retro games), and it's just as convenient to pretend like 'times are so much better now!' (i.e. hop on XBL every night like a dumbass and refuse to question anything else).

What's difficult though? It hardly ever gets seen enough so it might not be that recognizable; its the appreciation of a overall continuum and not just 'this is better, but this is worse!' This means that we respect everything that comes along with it, both good and bad (as well as what it means to even perceive as such as well). People have trouble with such this antinomy, especially when trying to decipher meaning from it. This is particularly prevalent in the United States, as people have perverted happiness here as some type of end-game idealistic goal (and the morons think they can actually claim altruism at the same time with this attitude too).

Here's a quick napkin-list of why people commonly think we're living in such great times now with the bold text just highlighting my thoughts.

1 - "These games look so great now!"
No they don't, they're a narrowly and hollowly viewed set of styles reflecting the perverse cultures that make them. There's rarely any cross-breeding and overlap and when there actually is, it becomes lost amidst whatever demands that marketing and audiences are currently making at that given time.

2 - "I can play with my friends online!"
You're that easily fooled eh? I call it the can-kicker effect, and it's something more of you should be aware of. Human beings are social creatures, this does not mean we should just lower our standards simply because of that fact.

3 - "So much work goes into them, it's a thriving medium, it's an art!"
Work smart, not hard. It's not a living breathing thing, it's a well-oiled machine. People would do well to make that distinction now. Perhaps we can tilt the table towards that more biological metaphor eventually, but now's not that time (so stop jumping the fucking gun). People rarely doubt the actual work that goes into a game, but they DO tend to forget about it. They forget about it to the extent as to not even question it, wherein lies the greatest challenge here.

If you're honestly going to take the the money route (i.e. 'games are a major financial force now!'), then we're in more trouble than even I thought. I refuse to acknowledge that one beyond these two sentences.

"I look around Tokyo Games Show, and everyone’s making awful games; Japan is at least five years behind"

-Keiji Inafune, (source)

That's not the first time that Inafune has expressed such a sentiment, but at the same time, that New York Times article eschews its own topic buy presenting some quick-hit statistics that really don't hold up in the long run. It talks very shallowly of how Japan's relationship with 'overseas' markets (they're just talking about the United States by the way, a problem in itself) has tinted their eyes towards design. The 'Westernization' of video games is a bigger problem than people are letting on at the moment and it expands well beyond what I've been bitching about with the likes of Crackhead Dante and whatnot.

What's not addressed is what's actually relevant, the rather selfish tennis match that Japan and America have been playing with video games for over twenty years now. One very easy example would be concerning narrative thematics; with all the incessant whining about religion and its origins now, this planet is full of a lot of wacky ass mythologies that extend well beyond the limits of what dear Odin and his friends can offer us. That said, Europe has surely become a bigger factor, but it's still akin to the second string quarterback in a football game, appreciated by not necessarily always needed.

At the very least, we can all say that design has moved forward to an mentionable extent, but the only reason that people are perverting nostalgia and rallying behind indie games now is because the foundations laid out in the past twenty years were done so haphazardly. Base concepts and ideas are really only beginning to become addressed now. Cinematics in games, literary themes, and even fundamental & mechanical design theories are just starting to become serious topics (not to mention any academic discourse on such things). This is very much opposed to the idea that 'it's just a game', which still holds its worth by most, so such topics will be fighting an uphill battle for decades to come. Even the very idea of 'this game sucks!' is poison now, and any type of critical analysis on a game is seen by most fans as some personalized attack.

God forbid fans actually form a relationship with a game. They just think loving it unquestioningly is the answer. Heh, and like all human relationships, unwitting idealization for the sake of happiness will always lead to problems. Good luck with it!

Deceptive Design | Pokémon Black & White

2010-09-19T00:03:00.002-05:00

It's been a common complaint for the past two generations of Pokémon titles that the designs have been getting worse with every game.

I've danced around this with earlier Pokémon-related posts, but my take on this is simply that Game Freak and Nintendo have fallen into rather destructive a habit of meeting some sort of twisted quota to pander to the masses (this is a consumer product we're talking about after all). The designs are rarely just plain bad, but when the most detrimental of them manages to churn up a collective disdain, aesthetic credibility immediately gets called into question. People are also natrually geared to take things that garner any sort of general consensus seriously, even if it's far more than worth their time to begin with. This is all but surprising, seeing as how we gamers have always had snooty tastes.

When one (most notably an artist) has a condensed level of style however, they will immediately build a stronger (and far more recognizable) style. This essentially equates to the old 'quality vs quantity' adage. This is also why the audiences and people in a position to judge are so prone to hold on to the original 151 Pokémon's design as being somewhat superior. They really aren't, they're just as moronic-looking as the rest. I'll even admit to still being tethered to this concept myself, as I can certainly point out the design issues I have with each and every single little critter I've seen thus far. Remember that little project I mentioned? It's on hold now thanks to Black & White temporarily overloading me with sketch-ennui, but I do intend to finish the damn thing (I stopped at around #62, Poliwrath). I noticed this stuff however, in their entirety after drawing the twentieth little jackass, Raticate.

It would seem that the following formulas have some credence worth laughing at:

Perception + Nostalgia + Compression = Quality
Opinion + Generational Shifts + Expansion = Natural tendency for audience to 'rebel/react' somehow

As an artist, I personally find this particular facet of the franchise fascinating, if only because I'm so ignorant to the inner-workings of how Ken Sugimori engaged with the rest of the development team. I have absolutely no damn clue who is designing the characters and various 'Pokes' now, but I assume it's not just him (i.e. he drew the original 151 Pokémon himself from what I understand).

