By Duane / 2010-03-26 10:22:41I have a question for you? What do games offer us? We've heard all the scientific stuff about motor reflexes, spatial awareness, problem solving. They're all great but still a little boring?
How about I propose to you that games, especially more modern games can offer the ability to experience an event. Movies and books can only really tell you whats happening, you become a voyeur. The experience is played out for you, but with a videogame that all becomes your own experience.
The Normandy landings are a great example of this, we all know what happened that day, we've heard the veterans tales, read news reports and been told all about the heroic events that led to the allied forces reclaiming the French coastline. Saving Private Ryan showed us how bloody, difficult and downright horrid the whole thing was (even though the man looking for his arm was kind of comical), yet games such as Medal of Honour allow us to live those moments for ourselves. Now admittedly its all glammed up a little bit, to make it entertaining. But that was the last generation of consoles, the Gamecube, XBox and PlayStation 2 era. Fast forward to the current generation of consoles and we have Call of Duty. The second Modern Warfare game, released at the tale end of last year doesn't really offer much in way of learning about the realities of war, save for the No Russian level which in itself felt a little crowbarred in to gain column inches. However its predecessor, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare really gave a sense that the writers understood what they were writing about and moments such as the air strike really left a strange feeling. Now I'm not saying anyone playing these games would ever get a true understanding of warfare, thats impossible, but it gives the end user something closer to the experience than watching Band of Brothers.
It doesn't have to be living in a war either, games like Valve's Half Life 2 provide a living breathing world where every environment, house or person tells its own little story. Most of which without forcing it upon you, leaving you to discover for yourself, and on that chain of thought even Grand Theft Auto Iv can offer an experience unlike any movie. Whilst a films "hero" is escaping from the Police after a crime spree, he can only go where the director takes him, GTA IV gives the chance to take that back street, cut across the park or even change car and clothes in an attempt to shake the "Rozzers". It's not really true to life, but its offering us the kind of experience that pretty much most of us would never consider experiencing in the real world, and this is the positive thing games provide for us, the ability to experience something we could never experience or simply escape from our own surroundings, possibly taking any issue out on the virtual world in which the game lets us live and breath rather than suffering or forcing others to suffer if we don't have that control pad in our hands.
How about I propose to you that games, especially more modern games can offer the ability to experience an event. Movies and books can only really tell you whats happening, you become a voyeur. The experience is played out for you, but with a videogame that all becomes your own experience.
The Normandy landings are a great example of this, we all know what happened that day, we've heard the veterans tales, read news reports and been told all about the heroic events that led to the allied forces reclaiming the French coastline. Saving Private Ryan showed us how bloody, difficult and downright horrid the whole thing was (even though the man looking for his arm was kind of comical), yet games such as Medal of Honour allow us to live those moments for ourselves. Now admittedly its all glammed up a little bit, to make it entertaining. But that was the last generation of consoles, the Gamecube, XBox and PlayStation 2 era. Fast forward to the current generation of consoles and we have Call of Duty. The second Modern Warfare game, released at the tale end of last year doesn't really offer much in way of learning about the realities of war, save for the No Russian level which in itself felt a little crowbarred in to gain column inches. However its predecessor, Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare really gave a sense that the writers understood what they were writing about and moments such as the air strike really left a strange feeling. Now I'm not saying anyone playing these games would ever get a true understanding of warfare, thats impossible, but it gives the end user something closer to the experience than watching Band of Brothers.
It doesn't have to be living in a war either, games like Valve's Half Life 2 provide a living breathing world where every environment, house or person tells its own little story. Most of which without forcing it upon you, leaving you to discover for yourself, and on that chain of thought even Grand Theft Auto Iv can offer an experience unlike any movie. Whilst a films "hero" is escaping from the Police after a crime spree, he can only go where the director takes him, GTA IV gives the chance to take that back street, cut across the park or even change car and clothes in an attempt to shake the "Rozzers". It's not really true to life, but its offering us the kind of experience that pretty much most of us would never consider experiencing in the real world, and this is the positive thing games provide for us, the ability to experience something we could never experience or simply escape from our own surroundings, possibly taking any issue out on the virtual world in which the game lets us live and breath rather than suffering or forcing others to suffer if we don't have that control pad in our hands.
By Duane / 2010-03-21 10:24:54In today's "The Observer Magazine" (21/3/2010) author Tom Bissell writes an article detailing his addiction to videogames. Within the article are long descriptions of his experiences of playing Rockstars Grand Theft Auto series, and whilst large parts of the artile show a love of gaming and highlight the things that gaming can do that no other entertainment medium can its the overall negative outlook that the article creates that is as damaging to The Observers (and by relation The Guardians) mostly positive coverage of the videogames industry as it is to gamers such as you or I.
To begin with is the front page cover and photographs that accompany the article that depict males and females of varying ages (although never over the age of about 30) surrounded by black, their faces contorted in manic or even angry glares. Suggesting the habit of sitting in a darkened room and inability to control such emotions whilst playing a game.
The article itself has a heavy focus on the writers growing addiction to videogames, in particular Grand Theft Auto IV and how that had a negative affect on his writing, reading and other aspects of his life. Even linking his purchase of Grand Theft Auto IV to the use and eventual addiction to cocaine.
Despite the positive area's of the article, which essentially point out how a game can help you experience a story and the events within rather than just witness it, the overal focus on such things could easily lead the majority of people to think that all gamers are like this, that all gamers devote ridiculous amounts of their time to videogames and that all gamers have an inability to seperate themselves from their hobby and let it take over their lives. It's not hard, as a gamer, a writer and a family man, to find this article offensive, which is an incredible shame as The Guardian has seemingly been the one national paper thats always tried to be fair and just towards gaming as a medium, as a hobby and as an industry. However with this one article it could be argued that they have done themselves alot of damage.
The strong link between Bissell's drug abuse and games playing is particularly damaging, as his devotion to spending more time with his games than other pursuits that, from his article, he seem's to deem as more worthwhile than playing games. Speaking as someone who's main hobby is his gamesplaying, I still spend very little time actively playing games throughout the week compared to other things that exist in my life. In short I think I have a healthy balance between each of my hobbies aswell as my duties as a family man. The article doesn't seem to focus on balancing such hobbies, instead it focuses on his own personal addictions but makes no effort to show that his is an isolated case that maybe isn't the same for everyone that happens to play games. You don't hear stories of people who spend every waking moment reading books or watching movies, these past times are seemingly deemed as reasonable and worthy of attention, videogaming, it seems, is not and Tom Bissell is seemingly towing the line for such a belief rather than taking a stance and declaring that his situation is one that isn't the case for everybody else.
Of course its easy to say that such an assumption would be ridiculous, of course his case isn't the same as everybody elses, but videogames still aren't a widely accepted form of spending your time, note not "time wasting", nor do they offer anything valuable to the end user unlike films and books. But I'd say to those that believe such things that they are looking in the wrong places, or just not looking hard enough at what they are experiencing from such a medium.
Tom Bissell's article goes into depth in regards to the relationship he created between himself and Grand Theft Auto IV's protagonist Niko Belic, how it allowed him to reflect upon himself and society, and its easy to find other examples. Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is widely regarded as an excellent commentary on warfare in our generation, Shadow of the Colossus offers an emotional impact thats impossible to create in any other medium and thats just a handful of experiences plucked from my own mind over the space of a couple of seconds, dig deeper and there's more on offer. The death of Aeris is a popular emotional link between the gamer and the game whilst games such as Fallout 3, Oblivion, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect (plus its sequel) and Fable 2 offer you moral choices throughout the yarn they spin in a manner thats more intelligent and certainly more viable than the efforts literature has attempted over the years, the most advanced of which are possibly the "Create Your Own Adventure" books that were written for children.
It's about time publications such as The Guardian and Observer took a stance, declared they were pro-gaming and published articles that created a positive light around games playing rather than the confused opinion they seem to be delivering when they print articles such as this.