When the first three starter types were revealed for Black & White, the backlash against all of them was more immediate and explosive than the last, almost confirming that the effect increases in intensity with each generation. I suppose the grass snake didn't catch as much hell as the pig and the otter, but he was part of the 'trio of worsening' nonetheless.

I can't source this definitively, so take it for what it is. Supposedly, it's an interview featuring Sugimori and Yusuke Ohmura:

KS: "I really struggled the most with the Water-type [starter] this time."
YO: "There was talk of, 'Wouldn't a sea otter be good for the Water starter?' But it was a really close decision in terms of what this sea otter would become once it evolves. In the end, we decided to have it evolve into something with a completely different appearance."
KS: "Of course, we want to make the starters into Pokémon that remain with the player throughout the game, so we hope to make them evolve into creatures that offer a surprise to the player. We always make an effort to throw in some twists and create third-stage evolutions that have an impact."
YO: "There was also talk this time about dividing the three starters into Japanese, Western, and Chinese styles of design. Tsutaaja was based on Western design, and Pokabu was rooted in a Chinese style, so I was told, "Let's make Mijumaru into a more Japanese-style design." Someone even asked, 'Can't you make Mijumaru into a samurai?' [*laughs*]"
Everyone: [*laughs*]
KS: "I worried about it for a while, and I eventually went to go see the sea otters at the aquarium. I happened to catch the sea lion show while I was there, and I became aware of the sea lion's power. 'Well, let's try blending a sea otter and a sea lion', I thought. I came up with the idea of making the shell on Mijumaru's stomach into a sword (katana) and using it to fight, and that's how I completed Mijumaru and its evolution."

(via Bulbapedia, also Pokémon Pia originally)

Just grabbing a design from a recent game that I've been playing this week to show all this at work:

This guy looks like he could easily sneak into the National Pokédex right? This is actually Sheep Man, from Mega Man 10. The lineage of Pokémon is growing, it's certainly expanding, but it hasn't moved but a few inches in terms of artistic diversity. I'd love to make a biased attack on this as an Asian ideal, but that's a debate I'd rather have on its own formal right, far removed from this rather small and ultimately pointless topic.

The ideal---the axe to grind for me here would be a more science-related approach to creating the characters/creatures. Yes, you heard me right. We've had (or at least I've had) enough of Japan's nigh-ritualistic 'culture display'. Right now, I'd have to assume that any sort of design for these guys in constructing the creatures is based almost completely on cheap aesthetic appeals. This is opposed to any type realism or practicality. This is quite deceptive, as on the surface, it appears to be what's actually being done, some fantastical simulation of reality, but it isn't. A grass pokemon for example, just looks like a generic land dwelling baddie were it in any other videogame. Very few of them actually look drawn to facilitate a bond to the environment/setting they're supposedly from or embody, they simply have touchstones that obnoxiously scream so (e.g. Charizard's tail). I'm not falling for it anymore you sneaks.

Strictly speaking from the videogames' position, all that the players are given simply amount to little tidbits regarding the nature of their respective species. This usually means one or two sentences that the player could most likely make up on their own anyway by simply looking at damn things. There was never any actual authority being displayed with the design of these creatures and the slow revelation of this fact is what people are actually feeling and thus reacting to now. What little there is becomes 'lost in translation', which isn't simply going from Eastern to Western audiences, but more of a designer to consumer one as well (not to mention an artist to audience one too).

This also got briefly mentioned in the Ego Agenda and its response (and here's another), but the creatures' appeal is just becoming a thinner and more insulting veil to view them through. THIS would be why I'd say the designs appear to be getting worse with each generation.

The only thing that's really changing here are the people playing these games. The artists of course, change too, but nowhere near the pace of the former. These artists are not just simply scraping the bottom of the barrel. It's much more complicated than that. It's part of my definition of an artist to problem solve and to deceive. The problem is that these guys are now MAKING UP their own problems unnecessarily and becoming bogged down and weary while trying to deal with an audience that's been trained VERY WELL to 'eat their work and ask for seconds'.

Image Credits:
Images via The_Katbot, 1UP.com, Mega Man Knowledge Database, and random crap I dug up via my own Tumblr

BioShock: Infinite | Anarchism | Quotations

2010-09-18T21:10:00.001-05:00

I'm far too lazy at the moment to actually comment directly on the article, but RPS slid out a little post yesterday concerning BioShock: Infinite. I found the commentary interesting (and of course, humorous), so in the interest of pumping out more content on this blog again, I figured I could stick them up here rather than my Tumblr like I normally would. I need to start exercising the will to write here again. I'm very much out of practice and this helps that.

"Anarchy has never meant an absence of organisation and a life of complete chaos except in the slanders of royalists and conservatives (which have become the standard, which I think means they won)"

--->Muzman

"If there is an Emma Goldman character, she’ll probably be the representative of the “good anarchist” faction and the (perhaps penitent) conscience of the game, unless they surprise me."

--->perilisk

"I surely hope Infinite isn’t just doing Anarchy the same way Bioshock did Objectivism. Boy would that be dull. Just painting a picture of the US back when it had a far more interesting political landscape than it’s had for most of the 20th century would be far more interesting."

--->Muzman

"Actually the *American* anarchist movement was very active in the late 1800s, the timeline of Bioshock Infinite. Bombing campaigns, the whole nine yards."

--->Torgen

"it’d be great if a game (and most other forms of fiction, for that matter, with a small number of exceptions) could actually manage to depict Anarchists realistically (and with an actual knowledge of some Anarchist history), but i’m pretty pessimistic – it always gets cocked up, and you get caricatures made by people who’s conception of Anarchism goes barely any farther than terrorism, punks, and Crimethinc (not that i’m suggesting that, at least, the terrorist aspect should be ignored, as at least THAT is historically important)."