What Do Video Games Do To US? - Tom Bissell
To begin with is the front page cover and photographs that accompany the article that depict males and females of varying ages (although never over the age of about 30) surrounded by black, their faces contorted in manic or even angry glares. Suggesting the habit of sitting in a darkened room and inability to control such emotions whilst playing a game.
The article itself has a heavy focus on the writers growing addiction to videogames, in particular Grand Theft Auto IV and how that had a negative affect on his writing, reading and other aspects of his life. Even linking his purchase of Grand Theft Auto IV to the use and eventual addiction to cocaine.
Despite the positive area's of the article, which essentially point out how a game can help you experience a story and the events within rather than just witness it, the overal focus on such things could easily lead the majority of people to think that all gamers are like this, that all gamers devote ridiculous amounts of their time to videogames and that all gamers have an inability to seperate themselves from their hobby and let it take over their lives. It's not hard, as a gamer, a writer and a family man, to find this article offensive, which is an incredible shame as The Guardian has seemingly been the one national paper thats always tried to be fair and just towards gaming as a medium, as a hobby and as an industry. However with this one article it could be argued that they have done themselves alot of damage.
The strong link between Bissell's drug abuse and games playing is particularly damaging, as his devotion to spending more time with his games than other pursuits that, from his article, he seem's to deem as more worthwhile than playing games. Speaking as someone who's main hobby is his gamesplaying, I still spend very little time actively playing games throughout the week compared to other things that exist in my life. In short I think I have a healthy balance between each of my hobbies aswell as my duties as a family man. The article doesn't seem to focus on balancing such hobbies, instead it focuses on his own personal addictions but makes no effort to show that his is an isolated case that maybe isn't the same for everyone that happens to play games. You don't hear stories of people who spend every waking moment reading books or watching movies, these past times are seemingly deemed as reasonable and worthy of attention, videogaming, it seems, is not and Tom Bissell is seemingly towing the line for such a belief rather than taking a stance and declaring that his situation is one that isn't the case for everybody else.
Of course its easy to say that such an assumption would be ridiculous, of course his case isn't the same as everybody elses, but videogames still aren't a widely accepted form of spending your time, note not "time wasting", nor do they offer anything valuable to the end user unlike films and books. But I'd say to those that believe such things that they are looking in the wrong places, or just not looking hard enough at what they are experiencing from such a medium.
Tom Bissell's article goes into depth in regards to the relationship he created between himself and Grand Theft Auto IV's protagonist Niko Belic, how it allowed him to reflect upon himself and society, and its easy to find other examples. Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is widely regarded as an excellent commentary on warfare in our generation, Shadow of the Colossus offers an emotional impact thats impossible to create in any other medium and thats just a handful of experiences plucked from my own mind over the space of a couple of seconds, dig deeper and there's more on offer. The death of Aeris is a popular emotional link between the gamer and the game whilst games such as Fallout 3, Oblivion, Dragon Age Origins, Mass Effect (plus its sequel) and Fable 2 offer you moral choices throughout the yarn they spin in a manner thats more intelligent and certainly more viable than the efforts literature has attempted over the years, the most advanced of which are possibly the "Create Your Own Adventure" books that were written for children.
It's about time publications such as The Guardian and Observer took a stance, declared they were pro-gaming and published articles that created a positive light around games playing rather than the confused opinion they seem to be delivering when they print articles such as this.
What Do Video Games Do To US? - Tom Bissell
By Duane / 2010-02-08 16:49:02There’s alot of furore surrounding the so-called sex scenes in Bioware’s Mass Effect 2 at the moment, possibly more so than those that were in Dragon Age: Origins. For the record I’ve not seen the scenes in either, my female Shepard (whom I’m using in Mass Effect 2) did manage to sleep with Liara in the first game, although I didn’t go out of my to reach that particular goal, so maybe I’m not qualified enough to comment on the particular game in question, but fuck it, this is the internet and everyone has an opinion, just as everyone has an arsehole and I’m going ahead and voicing mine.
So Mass Effect 2 has sex scenes in it, if they’re anything like those in Dragon Age: Origins that my partner has told me about, or the ones in the original game they’re hardly sex scenes. You see more action in Tweeny favourite Twilight than I recall seeing in Bioware’s first instalment to the series. Even so, do we really want some real hardcore alien action in videogames? Especially when you recieve achievement points for your gamerscore to go along with the fact you’ve bedded certain characters. This amounts to that whole jock mentality of bragging you slept with a girl whilst acting all sweet and innocent to her face and is a rather embarassing representation of the immaturity that surrounds the games industry. What I mean is, look at the treatment Jade Raymond received whilst her team were heavily at work on the first Assassins Creed. I also think that the manner in which sex is being handled by the games industry will never be taken seriously whilst its such a male driven medium. The Porn industry has put alot of effort into making something that doesn’t just amount to a plumber turning up at some horny woman’s house and her giving him her body in return for his handy work. This has come about as more and more women have gotten involved in the directing and writing of porn films, and whilst they don’t quite have the stories that a really great film would have, you wouldn’t expect them to, they still have substance beyond the titillation.
Likewise, I don’t expect videogames to challenge the film or porn film industries in how they handle the sexual content of their products, nor do I want the sex to be interactive, after all why would I want to press some buttons on a game pad to provide on screen action when I can enjoy some quality time with my partner?
I’m not saying that sex in videogames doesn’t or will never have its place, but at the moment it feels like a bullet point thats purely designed to attract teenage boys to whatever product in question. I also think that whilst the majority of videogames stories are so weak that most Hollywood blockbusters put them to shame (although I will clarify that the exception to this is anything that Joel Schumacher or Michael Bay have ever gotten involved in) maybe writers should focus on putting together well structured, cohesive plots that are entertaining on their own grounds using solid, believable characters before tackling something as complicated as sexual relationships between humans or indeed alien races.
Or as one commentor on Kotaku put it really rather well…
People of Earth: The Internet is full of porn, you don’t need to see some Quarian breasts to get your jollies
I also published this on my own blog yesterday, just on the off chance that someone has read this more than once.
So Mass Effect 2 has sex scenes in it, if they’re anything like those in Dragon Age: Origins that my partner has told me about, or the ones in the original game they’re hardly sex scenes. You see more action in Tweeny favourite Twilight than I recall seeing in Bioware’s first instalment to the series. Even so, do we really want some real hardcore alien action in videogames? Especially when you recieve achievement points for your gamerscore to go along with the fact you’ve bedded certain characters. This amounts to that whole jock mentality of bragging you slept with a girl whilst acting all sweet and innocent to her face and is a rather embarassing representation of the immaturity that surrounds the games industry. What I mean is, look at the treatment Jade Raymond received whilst her team were heavily at work on the first Assassins Creed. I also think that the manner in which sex is being handled by the games industry will never be taken seriously whilst its such a male driven medium. The Porn industry has put alot of effort into making something that doesn’t just amount to a plumber turning up at some horny woman’s house and her giving him her body in return for his handy work. This has come about as more and more women have gotten involved in the directing and writing of porn films, and whilst they don’t quite have the stories that a really great film would have, you wouldn’t expect them to, they still have substance beyond the titillation.
Likewise, I don’t expect videogames to challenge the film or porn film industries in how they handle the sexual content of their products, nor do I want the sex to be interactive, after all why would I want to press some buttons on a game pad to provide on screen action when I can enjoy some quality time with my partner?
I’m not saying that sex in videogames doesn’t or will never have its place, but at the moment it feels like a bullet point thats purely designed to attract teenage boys to whatever product in question. I also think that whilst the majority of videogames stories are so weak that most Hollywood blockbusters put them to shame (although I will clarify that the exception to this is anything that Joel Schumacher or Michael Bay have ever gotten involved in) maybe writers should focus on putting together well structured, cohesive plots that are entertaining on their own grounds using solid, believable characters before tackling something as complicated as sexual relationships between humans or indeed alien races.