--->feighnt

"First of all there are many radically different flavors of anarchism. Most prominent are anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is about abolishing monopoly of government on things it has monopoly over. It does not mean no law or no police. It means free market in those things."

--->boniek

"I really wouldn’t say anarcho-capitalism is prominent outside of the Unites States. Or outside of the internet, really. If you talk to a European anarchist and tell them about anarcho-capitalism they’ll look at you like you’re mad."

--->Loveschach

"Anarchist splits, in Barcelona? Unless you hark back to the days of pisteleros and the CNT/FAI division there’s not much happening but your usual fighting of Fascism and Stalinism. If it’s anarchist infighting you want that’s mostly been done through the medium of name calling and pamphlets since the time of this games setting, bullets should be saved for reactionaries after all."

--->Cian

Castlevania: Lords of Shadow | Worth Being Optimistic?

2010-09-18T00:16:00.002-05:00

Though the only thing I have left on my personal list to play for this year is Epic Mickey, I've also have received a donation today that will allow me to finally play (and subsequently write about) Demon Souls. There is a wildcard for me this year however, which is what this post is about, Castlevania: Lords of Shadow.

Crushing Legacy
Now that God of War is finished (sort of...) and Dante is apparently on crack, I'm predicting that even more people will be willing to place an unfair burden on this game. This is especially prevalent in the current population of gamers who don't have the time and patience (*coughorintellectcough*) to digest what could be the successful transition which we've only seen in this industry a few times before. This would be the change that an inherently powerful 2D game franchise makes when moving into 3D Space.
As it stands, Castlevania has birthed a sufficiently confused audience. Most that have praised Kratos's outings for example, have also hidden themselves within a sphere of insularity, built specifically to ignore its lineage as well (look at something like Dante's Inferno and try to debate this). Due to this, Castlevania has indirectly suffered, if nothing else---in mere general perception. I wouldn't go as far to suggest that this has bled through to its development as well, but I don't necessarily think it would be that big of a stretch either.
Mediocrity
Lament of Innocence and Curse of Darkness were not bad, they were just unabashedly mediocre. This troubles people because the Castlevania lineage is a strong one. So strong in fact, that it has 50% of a genre description along with Samus Aran's exploits (i.e. 'Metroidvania'). This is where the inherent problem is too, as the metroidvania setup prioritizes exploration above all else. Combat is simply something that happens along the way. The transition to 3D however, has caused Castlevania to take on a distinctive hack-n-slash persona, to which people have regurgitated rather angrily (though in my honest opinion, healthily is a better adjective there).
So what happens if this game is simply a mediocre button-masher again? Well personally speaking, it will be Konami's official third strike with trying to make the series stick with me in 3D (I'm not counting the Nintendo 64 version). I have nothing against MercurySteam, but I think they're just a part of what has recently become the main theme in Japanese game design (seen on full display at this year's Tokyo Game Show): Westernization (which isn't new really, but damn have they hit the gas on that shit this year). At best, these guys (a European studio I believe) seem poised to make a slick and polished but still formulaic hack-n-slash with RPG dressings. If it's just that, I'll be okay with just a rental a nod of praise. If however, it does turn out to be a 'questionable' God of War clone, I will be angry and you will read about it. I don't have the type of mental energy it takes to simply ignore all the facts and expect the the 2D realm of one of gaming's most revered to just magically translate to 3D space. If you want to be blindly hopeful, you're reading the wrong blog.

"In his narration, Cox said that the finished game will feature 50 levels through which protagonist Gabriel Belmont must fight his way to the iconic castle. Along the way, as I saw, he'll encounter a vast number of enemies -- their diversity was equally impressive -- though there will also be allies, human and animal. Gabriel's mentor, voiced by Patrick Stewart, was shown, as was the spirit of his wife, who in the game's story has been killed (along with many others) by the creatures set free by an evil sorcerer. At different points, Gabriel was shown riding a horse and a giant eagle."

-Joystiq [Source]
The fact that it's expansive does suggest the potential for exploration, but being a big playground full of diverse enemies can also be fairly deceptive. If these guys step up to the task, they can really make a name for themselves.
The Transition to Tales

"Astounding? It looks like a Japanese soap opera. It's got God-awful cliches and corny mocaped acting. The purpose of the trailer was to show off the amazing story, cutscenes, and all star voice cast, and it showed something that, were it a film, would play at 2am Sunday on SyFy. I appreciate the set and character design and the game itself may be quite good, but these are wretched cutscenes. Unwatchable."

---chargen, [Source]
How 'intelligently stupid' can we gamers get before we're just plain stupid? P.C. gamers will answer that one before anyone, but this guy seems like a good advocate for the point at hand.
Should Castlevania have a 'tale' now? Well---I'm going to go with yes on this particular case. In an age of new wave titles that have proven themselves to have impressively engrossing and engaging tales, Castlevania as a concept is one that can still plug itself with a bit of innovation if done correctly. The staple enemies, weaponry, and aesthetics all mean something in the game's twenty-year old lore. Now, the 2D games only needed minimal narrative points to chug the player along, but pretending like that's tantamount to what a 3D game has become is these days just silly. For a useful compare/contrast, look at Sonic the Hedgehog, which is in the exact opposite position now; given a story and characters where they were never needed (or at least expounding upon them excessively and unnecessarily). When they actually were effective, they were minimal, and this is because they were not meant to be the substance, but rather the flavor. The shift for Castlevania on the other hand, would have to be more nuanced and FAR more balanced. This is a tough design plane to dance on as well, because at the end of the day, Sonic had it rather easy (and Sega still managed to fuck that up). All those platformers had to do was was focus on the structure of designing play that meshed with old 2D design principles, but this was ignored out of a blatant attempt to capitalize on Sonic's already-waning '90's coolness' instead.