Or as one commentor on Kotaku put it really rather well…
People of Earth: The Internet is full of porn, you don’t need to see some Quarian breasts to get your jollies
I also published this on my own blog yesterday, just on the off chance that someone has read this more than once.
By Duane / 2009-09-21 17:34:42Story telling is as old as time itself, so it’s hard to imagine that the art of telling a story could evolve any further than it already has done, but never before have we been able to interact with media in the way we do in the modern age, and that is thanks to the medium of videogames. Stories have traditionally always been dictated to the end user, be it via reading a book, listening to a radio play, audiobook or sitting round a campfire sharing stories, or watching a film, play or television show. It’s only through the ability to interact with the characters, settings and plots that are laid before us within videogames and something such as a table top role playing game that the method of story-telling has begun to evolve.
As things currently stand, the vast majority of games are fairly linear, you still have set objectives to meet, even in something as open world as Grand Theft Auto IV or Fallout 3, but even with this in mind, the way we can interact with the story being told to us is not by the key elements that dictate the story, but the journey along the way, this is how we truly make the story our own. Take this for example, in Halo 3, a game that pretty much offers a rollercoaster one track ride from start to finish with no detours. The key events throughout cannot be changed, but the way in which things build upto those events can. In one particular co-operative multiplayer session, I and three other players made our way to the first meeting with a Scarab, the one on the beach. Now the normal method of bringing this guy down is to take out his legs, hopping onto its back and throwing a grenade in its “engine”, but on this particular occasion, whilst my team mates were trying various different techniques in order to bring him down, techniques they’d possibly tried before whilst playing the game in single player, I tried something a little different. I straddled one of the Mongoose quad-bikes that the Marines were riding and took it up an elevator to an elongated platform hanging over the beach, accelerated hard and threw the Mongoose off of the edge of the platform, the momentum of this was going to make me overshoot where I needed to land so I quickly jumped off and before anybody could react I’d blown the Scarab sky high with a sticky grenade in its engine compartment.
This was only one event where the approach to the scenario was completely down to the end user, and it’s something we’re seeing increasingly in videogames in lots of different forms, whether it be over-extravagant, Hollywood-esque incidents like above or the moral choices given to you in Lionhead’s Fable II we are able to shape just how the story is played out even if we only have a handful of options, if any, of the final outcome. This is something that’s even making its way into such heavily story driven yarns like the Japanese Role Playing Game genre. Take Persona 3 for example, you can’t really change the outcome of the games plotline, but you can have a direct effect on your relationship with numerous different characters throughout the game, these in turn have an effect on certain different abilities that you can use to aid you in battle. Another approach is the latest game the Japanese market has gone crazy for, Dragon Quest IX. By allowing you to network with up to 3 other friends you can join together and partake in quests in this 40 hour epic, not only that, but once the main story quest is done and dusted, Square-Enix and Level 5 have allowed you to carry on with your own mini adventures and carry on finding everything in the game whilst also providing the occasional extra sets of quest for you to download and either play on your own or play together, it seems Social Networking isn’t just altering the way we use the internet, it’s also altering the way we play videogames and ultimately how we create our own stories. Imagine how far that could go!
You could have a game where you only have one life in a huge world where everybody’s actions have some kind of impact no matter how minor, if you make a deadly mistake, that’s it, game over for that particular save file, time to start again. Whilst you’re playing, the game is also creating your own little legend on the games official website, beginning with your entry into the world and ending with your death. Detailing all of your victories, struggles and other major events within that characters lifespan, monitoring your relationships with other characters and writing them into your folktale, cross referencing their “lives” with your own, it’s a long, long way off, but with the popularity of the Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, Social Networking sites like Facebook and games that let you decide your own actions like Fallout 3, it can only be a matter of time before such a thing is a reality.
As things currently stand, the vast majority of games are fairly linear, you still have set objectives to meet, even in something as open world as Grand Theft Auto IV or Fallout 3, but even with this in mind, the way we can interact with the story being told to us is not by the key elements that dictate the story, but the journey along the way, this is how we truly make the story our own. Take this for example, in Halo 3, a game that pretty much offers a rollercoaster one track ride from start to finish with no detours. The key events throughout cannot be changed, but the way in which things build upto those events can. In one particular co-operative multiplayer session, I and three other players made our way to the first meeting with a Scarab, the one on the beach. Now the normal method of bringing this guy down is to take out his legs, hopping onto its back and throwing a grenade in its “engine”, but on this particular occasion, whilst my team mates were trying various different techniques in order to bring him down, techniques they’d possibly tried before whilst playing the game in single player, I tried something a little different. I straddled one of the Mongoose quad-bikes that the Marines were riding and took it up an elevator to an elongated platform hanging over the beach, accelerated hard and threw the Mongoose off of the edge of the platform, the momentum of this was going to make me overshoot where I needed to land so I quickly jumped off and before anybody could react I’d blown the Scarab sky high with a sticky grenade in its engine compartment.
This was only one event where the approach to the scenario was completely down to the end user, and it’s something we’re seeing increasingly in videogames in lots of different forms, whether it be over-extravagant, Hollywood-esque incidents like above or the moral choices given to you in Lionhead’s Fable II we are able to shape just how the story is played out even if we only have a handful of options, if any, of the final outcome. This is something that’s even making its way into such heavily story driven yarns like the Japanese Role Playing Game genre. Take Persona 3 for example, you can’t really change the outcome of the games plotline, but you can have a direct effect on your relationship with numerous different characters throughout the game, these in turn have an effect on certain different abilities that you can use to aid you in battle. Another approach is the latest game the Japanese market has gone crazy for, Dragon Quest IX. By allowing you to network with up to 3 other friends you can join together and partake in quests in this 40 hour epic, not only that, but once the main story quest is done and dusted, Square-Enix and Level 5 have allowed you to carry on with your own mini adventures and carry on finding everything in the game whilst also providing the occasional extra sets of quest for you to download and either play on your own or play together, it seems Social Networking isn’t just altering the way we use the internet, it’s also altering the way we play videogames and ultimately how we create our own stories. Imagine how far that could go!
You could have a game where you only have one life in a huge world where everybody’s actions have some kind of impact no matter how minor, if you make a deadly mistake, that’s it, game over for that particular save file, time to start again. Whilst you’re playing, the game is also creating your own little legend on the games official website, beginning with your entry into the world and ending with your death. Detailing all of your victories, struggles and other major events within that characters lifespan, monitoring your relationships with other characters and writing them into your folktale, cross referencing their “lives” with your own, it’s a long, long way off, but with the popularity of the Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game, Social Networking sites like Facebook and games that let you decide your own actions like Fallout 3, it can only be a matter of time before such a thing is a reality.
A turn-based affair
By Duane / 2009-01-19 05:53:07
As you may have noticed about just how much I've gone on about Persona 3 in the last 6 months or so, I'm quite the fan of RPG's, in particular those of the Japanese persuasion. However, I've found myself struggling to balance Persona 3 with Fallout 3 in recent months, odd considering that normally, I'm not that big a fan of Western RPG's. This in itself seems a little odd, why would I adore one but only have a passing interest in another, with a couple of games being the exception?
Delving into it though, there's a few reasons that separate my interests. Most notably are the play mechanics and settings. Japanese RPG's tend to be turn based with a strong anime influence, and those I favour tend to either be futuristic, based on the paranormal (or something similar) or steam punk, there are some JRPG's with a strong "traditional fantasy" setting, but even these seem to weave elements from the aforementioned groups into their plots and styling. Western RPG's on the other hand tend to be real time with a strong "traditional fantasy" setting (see Fable, Oblivion), but those that strike out to me tend to have strong futuristic/sci-fi styling, the three WRPG's I've truly enjoyed being Fallout 3, Star Wars KOTOR and Mass Effect.
I think personally, its the blend of real time action and the setting that turns me off of WRPG's, they often come across as confused or have something poorly implemented. Oblivion, for example, felt clumsy when you were fighting and overall it just gave me the impression of an interactive postcard. Fallout 3 by example, which remember is by the same developer, feels much tighter and tuned, plus, whilst its still undoubtedly an attractive game, it doesn't have that "Wish You Were Here" feel to it. Fable II also suffers from these problems, whilst its control mechanism's are undoubtedly tightened over those of its predecessor, it still feels clumsy and overly focused on trying to provide an "immersive" world, when The Legend of Zelda series manages this, plus working control systems that don't pull you out of that world too often (although Link's auto jump has always been a frustration).
If you look at the games from the WRPG genre I've stated that I've enjoyed, 2 of 3 have a pseudo turn-based mechanism implemented into them. KOTOR for example allows you to pause the action, think about what your doing and stack a few different actions, which are cancelable at any point. These are then acted out in real time on screen, rather than the JRPG Chuckle Brothers "To me, To You" system. Fallout 3's VATS system on the other hand allows you to slow the action down and pick out individual area's to target, to either create or take advantage of a particular weakness. Again, its not fully turn-based as the enemy is still able to attack, but by allowing you to slow down whats happening on screen, it brings in that strategic element that is so addictive in JRPG and SRPG's giving the player their own unique way of tackling each individual obstacle.
It's an odd thing to look at, how different Western development is to Japanese development, and the fact that, for the most part, JRPG's haven't evolved a whole lot from their original conception where as WRPG's have, especially in recent years, tried various things to separate themselves from their own competition can either lead you to believe that Western developers are pushing new boundaries whilst Japanese developers are stuck in the doldrums of development, or you can look at it in a manner that Japanese developers have perfected their particular craft and Western developers are still finding a system that works as well within the genre as that of a Final Fantasy or Shin Megami Tensei title.
By Duane / 2009-01-19 05:53:07
As you may have noticed about just how much I've gone on about Persona 3 in the last 6 months or so, I'm quite the fan of RPG's, in particular those of the Japanese persuasion. However, I've found myself struggling to balance Persona 3 with Fallout 3 in recent months, odd considering that normally, I'm not that big a fan of Western RPG's. This in itself seems a little odd, why would I adore one but only have a passing interest in another, with a couple of games being the exception?
Delving into it though, there's a few reasons that separate my interests. Most notably are the play mechanics and settings. Japanese RPG's tend to be turn based with a strong anime influence, and those I favour tend to either be futuristic, based on the paranormal (or something similar) or steam punk, there are some JRPG's with a strong "traditional fantasy" setting, but even these seem to weave elements from the aforementioned groups into their plots and styling. Western RPG's on the other hand tend to be real time with a strong "traditional fantasy" setting (see Fable, Oblivion), but those that strike out to me tend to have strong futuristic/sci-fi styling, the three WRPG's I've truly enjoyed being Fallout 3, Star Wars KOTOR and Mass Effect.
I think personally, its the blend of real time action and the setting that turns me off of WRPG's, they often come across as confused or have something poorly implemented. Oblivion, for example, felt clumsy when you were fighting and overall it just gave me the impression of an interactive postcard. Fallout 3 by example, which remember is by the same developer, feels much tighter and tuned, plus, whilst its still undoubtedly an attractive game, it doesn't have that "Wish You Were Here" feel to it. Fable II also suffers from these problems, whilst its control mechanism's are undoubtedly tightened over those of its predecessor, it still feels clumsy and overly focused on trying to provide an "immersive" world, when The Legend of Zelda series manages this, plus working control systems that don't pull you out of that world too often (although Link's auto jump has always been a frustration).
If you look at the games from the WRPG genre I've stated that I've enjoyed, 2 of 3 have a pseudo turn-based mechanism implemented into them. KOTOR for example allows you to pause the action, think about what your doing and stack a few different actions, which are cancelable at any point. These are then acted out in real time on screen, rather than the JRPG Chuckle Brothers "To me, To You" system. Fallout 3's VATS system on the other hand allows you to slow the action down and pick out individual area's to target, to either create or take advantage of a particular weakness. Again, its not fully turn-based as the enemy is still able to attack, but by allowing you to slow down whats happening on screen, it brings in that strategic element that is so addictive in JRPG and SRPG's giving the player their own unique way of tackling each individual obstacle.
It's an odd thing to look at, how different Western development is to Japanese development, and the fact that, for the most part, JRPG's haven't evolved a whole lot from their original conception where as WRPG's have, especially in recent years, tried various things to separate themselves from their own competition can either lead you to believe that Western developers are pushing new boundaries whilst Japanese developers are stuck in the doldrums of development, or you can look at it in a manner that Japanese developers have perfected their particular craft and Western developers are still finding a system that works as well within the genre as that of a Final Fantasy or Shin Megami Tensei title.
A Bullet to the Head
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Recently I've been playing Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, and before I go on, I'd like to say that it really is a fantastic RPG, so far its up there alongside Final Fantasy VII and IX as one of my favourites of the genre. Anyhow, I'm writing this in defence of the product. This is because the game, since it's Japanes and US launches, and most recently its EU launch, has come under attack from some parts (we've not seen that many mentions of it as its not really a popular game like Mass Effect was) because of its content. The content in question happens to be the method of a character pointing a gun-like device at their head and pulling the trigger, leading thes parties to label the game as a "Suicide Simulator". Some are stating that the game is being marketed at middle-school age children because of the social status aspect of the game and that it clearly glorifies the action of commiting suicide, particularly in a shocking and instant manner as putting a gun to your head. I find it highly amusing that these are the very same publications that frequently have pictures of violent gang crimes spread across their pages, that are always reporting yet another missing child and spend 11 pages making out Prince Harry to be a hero for going to the so called war in Iraq, yet they fail to realise that kids from as young as 8 years old are permanently surrounded by violence, wether its programs aimed directly at them, to the toys they place with, or the images they see on the News when their parents watch the TV. The blame can't just be pointed towards one source, we live in a world that is surrounded by violence and anger, depression and desperation, kids will pick up on all of that and are incredibly impressionable, so a videogame isn't going to make all that much difference when they can easily get hold of other means for their violent fix, and all this is before I even go into detail about Persona. You see, whilst the act is very much like the characters commiting suicide, the means is completely different, the item they hold in their hands is called an Evoker and it is used to force a part of their personality out of their body into a physical being that aids them in battle. Yes its a shocking concept, and Atlus realise this as cut-scenes frequently show other characters struggling with the concept of pulling the trigger on the device in order to gain the help they need when in danger. Its no different to the anime Bleach's method of soul removal, where-in a character can be hit with a specially marked sword/stick/other object to force their soul out of their body in order to battle the creatures that endanger them. I can see why it could be seen as glamourising suicide, and also why some people would be offended, but as someone who's been through the experience of almost killing themselves, and also being there when someone I care for has tried I really do think these people may be reading too far into what Persona 3 is actually doing. After all, as I've stated, a handful of the characters struggle to get over the idea of using the item in the manner that is required, whilst the lead character, who has to be named by the player, has a sort of schizophrenic quality to him, judging by the fact that everyone else who has to use this item only has one persona and he has multiple, one could argue he's not really in a healthy state of mind. Also, I believe the act of killing oneself would only feel glamouros to someone who already does things such as self-harming as they think its a cool thing to do and want to fit into the current Emo stereotype that many teenages are pandering to, its also something else I've been through, although I never felt it was cool, and felt more ashamed than anything, only one friend of mine knew the truth about it and they were told reluctantly and gratefully kept the secret to themselves (although if any of my friends at the time are reading this now, well, you know the truth now...). So I think before anybody begins to attack Persona 3 for its choice of content, these people need to look at the bigger picture, we live in a world that glamourises violence from all corners, that makes money off the back of depressed/faux-depressed kids and suicide, in whatever manner, is something thats highly reported on, wether its a group pact, websites glamourising it, peers talking so-called friends into it, or the latest suicide bombing, its something thats far too easily for any kid to access and to criticize a videogame thats hardly gonna shift units outside of the series' own dedicated following is very harsh considering the amount of coverage the act already recieves in manners that are far more accessible to the majority of people than this videogame is.