"We wanted to have big enemies and things like that, the scale and the epicness of it all. The comparisons to God of War are, I think, unfounded. When people see the game, play the game, they'll see that Lords of Shadow is actually a slower-paced affair. There's more exploration, there's more freedom for the player to look around levels and find things. Sure, we have cool combat and cool setpieces; you need to have something like that to appeal to gamers today. But we still have those elements that made Castlevania great. We're not moving that far away. I think when people see the game they'll go, 'That's Castlevania.'"

-Dave Cox, [Source]
I have absolutely no evidence apart from this guy's word that he's not just saying what he knows everybody wants to hear.
Castlevania gets a much dirtier hand to play in comparison to the likes of Sonic though, having to balance a real-world anchored art design with a responsive system of play that nurtures exploration AND combat. Not only that, but what used to be narrative vectors in the 2D landscape have become engagement tools in 3D, which I will admit and predict most likely to just be cliche tropes we can find in any pulpy fantasy novel. The balance is the key here, but I think what I mentioned above in 'Crushing Legacy' will play far more of a factor than it has to, while also letting the tale take up space where it has no business occupying. This is what defines most hack-n-slashers too. There's typically no room for permeability between play and narrative when both are obnoxiously flying off the charts to draw attention to themselves, neither of them making any kind of meaningful commentary on the other.
Recycling
The audiences are expecting a God of War clone, but God of War only exists because of Devil May Cry and Devil May Cry only exists because of Castlevania (a tad facile yes, but true enough for this post's point). See where this is going? The series is about to begin eating its own tail by playing up to consumers' latent desires for the next 'glowing-shit-to-hit-fuck-yeah' game. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I just don't see how or why MercurySteam would be interested in breaking the mold here. If it's a good God of War clone, then people will pay for it, plain and simple. They're not out looking to revitalize the genre, nor to bend it, or even to break it. If you think about it that way, the likes of Retro Studios are a true aberration in this context. What's missing from all the footage I've seen on the game has been a sense of exploration, but this is something that will only reveal itself with the game's actual release.

"Lords of Shadow is a melancholy tale of this guy trying to bring back his dead wife. So we wanted to have a somber and dark musical score to go with it. We still have Castlevania themes throughout that you'll hear and you'll find familiar, but they fit into the game and the world that we've created...I'd say a third of the score includes classic tunes that long-time fans will immediately recognize."

-Dave Cox, [Source]
The periphery importances I don't doubt at all. What little I have heard and seen has definitely led me to expect a legacy-worthwhile scoring and impressive visuals, but those things can't save the experience if the above factors aren't addressed. What works in Castlevania's favor here is that these two things are extremely important to the series as a whole. So if the developer is displaying some sort of competence there, perhaps not all is lost.

It looks fluid sure, but if the game is simply a linear and cinematic romp, fans (myself included) will revolt, and the countless God of War accusations will be proven to not simply be the result of excessive trolling.
At the end of the day, I'm just not expecting something that will successfully harken back to the above mentioned principles that the earlier games had (and I'm beginning to think that it's a lost cause to even desire at this point as well). This also means I'll be placed to enjoy the game in such a light that could very well be far removed with what made me and many others love the series to begin with.
That said, I don't really think anybody else should either. It's pretty much parallel to low expectations, but I think that's more than fair here. Misplaced optimism will only end up leaving us broken and beaten here. If I'm completely off the mark with this---well, that means we finally got something rarely seen with these types of games. I'm perfectly fine with that.

Forwards Compatible Redux

2010-09-16T10:52:00.004-05:00

Originally Posted: June, 2009

'Get Gameplay Gone'

This is a reposting of a topic me and various other gamers discussed last year concerning the usage of 'gameplay' in our culture's lexicon. I'm reposting it for Mike Schiller & Ben Abraham, perhaps they'll find something to add something to the topic.

Spearhead Topic by Matthew Armstrong

Like the concept of the genre, the notion of gameplay is starting to cripple under the weight of the 'perceived industry'. I’ve personally been responding to the term negatively for years now, but it seems that people are finally starting to understand my disdain. For the writers, I suspect it’s just a matter of understandable convenience, as not everyone wants to launch into long-winded dialects analyzing the minutest introspects of their opinion. For someone like me however, I revel in the nature of 'experiencism', and I advocate shoving along the common perception for the term 'gameplay'. It needs to reach a critical mass, so we can finally move beyond it.

So why abolish the term? Well, there’s certainly no animosity towards a word, never is. It’s the ideas and concepts tied to the word. Gameplay is an offensive umbrella term, usually lumping any number of things together in order for the player to further or clarify (rather superficially) their own experience with the game. I’ll give three primary examples for why I think the term earns its own disdain. If you think the term is necessary, by all means defend it.

I - Mechanical Collaboration

This means taking any of the numerous aspects of a game and retrofitting them with the term in order to distort or skew the personal perspective of the title itself (it’s 'backwards experiencism' in my eyes). For example, if one enjoys the sound of the game, then they should simply say so (and why). Simply wrapping their quick-witted audio references around flag of gameplay is treacherous (to both the sound design and the game).