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Recently I've been playing Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, and before I go on, I'd like to say that it really is a fantastic RPG, so far its up there alongside Final Fantasy VII and IX as one of my favourites of the genre. Anyhow, I'm writing this in defence of the product. This is because the game, since it's Japanes and US launches, and most recently its EU launch, has come under attack from some parts (we've not seen that many mentions of it as its not really a popular game like Mass Effect was) because of its content. The content in question happens to be the method of a character pointing a gun-like device at their head and pulling the trigger, leading thes parties to label the game as a "Suicide Simulator". Some are stating that the game is being marketed at middle-school age children because of the social status aspect of the game and that it clearly glorifies the action of commiting suicide, particularly in a shocking and instant manner as putting a gun to your head. I find it highly amusing that these are the very same publications that frequently have pictures of violent gang crimes spread across their pages, that are always reporting yet another missing child and spend 11 pages making out Prince Harry to be a hero for going to the so called war in Iraq, yet they fail to realise that kids from as young as 8 years old are permanently surrounded by violence, wether its programs aimed directly at them, to the toys they place with, or the images they see on the News when their parents watch the TV. The blame can't just be pointed towards one source, we live in a world that is surrounded by violence and anger, depression and desperation, kids will pick up on all of that and are incredibly impressionable, so a videogame isn't going to make all that much difference when they can easily get hold of other means for their violent fix, and all this is before I even go into detail about Persona. You see, whilst the act is very much like the characters commiting suicide, the means is completely different, the item they hold in their hands is called an Evoker and it is used to force a part of their personality out of their body into a physical being that aids them in battle. Yes its a shocking concept, and Atlus realise this as cut-scenes frequently show other characters struggling with the concept of pulling the trigger on the device in order to gain the help they need when in danger. Its no different to the anime Bleach's method of soul removal, where-in a character can be hit with a specially marked sword/stick/other object to force their soul out of their body in order to battle the creatures that endanger them. I can see why it could be seen as glamourising suicide, and also why some people would be offended, but as someone who's been through the experience of almost killing themselves, and also being there when someone I care for has tried I really do think these people may be reading too far into what Persona 3 is actually doing. After all, as I've stated, a handful of the characters struggle to get over the idea of using the item in the manner that is required, whilst the lead character, who has to be named by the player, has a sort of schizophrenic quality to him, judging by the fact that everyone else who has to use this item only has one persona and he has multiple, one could argue he's not really in a healthy state of mind. Also, I believe the act of killing oneself would only feel glamouros to someone who already does things such as self-harming as they think its a cool thing to do and want to fit into the current Emo stereotype that many teenages are pandering to, its also something else I've been through, although I never felt it was cool, and felt more ashamed than anything, only one friend of mine knew the truth about it and they were told reluctantly and gratefully kept the secret to themselves (although if any of my friends at the time are reading this now, well, you know the truth now...). So I think before anybody begins to attack Persona 3 for its choice of content, these people need to look at the bigger picture, we live in a world that glamourises violence from all corners, that makes money off the back of depressed/faux-depressed kids and suicide, in whatever manner, is something thats highly reported on, wether its a group pact, websites glamourising it, peers talking so-called friends into it, or the latest suicide bombing, its something thats far too easily for any kid to access and to criticize a videogame thats hardly gonna shift units outside of the series' own dedicated following is very harsh considering the amount of coverage the act already recieves in manners that are far more accessible to the majority of people than this videogame is.
Flawed in its beauty?
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Who, or what for that matter, decides wether a videogame is a casual title, a kids title or a hardcore title? This is something that keeps cropping up in discussion between my partner and I. Those of you who have us on your XBox 360 friendslist will notice that we have a number of games on there that are critically claimed to be poor or widely considered to be kids games, the main culprits being Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ratatouille and The Spiderwick Chronicles. Now, personally, I wouldn't of played through any of those games, they just don't look like my kind of thing, but due to the fact I usually play on the 360 more than my partner many of the people assume that its myself playing those games and I've had a few messages stating I'm an achievement whore or something to that effect, which is absolutely not true. Now I understand that this really looks like a case of me saying "I don't play shite games, its her" and to a point, you'd be right, I am saying I don't play those games, she does, but what makes them crap? As someone who's been gaming for nearly two decades now, and having being bitten on far too many occassions by licensed titles such as those, I'm immediatly distrusting of them, and thats without looking at the back of the box to see what sort of games they are. Even watching my partner play them, I feel a sort of distaste for them, its very odd, I end up ranting about them being collect-em ups, with no substance, no entertainment value, too many glitches, poor controls, all the normal stuff that these games are criticised for, and I usually scratch my head as to how she can enjoy such poorly (in my eyes) developed titles. However, last night, my opinion was altered, actually thats not true, I'd say it was initially altered last year by Naruto: Rise of the Ninja, I'd only watched one or two episodes of the anime, and the gameplay is pretty much the same as whats on offer in the above mentioned titles, but I think due to its anime background I found enjoyment in the source material, hell theres a reason why Naruto is so god damn popular, and judging by the clips and the storyline told within the game, its a pretty entertaining anime show. Then last night, I finally decided to set up my newly acquired SEGA Saturn (my old one had stopped reading discs, a friend of mine from another forum sent me a new one, if you're reading mate, cheers for that, much appreciated!) and finally try and play through a game I like to name drop from time to time, Sonic Teams Burning Rangers. This is the game that made me realise how and why my partner can play games such as Harry Potter, Ratatouille etc etc and that is because she enjoys the source material, wether its the story being told or being able to explore a world she is fascinated by (such as J.K. Rowling's wizarding world hidden amongst what normal people see) and Burning Rangers gave me a similar experience. As a game, its incredibly flawed, mainly because it was before its time if you ask me, graphically, its a choppy, glitchy mess and the controls are awkward, plus its nothing much more than go here, put out a fire, flick a switch and rescue somebody before fighting a boss, sound similar? I thought so. But the source material of being a futuristic fire fighter with that sort of super hero feeling the game gives you, plus a couple of cool gadgets in your jet pack and your fire distinguishing laser enables me to look past the games flaws (until the boss fights when the camera makes life incredibly difficult) and enjoy it for its source material, and looking back, there are many many titles that are the same. Half Life 2 for example is an incredibly frustrating experience, overly long moments of not alot of action whilst you wrestle with the controls of yet another vehicle that Valve have used to transport you from one location to another and give the Eastern European setting a sense of scale. Moments when the odds feel just a little stacked against you as you fight 3 Strider's at once, struggling for ammo for your rocket launcher without knowing theres a bunker with aload of items in to aid you, or the sheer amount of times the game seems to force you to die whist attempting to solve the puzzles and situations thrown at you. But because of how deep and involving the story to the game is, how well its been told not to mention how the story is told, plus the inclusion of some truly interesting characters and some incredibly satisfying set-pieces has given the game/franchise a classic status where it is highly regarded. So what am I saying here? Well, we all play games where we can look past their faults, some have more faults than others, and some games are so horribly broken and unentertaining they're just not worth considering, but when a licensed game gets an average score on a website or in a magazine, its not because its a bad game, not always anyhow, its more because the game will be really enjoyed by the fans of the license its tied to, but those who aren't all that fussed about exploring Hogwarts or one of the worlds Disney Pixar present us with in their animated films won't be able to look past any of its flaws, and in all honesty, what game doesn't carry some form of flaw that will turn off a number of people? Does it make them less of a gamer because they can't look past the vehicle sections of Half Life 2 but they can find enjoyment elsewhere in something that on the surface isn't there to push boundaries, but is just there to provide a sense of entertainment?