II - Subjective Nebuli

To solidify one’s own opinion is a great thing to. What troubles me is when people use the backdoor jumping point of objectivity. People don’t like having their personal views crushed so they often seek out the established world’s perception in order to help validate their own opinion. It’s worked for plenty people throughout the times, but it’s a verisimilitude at best. If you really want to accomplish something, scale the heights of your own opinion, don’t just climb on backs of other people’s work, it’s just lazy.

III - “Genre”lization

We actually covered this as its own Spearhead not too long ago. This is a double-edged sword because not only does it hurt the public perception of what a player’s experience encompasses, it insults what the developers have done in the first place. Furthermore, they become working gears that cater to that insulting whim, which is sad in itself. How many developers have set out in the sole mindset of 'Let’s create a kickass First Person Shooter!' and nothing more? See the inherent problem there? My biggest fear is that the bulk of gamers are too far gone to see it at this point. It’s like they’re staring at a stereogram from an old Highlights for Children magazine. A lot of gamers just need to learn how to cross their damn eyes.

I’m not advocating that gamers stop using the term altogether, but simply clarify their usage of the word (and demand further insight from those that use it). It’s abusive to whatever game is in question when said person begins to hide behind the term 'gameplay'. It’s the difference between hearing someone say “The Patriots” and “La-Li-Lu-Le-Lo”. If a gamer cannot clarify those ends, then they’re nothing more than escapists to me, which opposes me on an entirely different level altogether.

If you don’t look suspicious when someone simply throws out the term now, you should. It’s surprising how some opinions crumble like dirt clods when the guise of gameplay is gutted.

Second Take written by By Jeff Grubb

I understand that some people bristle at the use of the term “gameplay,” the way the term’s numerous meanings work as a coverall can sometimes be annoying, but I think we just all need to decide exactly what the definition of gameplay is. I get the feeling that my consistent use of the word does not necessarily jive with the way the word is used in reviews. Unfortunately, I don’t think gameplay is a word that was devised with a proper definition attached to it, instead it earned its vague meaning through common use.

Reference.com says about the word, “generally, the term gameplay in video game terminology is used to describe the overall experience of playing the game excluding factors like graphics and sound.” I think this definition would work fine if it weren’t for the word “overall.” This makes the term too vague. Reference.com continues, “despite criticism, the term gameplay has gained acceptance in popular gaming nomenclature, being the only common phrase describing story quality, ease of play, and overall desirability of a game all in one word.” And one number is supposed to sum all this up?

If that is the case then the word deserves all the criticism that it receives, it just isn’t how I have been using the word. When I say the word gameplay it is used to describe the play of the game. If a game’s mechanics are the rules of the game then the gameplay is the way that you interact with or against those rules. If the mechanics of Donkey Kong is to get from the bottom to the top using ladders and jumping while fighting against enemies that die when you hit them with a hammer, then the gameplay is the way that you control and how the jumping feels. If gameplay has never meant that, then there has never been a specific word for describing that.

This comes back to the need to criticize people who write about games, specifically those who review games. The idea that a writer may use the word gameplay to describe everything from control to story is absurd. However, I would hate to see the word be retired completely; I do think it serves a purpose as I defined it. Adjusting a commonly used word’s meaning is impossible to force, that sort of mass redefining is a natural occurrence, so I won’t wait up for that.

While writing this I have to admit that I am sort of flabbergasted. I’ve heard people complain about the use of the word gameplay and I always wondered what the problem was. I figured either I didn’t understand the definition of the word or I just hadn’t been reading the same reviews that others have been. Now that I realize what all those reviews that put a number by the word gameplay intended I am offended. This is no way to be reviewing games. It is the experience that matters, and to try to separate so many different aspects of the experience into some cloudy and formless blob and throw it all under a makeup word is confusing and pointless.

Instead of expecting the writers to get better of their own accord we could also vote with our clicks. There was always a group of reliable reviewers whom all knew how to talk about games, we need to read these people and to make it clear that we appreciate the thoughtful over the lazy.

Roundtable Discussion with Dustin Rodgers, Louis Lantos, Matthew Armstrong, and Jeff Grubb

>>> Dustin Rodgers
Editor, Forwards Compatible

SnakeLinkSonic mentioned a very interesting and relevant point to this discussion, genres. The definition of gameplay is different depending on the game. Because new genres are being created every year, the definition of gameplay continues to expand. If we were to define precisely what gameplay is, it would limit what games can be. Gameplay must remain a blanket-term to ensure the inclusion of new games, and therefore must retain some ambiguity or vagueness.

More specific than genres however, are the games themselves. The gameplay in Lumines is judged in a different way than the gameplay in Call of Duty 4, and even a closer relative, Tetris, is entirely different. While some games share common ground, falling blocks or a first person perspective for example, that is more to do with a genre than gameplay. No one would compare Portal to Mirrors Edge in terms of gameplay, but they could both be described as first-person platformers.

Gameplay can vary widely even within the same series. For example, Super Mario World and Mario 64 share similarities, but the gameplay is very different. When we consider all of the factors that contribute to a game’s gameplay, we can see that gameplay is different for every game. We can’t define a term when it has so many applications. Perhaps it would be best to understand gameplay as the inner workings of a game, whatever they may be.

I prefer to see gameplay as what makes a videogame a game. The rules, the balance, and the game mechanics coming together to make a game, and not a screen saver that requires a controller. It’s not a very good definition, but I don’t see a way to avoid ambiguity.

>>> Louis Lantos
Editor, Forwards Compatible

I think both Jeff and SLS hit on the idea of the term “gameplay” being a useful social tool for people; conversationally it makes it far easier for one member of the gaming public to engage another, on a fundamental level. It tends to open up the doors, as such. Once you’ve used that catch-all, then you can further elaborate on the experience, for instance, “the graphics are pretty incredible” or “the way you can level up your character along the way is cool” e.t.c. Not many people go on the analytical breakdown when talking casually about games, not unless they’re sure they can involve the person they’re talking to on that level. So, as far as social use goes, I definitely think it helps, and fully condone it.

Now, on a critical or journalistic level, I take the opposite stance. Because the circumstances change, and you’re now being paid to breakdown a game to an audience of enthusiasts (or people enthusiastic enough to be reading about video games) you are obligated to be more informative. It’s lazy and pointless to be a journalist who throws down such a broad term and then moves on, it does a disservice to your readers, and makes you look like a shitty writer. Unless I’m reading FHM magazine, and, as always games coverage is an afterthought that reads like it’s been strung together by some douche who’s read a press release and never touched the game he’s discussing, I expect a more evolved level of engagement.

As far my personal spin on the term, and what it means. Me personally, when I describe gameplay to someone, it means exactly what it says: the way the game plays. Gameplay to me is me picking up the controller and getting a sense that I’m enjoying the experience of me pressing buttons to create actions; its a primal reaction to the experience. I would never used the term gameplay to define sound or visuals, it’s purely the act of playing the game. Certainly the audio and graphics have direct implications on that playing experience, but if I want to make a point of those I would normally address them directly, for I cannot control graphics or sound (usually); they’re just there.

>>> SnakeLinkSonic
Editor, Forwards Compatible, The Misanthropic Gamer

Is there anything to be said about how those “lower-tier” write ups receive our literary fecal matter? Like Lou said, there are some contexts in which the term has it’s place. However, if I read something, even in a Playboy magazine, I expect to hear some inkling of individual thought. This is strictly opposed to the reality of what we get, with things like “the gameplay is solid”, there’s no worth in words for that kind of game articulation.

I’m not going to pretend that everyone must launch into in-depth discussions about a game’s makeup, but it really doesn’t take that much to convey what one enjoys or sees beneficial about a game (contrary to however I may write, heh).

Remember what I said about fecal matter. Well, look at it this way. The progenitor-thought writing for games function as kidneys in our own bodies. When we develop our own disorders (i.e. some of us using the term wantonly), the idea gets passed on and accumulates (spreads) across the internet until we have a SUPRISE! kidney stone, a sometimes too-large collection of dissolved materials that cannot be passed by the body in a traditional fashion (an umbrella term that’s become too large for people to really understand what someone is trying to say).

>>> Jeff Grubb
News Editor, Kombo.com Editor, Forwards Compatible

I think that we can safely declare here that the idea of using Gameplay in the body of a review is — as Louis says — a disservice. Even using it as a heading for a portion of the review seems a bit silly. Tell us about the experience of the game and at some point you should be explaining the gameplay. However, if I am in a colloquial situation I don’t wan to be corrected for my use of a word that I know everyone will understand, since chances are I am using it as one step in the path of explaining my thought.

Dustin’s last paragraph is key, though, for those who would choose to “reclaim” the word. The ambiguity of the word comes from the ambiguity of games themselves. There are so many different things that make a game a game and so many different ways of producing play, that we need an ambiguous word to represent that idea. However, and I am repeating myself, the conversation can not end with “the gameplay is good/bad.”

Tokyo Game Show 2010 - 'DmC'

2010-09-15T18:40:00.003-05:00

This is a reposting of Tumblr comments I've been making throughout the day regarding the recently announced Devil May Cry being developed by Ninja Theory & Capcom.

Er, okay. This the new Dante. I’m intrigued and willing to see how it turns out, but seriously? There’s an almost insane fervor already amongst the audience. As always, it’s split into two sides; it’s either “OMG ITS HORRIBLE” or the people who say “Be Calm, & Stop Your Bitching”.

I’ll have to side with the former in this case, as the latter is consistently putting way too much faith in Ninja Theory (and this is coming from someone who prefers Heavenly Sword to God of War). Ninja Theory has not earned my trust and this new skinning of the series will have to strive to attain just that. Until then, I’m bitching my ass off.

First of all, if you’re using ‘the trailer looked cool’ logic to validate any transgressions done here, remember that this is Ninja Theory, whose game(s) have been consistently well-presented. Making a resolute judgement from that alone is idiotic no matter what side of the fence you’re on (i.e. hopeful & vitriolic). This is ignoring the fact that a single trailer will not give much ammunition to make such opinions last with any game.

Next, let’s take a look at Dante’s appearance, the most controversial of this bit. If you’re simply ignoring the change he’s taken out of some misplaced need to ‘give it a chance without criticism’, you’re being a moron. The games have alwaysbeen highly sexualized (through the use of their males) and highly reliant upon their aesthetic flair. Such a drastic change should healthily spark this type of response. This black hair, skinnier frame, and audaciously brooding appearance make this something completely different. This leaves to question, why even bother calling it Devil May Cry? It just smells fishy.

That is of course, the million dollar question as Capcom tries to make this series appeal to Western audiences more. There’s definitely some worthwhile European flavor in this (e.g. take a good look at that left sleeve), but it’s still a bit of a hard sell to Americans. I suppose the silver lining is that this presents a brand new opportunity for such a male figure to be sexualized, but I’m not hopeful (at least beyond what the game will accomplish for itself by merely existing). An effeminate male is not necessarily a bad thing on paper, but using a recent cheap blow, Other M sounded great on paper too. Even now, the knee-jerk reaction seems to be calling this Dante ‘gay’; as far as upsetting the natural order of prepubescent and insecure males, this redesign is doing something good in that regard.