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Who, or what for that matter, decides wether a videogame is a casual title, a kids title or a hardcore title? This is something that keeps cropping up in discussion between my partner and I. Those of you who have us on your XBox 360 friendslist will notice that we have a number of games on there that are critically claimed to be poor or widely considered to be kids games, the main culprits being Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ratatouille and The Spiderwick Chronicles. Now, personally, I wouldn't of played through any of those games, they just don't look like my kind of thing, but due to the fact I usually play on the 360 more than my partner many of the people assume that its myself playing those games and I've had a few messages stating I'm an achievement whore or something to that effect, which is absolutely not true. Now I understand that this really looks like a case of me saying "I don't play shite games, its her" and to a point, you'd be right, I am saying I don't play those games, she does, but what makes them crap? As someone who's been gaming for nearly two decades now, and having being bitten on far too many occassions by licensed titles such as those, I'm immediatly distrusting of them, and thats without looking at the back of the box to see what sort of games they are. Even watching my partner play them, I feel a sort of distaste for them, its very odd, I end up ranting about them being collect-em ups, with no substance, no entertainment value, too many glitches, poor controls, all the normal stuff that these games are criticised for, and I usually scratch my head as to how she can enjoy such poorly (in my eyes) developed titles. However, last night, my opinion was altered, actually thats not true, I'd say it was initially altered last year by Naruto: Rise of the Ninja, I'd only watched one or two episodes of the anime, and the gameplay is pretty much the same as whats on offer in the above mentioned titles, but I think due to its anime background I found enjoyment in the source material, hell theres a reason why Naruto is so god damn popular, and judging by the clips and the storyline told within the game, its a pretty entertaining anime show. Then last night, I finally decided to set up my newly acquired SEGA Saturn (my old one had stopped reading discs, a friend of mine from another forum sent me a new one, if you're reading mate, cheers for that, much appreciated!) and finally try and play through a game I like to name drop from time to time, Sonic Teams Burning Rangers. This is the game that made me realise how and why my partner can play games such as Harry Potter, Ratatouille etc etc and that is because she enjoys the source material, wether its the story being told or being able to explore a world she is fascinated by (such as J.K. Rowling's wizarding world hidden amongst what normal people see) and Burning Rangers gave me a similar experience. As a game, its incredibly flawed, mainly because it was before its time if you ask me, graphically, its a choppy, glitchy mess and the controls are awkward, plus its nothing much more than go here, put out a fire, flick a switch and rescue somebody before fighting a boss, sound similar? I thought so. But the source material of being a futuristic fire fighter with that sort of super hero feeling the game gives you, plus a couple of cool gadgets in your jet pack and your fire distinguishing laser enables me to look past the games flaws (until the boss fights when the camera makes life incredibly difficult) and enjoy it for its source material, and looking back, there are many many titles that are the same. Half Life 2 for example is an incredibly frustrating experience, overly long moments of not alot of action whilst you wrestle with the controls of yet another vehicle that Valve have used to transport you from one location to another and give the Eastern European setting a sense of scale. Moments when the odds feel just a little stacked against you as you fight 3 Strider's at once, struggling for ammo for your rocket launcher without knowing theres a bunker with aload of items in to aid you, or the sheer amount of times the game seems to force you to die whist attempting to solve the puzzles and situations thrown at you. But because of how deep and involving the story to the game is, how well its been told not to mention how the story is told, plus the inclusion of some truly interesting characters and some incredibly satisfying set-pieces has given the game/franchise a classic status where it is highly regarded. So what am I saying here? Well, we all play games where we can look past their faults, some have more faults than others, and some games are so horribly broken and unentertaining they're just not worth considering, but when a licensed game gets an average score on a website or in a magazine, its not because its a bad game, not always anyhow, its more because the game will be really enjoyed by the fans of the license its tied to, but those who aren't all that fussed about exploring Hogwarts or one of the worlds Disney Pixar present us with in their animated films won't be able to look past any of its flaws, and in all honesty, what game doesn't carry some form of flaw that will turn off a number of people? Does it make them less of a gamer because they can't look past the vehicle sections of Half Life 2 but they can find enjoyment elsewhere in something that on the surface isn't there to push boundaries, but is just there to provide a sense of entertainment?
It's not quite Black or White
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
N'Gai Croal, I have alot of time for the bloke, despite my hatred towards the current "Gaming Journalist Celeb" type thing that we have going on at the moment, he normally brings up some interesting point in his articles for EDGE magazine for a start and is usually a voice of sense in an industry full of people who lose their rag incredibly easily, (such as another EDGE columner, Jeff Minter). However, I'm at odds to agree with him on his most recent journalistic comments. This time over at MTV's gaming site, MTV Multiplayer, in which he talks to Tracey John about stereotypes in videogames, and quickly seems to join the "Resident Evil 5 is racist" brigade that surfaced shortly after last years E3. Now, I'm not going to go a tyrade as to why they are wrong, I can see their point, it does display the black people in the trailer as savages, as diseased and generally in a rather negative light, hell, it even has the threatening stare that people stereotype on black people. But, I do think that N'Gai should know better than the majority of the people crying racist as he is a highly respected videogames journalist who has written not only for EDGE but also for Newsweek and The Washington Post among others. So with his experience as a journalist and being heavily involved with the videogame media, I'd of assumed that he'd be one of people of black origin that didn't jump on Capcom's back about their decisions for the sixth instalment of a highly succesful franchise. Afterall Resident Evil 2, and maybe even Resident Evil 3, to my knownledge at least, featured zombie's of both black and white skin colour and also featured zombie's of both genders. Admittedly, its a big jump from Resident Evil 2 having a mixture of black, white, male and female zombies to Resident Evil 5 having black male and female zombies (if that's what they are in this one, remember the enemies in Resident Evil 4 were infected via other means and weren't strictly zombies), but is it suprising, or indeed racist? I don't think so. However, the cries over racism aren't suprising, after all, this is the biggest jump that videogames have taken in including black people within its world, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas tackled a similar issue, but was mostly a parody of the Hood Film scene that saw the likes of Boyz N The Hood and Menace II Society, and tackled the stereotypes of Afro-American people. Resident Evil 5 is different in this respect, it depicts a land similar to Africa, a place that is incredibly poverty stricken and has a high rate of disease and famine amongst its people, also many Western white people during the time black people were used as slaves saw natives of countries such as those on the African continent as savages, all three of these seem to make an appearance within the discussed trailer for Resident Evil 5. Does this mean its racist? I certainly don't think so, sure it cuts things a bit close, especially to someone thats not a gamer, but at the end of the day, you can't change history, theres no point hiding from that or treading carefully around it, life goes on after all and the majority of the world has seemingly moved on and there isn't the same level of segregation between blacks and whites that there once were. But it is incredibly dissapointing that people don't feel that videogames can't handle a subject such as this. Of course there are going to be people who relish the chance to "shoot niggers" or the like, thats something that can't be helped, some just can't seem to evolve and thats incredibly sad. But as a medium that wants to be taken seriously, I think its important that big developers like Capcom, and smaller bedroom style developers such as Luc Bernard try and tackle issues within society that are a little sore, by challenging them, its the only way we can really tackle how people really feel on such subjects. Of course, I'm just judging the game by its trailer, which is only a snippet of what will be in the final game, we don't know where Chris Redfield will end up or what he will fight against on his journey, nor do we know the level at which Capcom will deal with this race issue that they seem to be facing, I've certainly not seen anyone officially state anything that sheds any light on what side of the fence the game will sit on, but I'm certainly interested in what the developers and the game itself have to say, and based on the fact that Resident Evil 4 was a highly enjoyable game, I'm looking forward to getting my hands on Resident Evil 5 for a play through myself.
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
N'Gai Croal, I have alot of time for the bloke, despite my hatred towards the current "Gaming Journalist Celeb" type thing that we have going on at the moment, he normally brings up some interesting point in his articles for EDGE magazine for a start and is usually a voice of sense in an industry full of people who lose their rag incredibly easily, (such as another EDGE columner, Jeff Minter). However, I'm at odds to agree with him on his most recent journalistic comments. This time over at MTV's gaming site, MTV Multiplayer, in which he talks to Tracey John about stereotypes in videogames, and quickly seems to join the "Resident Evil 5 is racist" brigade that surfaced shortly after last years E3. Now, I'm not going to go a tyrade as to why they are wrong, I can see their point, it does display the black people in the trailer as savages, as diseased and generally in a rather negative light, hell, it even has the threatening stare that people stereotype on black people. But, I do think that N'Gai should know better than the majority of the people crying racist as he is a highly respected videogames journalist who has written not only for EDGE but also for Newsweek and The Washington Post among others. So with his experience as a journalist and being heavily involved with the videogame media, I'd of assumed that he'd be one of people of black origin that didn't jump on Capcom's back about their decisions for the sixth instalment of a highly succesful franchise. Afterall Resident Evil 2, and maybe even Resident Evil 3, to my knownledge at least, featured zombie's of both black and white skin colour and also featured zombie's of both genders. Admittedly, its a big jump from Resident Evil 2 having a mixture of black, white, male and female zombies to Resident Evil 5 having black male and female zombies (if that's what they are in this one, remember the enemies in Resident Evil 4 were infected via other means and weren't strictly zombies), but is it suprising, or indeed racist? I don't think so. However, the cries over racism aren't suprising, after all, this is the biggest jump that videogames have taken in including black people within its world, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas tackled a similar issue, but was mostly a parody of the Hood Film scene that saw the likes of Boyz N The Hood and Menace II Society, and tackled the stereotypes of Afro-American people. Resident Evil 5 is different in this respect, it depicts a land similar to Africa, a place that is incredibly poverty stricken and has a high rate of disease and famine amongst its people, also many Western white people during the time black people were used as slaves saw natives of countries such as those on the African continent as savages, all three of these seem to make an appearance within the discussed trailer for Resident Evil 5. Does this mean its racist? I certainly don't think so, sure it cuts things a bit close, especially to someone thats not a gamer, but at the end of the day, you can't change history, theres no point hiding from that or treading carefully around it, life goes on after all and the majority of the world has seemingly moved on and there isn't the same level of segregation between blacks and whites that there once were. But it is incredibly dissapointing that people don't feel that videogames can't handle a subject such as this. Of course there are going to be people who relish the chance to "shoot niggers" or the like, thats something that can't be helped, some just can't seem to evolve and thats incredibly sad. But as a medium that wants to be taken seriously, I think its important that big developers like Capcom, and smaller bedroom style developers such as Luc Bernard try and tackle issues within society that are a little sore, by challenging them, its the only way we can really tackle how people really feel on such subjects. Of course, I'm just judging the game by its trailer, which is only a snippet of what will be in the final game, we don't know where Chris Redfield will end up or what he will fight against on his journey, nor do we know the level at which Capcom will deal with this race issue that they seem to be facing, I've certainly not seen anyone officially state anything that sheds any light on what side of the fence the game will sit on, but I'm certainly interested in what the developers and the game itself have to say, and based on the fact that Resident Evil 4 was a highly enjoyable game, I'm looking forward to getting my hands on Resident Evil 5 for a play through myself.
Can they do no wrong?
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Can Nintendo do no wrong? It certainly seems that way sometimes. Why do I say this? Well, I'm a member on the message boards for GamesTM (for any non-UK readers its a gaming magazine aimed at a 20+ sort of audience, rather than the normal teenage style market gaming mags tend to appeal themselves to) and recently they, and EDGE magazine (a similar publication, albeit one who seems to aim itself a little higher) for that matter, have recieved criticsm for awarding Mario Kart Wii a 6/10. EDGE had the same thing happen a few years ago with Mario Kart: Double Dash!! and based on my own experience of that game, I'd say they were a little harsh with the scoring, but not too far off the mark and I'd wager the same is true for both magazines reviews of Mario Kart Wii, although I can't comment on the main body of any of the reviews mentioned as I've not read any of them, nor can I make a personal opinion on the latest instalment in Nintendo's #1 racing franchise, thats not the point of this post. The thing is, it seems that many places have an automatic score lined up for pretty much all of Nintendo's biggest names, be it Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc etc, and its an odd thing for me to consider. Nintendo have done alot for the games industry over the years, and theres no denying that their games really do have that extra bit of polish that many third party releases on Nintendo systems seem to be missing, its also undeniable that they usually get the best out of their hardware, unsuprising considering their software development staff (Miyamoto etc) are heavily involved in the development of the machines. But not all their big games are as special as people seem to believe. The recent additions to the Zelda franchise, Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass are proof of this, I personally awarded Twilight Princess a 9 as upto the point where I reviewed the game (about half way), it was an enjoyable romp, but it soon become an uninteresting chore that tried to present a dark, tortured world with a sense of foreboding but ultimately failed in that attempt. Now I'm not saying it was an awful game, some parts of it were very good, but they weren't upto the high standards Nintendo set themselves in the previous Zelda games, if it had been a new franchise it would of been perfectly enjoyable, but The Legend of Zelda brings with it a certain level of expectation, which Twilight Princess failed to live upto. Phantom Hourglass, meanwhile, was a complete travesty, no other developer would get away with the amount of repetition that game has (nor would they get away with having technically the same game for nigh-on 10 years without any change aside from the graphics, again Twilight Princess...), yet somehow this was completely overlooked and Phantom Hourglass got incredibly respectable scores across the board (both EDGE and GamesTM gave it 9/10). Like with Twilight Princess it became a complete chore to play, in fact it was so poorly done I really couldn't bring myself to play beyond my fourth (might have been fifth) visit to the Temple of the Ocean King, and I know I'm not the only one. I'm all for a bit of frustration and annoyance, when you overcome those kind of obstacles the sense of achievement is worth the hassle alone, but with Phantom Hourglass I found myself hoping the dungeon I was currently in would never end as I really didn't want to go back to the Ocean King's dwelling. So why do we, or I although I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks this, have this issue with Nintendo and the reviews of its must-have games? I seem to remember Jeff Gertsmann (yes that Jeff Gertsmann) recieved alot of flak for "only" giving Twilight Princess an 8.8 on the Wii for Gamespot. Now the fact that 8.8 might aswell be a 9 makes the critiscm completely ridiculous, so could it be the "Nintendo Fanboy" rising up and, sort of, scaring writers into giving a Nintendo game a higher score than they would normally do. Maybe its an inclination from the writer to give said game a higher score, afterall a large portion of today's gaming community spent a large portion of their youth playing on Nintendo systems. It's an odd thing though, an the fanboy attacking happens with all of the top games, regardless of their developer or publisher, it just seems more apparant with Nintendo releases. Now due to this entry, I'm fulling expecting to be called a Nintendo hater or a fanboy of one of the other machines. For the record, my current main console is the XBox 360 but I feel no bias towards it, likewise, my favourite machine is the Dreamcast, but I now have a distaste for modern day SEGA, so I feel no real alliance towards any particular videogame company whatsoever. Maybe thats why I see things in a different light?