Again, the logic that ‘change is good for change’s sake’ falls flat on its ass with this game. By using the defense that “Well Devil May Cry has always been ludicrous!”, there shouldn’t (and didn’t) exist the first game’s appeal to begin with (making it an insular argument mostly from ignorance). If you haven’t played Devil May Cry (or even Heavenly Sword for that matter), why even bother grinding your axe here to begin with? This holds true for people who didn’t like the series before this change either, as this just gives them the reservation that “well maybe I’ll like it now!”. No, you can’t have that cake, eat it, and then try to lecture people on the methodology of eating cake. I just won’t fucking allow it.

‘Western Appeal’ could essentially mean anything people. Most of us that have played Heavenly Sword are worried about this for a number of reasons, here’s two:

1. The Japanese are convinced we Americans just don’t like hard games (and to be fair, most of us don’t, we’re just whiny and effete that way). Devil May Cry has always been a game with an embedded difficulty curve that nigh alludes back to old side-scrolling beat-em-ups (it’s probably a better Castlevania incarnation than that series’ actual 3D successors as well).

2. You can give Ninja Theory a vote of confidence, but granting them a ‘fuck yeah following’ is again—-idiotic at this point. Their track record—-well it doesn’t really exist. Enslaved isn’t even out yet and we’re already being hit with this? Come on, you have don’t need to be a mathematician to do that math. Something just doesn’t add up here. If this is a simple reboot, then DMC fans are officially out in the cold to watch from a distance as ‘their series’ burns in their eyes. If it’s Capcom throwing the series to the wolves out of some last-ditch plea (masquerading as an experiment) to see if the series can be milked in other ways, then things are about to get very ugly—-fast.

So, did this series need a reboot? Only time will tell as this game becomes more exposed to us. My guess however, is that it needed a revamping, not a reboot. This is a key point most will ignore in favor of shouting at each other from opposing sides of threaded opinions. Giving DMC a more Western flavor was a concept I was honestly open to intially, but now I’m more than willing to viciously question this. One implies evolution, the other implies a lazy impulse to destroy and start over because some creative barrier has been reached and the developers don’t have the time and/or patience to deal with it.

For those expressing sarcastic confusedness towards people caring about the story or characterization of the series up until this point; you’re just are being insipid and hypocritical. The ‘quality’ of the series’ narrative is almost completely irrelevant, as the reaction here isn’t that DMC has ever had some awe-inspiring story, but that it generated an insane amount of style through its use of ludicrous camp. Of course it’s silly to suggest definitively that all of that has been lost with this single trailer, but I don’t blame people for their worry. I also say ‘almost’ because a good deal of the following that the series has accumulated has been due to the overblown and silly (nobody is arguing against that here) characterization of Dante. He was the Hideki Kamiya’s take on ‘cool’. Some of us swallowed that pill and rather enjoyed it. If you’re going to be a dick about that, at least stick it in the right hole.

It might be safest to say right now that Bayonetta was/is the DMC5 that fans should take interest in now, ignore this incarnation entirely, and let the dissenters-turned-hopeful-fuckasses have their two seconds in the sun. As it stands, the people making that argument are using a dangerous form of subjective rampancy to justify this change. In essence, they can have it if they so desire it. The fans have already gotten four games already that they can enjoy. Let them pretend this is something they can get behind for the time being.

Quotes From GAF & reddit

How many threads do we have where half the people say they like the art direction/character design in western game X and then you have the other half say they prefer Japanese aesthetics and character design for game Y over game X?

Both games may have cheesy, cliche designs, or may not be the height of originality but that’s irrelevant. It’s about fundamental differences in each group of developer’s backgrounds that will become evident in the game, starting with the way Dante looks.

I’ll liken it to a description I read on the proper way to write something like Hiragana or Kanji. You have a certain order you do each stroke in. If it’s not written properly a native will likely be able to tell. It may look like whatever character you were trying to write, but it’ll still seem off. Like if one were to write an eight by just drawing two circles one on top of the other or if you write an ‘a’ reversed starting with the tail.

I’ve yet to see the final product so hopefully this game won’t seem “off”, but going by the tone of the trailer and Dante’s design, I have a hard time being optimistic about the way this will turn out.
I’ve said it once before, this looks like it’d be a nice entry as a new IP by a western developer. The next entry in the DMC series… not so much.”
-Dali

“I’m calling foul, you can’t use the game name, the character name, revamp the appearance, farm it out to another dev, and then go ‘well no see, this was just an experiment’

Ultimately, the elements that make DMC an awesome game are the combat, the combat, and the atmosphere. For me personally, the character isn’t as big of a deal, only insofar as he contributes to the atmosphere.

I don’t trust NT in any way shape or form in regards to the combat, and I don’t know about the atmosphere (the city looked cool enough in the trailer), but they sure aren’t winning any points with the character design.

You know what’s really bizarre about this is that it’s happened twice before - Raiden and Nero had immediate backlash, you’d think they would have learned by now.