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Can Nintendo do no wrong? It certainly seems that way sometimes. Why do I say this? Well, I'm a member on the message boards for GamesTM (for any non-UK readers its a gaming magazine aimed at a 20+ sort of audience, rather than the normal teenage style market gaming mags tend to appeal themselves to) and recently they, and EDGE magazine (a similar publication, albeit one who seems to aim itself a little higher) for that matter, have recieved criticsm for awarding Mario Kart Wii a 6/10. EDGE had the same thing happen a few years ago with Mario Kart: Double Dash!! and based on my own experience of that game, I'd say they were a little harsh with the scoring, but not too far off the mark and I'd wager the same is true for both magazines reviews of Mario Kart Wii, although I can't comment on the main body of any of the reviews mentioned as I've not read any of them, nor can I make a personal opinion on the latest instalment in Nintendo's #1 racing franchise, thats not the point of this post. The thing is, it seems that many places have an automatic score lined up for pretty much all of Nintendo's biggest names, be it Mario, Zelda, Metroid etc etc, and its an odd thing for me to consider. Nintendo have done alot for the games industry over the years, and theres no denying that their games really do have that extra bit of polish that many third party releases on Nintendo systems seem to be missing, its also undeniable that they usually get the best out of their hardware, unsuprising considering their software development staff (Miyamoto etc) are heavily involved in the development of the machines. But not all their big games are as special as people seem to believe. The recent additions to the Zelda franchise, Twilight Princess and Phantom Hourglass are proof of this, I personally awarded Twilight Princess a 9 as upto the point where I reviewed the game (about half way), it was an enjoyable romp, but it soon become an uninteresting chore that tried to present a dark, tortured world with a sense of foreboding but ultimately failed in that attempt. Now I'm not saying it was an awful game, some parts of it were very good, but they weren't upto the high standards Nintendo set themselves in the previous Zelda games, if it had been a new franchise it would of been perfectly enjoyable, but The Legend of Zelda brings with it a certain level of expectation, which Twilight Princess failed to live upto. Phantom Hourglass, meanwhile, was a complete travesty, no other developer would get away with the amount of repetition that game has (nor would they get away with having technically the same game for nigh-on 10 years without any change aside from the graphics, again Twilight Princess...), yet somehow this was completely overlooked and Phantom Hourglass got incredibly respectable scores across the board (both EDGE and GamesTM gave it 9/10). Like with Twilight Princess it became a complete chore to play, in fact it was so poorly done I really couldn't bring myself to play beyond my fourth (might have been fifth) visit to the Temple of the Ocean King, and I know I'm not the only one. I'm all for a bit of frustration and annoyance, when you overcome those kind of obstacles the sense of achievement is worth the hassle alone, but with Phantom Hourglass I found myself hoping the dungeon I was currently in would never end as I really didn't want to go back to the Ocean King's dwelling. So why do we, or I although I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks this, have this issue with Nintendo and the reviews of its must-have games? I seem to remember Jeff Gertsmann (yes that Jeff Gertsmann) recieved alot of flak for "only" giving Twilight Princess an 8.8 on the Wii for Gamespot. Now the fact that 8.8 might aswell be a 9 makes the critiscm completely ridiculous, so could it be the "Nintendo Fanboy" rising up and, sort of, scaring writers into giving a Nintendo game a higher score than they would normally do. Maybe its an inclination from the writer to give said game a higher score, afterall a large portion of today's gaming community spent a large portion of their youth playing on Nintendo systems. It's an odd thing though, an the fanboy attacking happens with all of the top games, regardless of their developer or publisher, it just seems more apparant with Nintendo releases. Now due to this entry, I'm fulling expecting to be called a Nintendo hater or a fanboy of one of the other machines. For the record, my current main console is the XBox 360 but I feel no bias towards it, likewise, my favourite machine is the Dreamcast, but I now have a distaste for modern day SEGA, so I feel no real alliance towards any particular videogame company whatsoever. Maybe thats why I see things in a different light?
Blending "youth" culture
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Been meaning to write about this for a little while. As gamer's we've gotten pretty used to being victimised by the likes of the Daily Mail attacking our past-time, and all we can do is complain wether its on podcasts or in text on dedicated sites such as this. Soem even take it to the point of voicing their opinions on comments pages up and down the internets. Videogames have been blamed for rises in crime, actual murders, education levels dropping, obesity, you name a problem, our chosen past time has probably footed the blame for it from one source or another, and you can usually find alot of the bile stemming from so called publications such as the Daily Mail. However, our culture is not the only one that is seemingly under attack from these types. A few weeks ago a teenager by the name of Hannah Bond commited suicide, who was thirteen years old and a big fan of the band My Chemical Romance. The Daily Mail has taken it upon themselves to spit bile in the direction of the Emo movement. Their critiscms of the movement don't come without any kind of official backing however, Roger Sykes the coroner who examined the young girls body after her unfortunate death declared that her taste in music played a part in her suicide attempt. Now, I know there are links between the emo culture, depression, self harm and even suicide, and I do have some opinions of bands such as My Chemical Romance making money off of the back of kids who have attatched themselves to such things. But this is nothing new within teenage culture. Being a teenager is a very confusing and scary time and its easy to start believing and thinking the wrong things. It's easy for this to lead into bouts of strong depression, self harm and the like, I know this as I have been down that path myself. However, to blame a band and movement for such things and believe that their the only culprits is blinding yourself to the truth, in fact teenagers seem to attach themselves to certain artists and particular songs as a way of helping understand their mood. I know that at my lowest I'd listen to Blink 182's "Adams Song" over and over again as it would help me release and unhappy emotions. I understand this is deep, and so far not alot to do with gaming, but I do think that we gamers should be supporting teenagers who are being attacked by these stiffs at the Mail, and present a united front against a group of people within society that is ignorant to learning about these cultures their so happy to criticise. After all, surrounding yourself with music is as much of an escape from reality as playing a videogame, its as much a release of tension and emotion as playing a videogame and its as entertaining as playing a videogame, in this respect the very reasons we play games are also the very reasons people listen to particular bands and who are the Daily Mail to dictate to people what they can use to escape problems within their own lives or help deal with their own deeply buried emotions in a world that doesn't accept unhappiness?
By Duane / 2008-09-07 13:39:12
Been meaning to write about this for a little while. As gamer's we've gotten pretty used to being victimised by the likes of the Daily Mail attacking our past-time, and all we can do is complain wether its on podcasts or in text on dedicated sites such as this. Soem even take it to the point of voicing their opinions on comments pages up and down the internets. Videogames have been blamed for rises in crime, actual murders, education levels dropping, obesity, you name a problem, our chosen past time has probably footed the blame for it from one source or another, and you can usually find alot of the bile stemming from so called publications such as the Daily Mail. However, our culture is not the only one that is seemingly under attack from these types. A few weeks ago a teenager by the name of Hannah Bond commited suicide, who was thirteen years old and a big fan of the band My Chemical Romance. The Daily Mail has taken it upon themselves to spit bile in the direction of the Emo movement. Their critiscms of the movement don't come without any kind of official backing however, Roger Sykes the coroner who examined the young girls body after her unfortunate death declared that her taste in music played a part in her suicide attempt. Now, I know there are links between the emo culture, depression, self harm and even suicide, and I do have some opinions of bands such as My Chemical Romance making money off of the back of kids who have attatched themselves to such things. But this is nothing new within teenage culture. Being a teenager is a very confusing and scary time and its easy to start believing and thinking the wrong things. It's easy for this to lead into bouts of strong depression, self harm and the like, I know this as I have been down that path myself. However, to blame a band and movement for such things and believe that their the only culprits is blinding yourself to the truth, in fact teenagers seem to attach themselves to certain artists and particular songs as a way of helping understand their mood. I know that at my lowest I'd listen to Blink 182's "Adams Song" over and over again as it would help me release and unhappy emotions. I understand this is deep, and so far not alot to do with gaming, but I do think that we gamers should be supporting teenagers who are being attacked by these stiffs at the Mail, and present a united front against a group of people within society that is ignorant to learning about these cultures their so happy to criticise. After all, surrounding yourself with music is as much of an escape from reality as playing a videogame, its as much a release of tension and emotion as playing a videogame and its as entertaining as playing a videogame, in this respect the very reasons we play games are also the very reasons people listen to particular bands and who are the Daily Mail to dictate to people what they can use to escape problems within their own lives or help deal with their own deeply buried emotions in a world that doesn't accept unhappiness?
Older posts