More, they already had one screwup with Bionic Commando in 3d, and now they’re giving one of their biger franchises to a dev that has already proven they _can’t_ make the type of game the fans love? How much sense does that make?”
-Victrix

“The only hope I have is that this isn’t Dante and is in fact some insane dude(maybe another half-demon) who is masquerading as Dante. I know it’s a 0.01% chance but most of that trailer focused on people asking him his name which I found interesting.”
-Kusagari

1. i kinda loved heavenly sword
2. but i haven’t seen anything from ninja theory that suggests they can make an action game worthy of the dmc lineage
3. visually this looks rad imo, and if they were going to outsource to a western dev, i’m glad they didn’t even attempt a pseudojapanese visual style
4. animu nerdlingers don’t really have much business sneering at hipsters or even twilight mall goths — you are below everyone on the coolness scale, as your continued virginity attests

let bayonetta be the new dmc, let this be — i dunno — whatever it is. hope it turns out well, will give it a shot”
-drohne

“I am speechless. I am without speech.”
-Pureauthor

“Why not just leave Dante like… uhm…. Dante?!?”
“Because it would make sense.”
-Jocchan & Tryckser

“So why not make a new series and IP? Changing Dante for the fifth game in the series, this drastically is fucking insane.”
-Suzzopher

“Well, at least they’ve found their target audience. People who don’t like DMC, don’t like Dante, and have no idea how awesome Ninja Theory are.”
-Victrix

“Perhaps I should get to playing Bayonetta…”
-Bankoiia

“Two things:
1. Devil May Cry does not NEED a reboot
2. This so-called Dante in the trailer is a abomination
It’s good to hear that people who worked on Devil May Cry before are involved. The trailer, however, doesn’t leave a good first impression.”
-Barakov

“I dont know if the game is gonna suck but the trailer sure does.”
-apana

“Capcom’s not making it, just publishing, so you’ve got bigger things to worry about.”
-LoompaOompa

Now of course we all could just simply relent at the fact that this is the trailer for a game that’s most likely at least a year from releasing. You know—-reserve all judgement just to play it safe, but what good does that really do? Save you from being wrong? If you do happen to like this change-up, then say so. If you don’t, please cry your ass off; most importantly, say why you’re taking either position. I’d rather hear these things than people appeasing each other like a bunch of of fucking whores. Don’t bring skewed righteous cowardice into such a topic, as you’re just contributing the equivalent of dogshit.

Short and Sweet - Against the Pile of Shame

2010-09-04T04:44:00.000-05:00

It never really used to bother me…

Hell, I was even amongst those that used it for a time. Lately however, I find myself in the camp of increased annoyance (surprise right?) everytime I see the phrase worded, spoken, or even alluded to:

"It’s on/in my pile of shame!"

I suppose the most pertinent focus now would be why. Well, as always---there’s a lot of reasons. The two examples that consistently bubble to the surface for me however...

The first is technological escalation. This can essentially summated as an arms race in terms of two opposing forces. It can take many forms in the current industry, but even its optimal/ideal end-game doesn’t satiate my exasperation with it overall (i.e. consumer benefit). I think we’re all tired of me bitching about ‘the drive’ in this industry, but this is a major influence on that status as well. Competition does enable proactive development, I certainly won't deny that. However, it also tends to give all parties involved tunnel vision (hence why gamers are so quick to mindlessly abandon titles they often love to move on to something that is likely far more trvial to them). Perhaps this is a superficial grafting of the concept (especially given its more morose implementation throughout the likes of World Wars and whatnot), but the crowd of gamers that crave the ‘best and latest’ is an uncanny corollary to make nonetheless.

Cultural tourism is my next axe to grind and I definitely use that as a pejorative in this sense (in a sick way, I'm being rather generous here by even using this term to censure the concept). That instinctive and superficial impulse to 'see it all' is at best self-defeating, and at its worst, simply insulting. Also take note that I’m using ‘cultural’ in an extremely loose sense here. Gamers take the design of systems, genres, and visual styles and they banalize them to meaninglessness out of the urge to simple not ‘suffer’ with them for even one second (which is actually one tier below false-romanticism in my eyes, thus earning an extremely potent ire from the likes of me). It seems superfluous that gamers are so intent on gaining pseudo-experiencism by sucking in the lenses of other ‘cultures’ here (especially through something as narrowly developed as games are right now). This is also harder for me to criticize since some actually do use this as an effective gateway to further their own understanding or passion with games (something I work towards and admire in others).

It's one thing to make a genuine suggestion of taste, it's another entirely to mindlessly throw around a hollow notion of diversity (i.e. "I'm playing lots of games, I'm so diverse!").

As it currently exists, the Pile of Shame seems to be the band-aid on a broken arm, allotting many some conveniently placed vanities in setting things aside to enjoy them in their own timeframe, when in actuality this is precisely what it circumvents and works against. It's simply a fallacious haven, as it seems to only effectively serve for people to simply avoid social isolation (heaven forbid we actually be introspective for a second). Crippling this common conceptual existence would also help to weed out some of this excessive money being thrown around to countless developers who don't need it (and at worst don't deserve it). The consumer can't think though...we wouldn't want that.

The titling itself even admits this fault. Shame? Just what the hell should you be ashamed about? Either you can't afford to play everything under the GODDAMN sun (why would you even want to?) or you don't have the time to, and either way, you're not gaining anything by simply forcing it (at best you're just stroking a nerd-boner). There's a difference between this broken similitude of structure and ya know---organically engaging a title on one's own terms at one's own pace. It doesn't help either that players are by large a neurotic and insecure bunch of fools (let's not forget highly insulated either), which apparently makes them ten times more susceptible to this. Laying this socially palpable guilt trip upon one another is something that's disgusted me for years now. I've even perpetuated it myself just to see how I could well I could manipulate people utilizing it, and sadly it wasn't hard at all.

Gamers seriously need to update their pathetic lexicon, it's craftily manipulating how they play games. Even worse, a majority let this actively affect how they think about games as well. Fucking sheep.

Guns of the Patriots Photoset #5 - Outer Haven >> Old Sun

2010-08-29T03:14:00.000-05:00

Guns of the Patriots Photoset #4 - Shadow Moses Island >> Twin Suns

2010-08-29T03:07:00.005-05:00