For this project, I've really struggled to think of something to do that will be both amusing to me and worthwhile to anyone who lays eyes on it. At first I was thinking about doing a comic book where two characters get trapped in the world of video games and must traverse through several well-known game locales to escape. While that would probably turn out really cool, I have to be honest with myself. As much as I've struggled this semester, am I really going to find time to do a project that would require planning, writing, storyboarding, more writing, editing, drawing, more editing, and publishing? Between sickness and ruthless employers I've found it difficult to even get to class, so I think I should do something a little less work-intensive. Not to say I'll do something stupid and quick, because that would be both unfair to Dr. S and embarrassing to me.
So what to do?
How's this strike you (phantom readership that you are)? How about I write a play? In this play, I will have one character, which will embody every anti-video game Jack Thompsonite Family Advocacy group stereotype I can think of. This character will be whimsically transported (maybe) to a land in which video games are reality and the most well-known VG icons will eventually prove that video games...well, they're not so bad, right?
Right.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Dragon Age:Origins
Enchantment?
Enchantment!
So says Sandal, a "soft-skulled" (his own father's words) dwarf character in Bioware's latest opus, Dragon Age: Origins, and it serves to describe the game pretty accurately. From the moment the player chooses his race (between human, dwarf, and elf) and class (warrior, rogue, or mage), the game whisks him or her away into a fully realized fantasy world populated with memorable characters and horrifying monsters.
The game will be played differently every time through. The volume of choices the game presents to the player is staggering, and there is rarely a clear division between right and wrong. The only guide the player usually has is his or her own moral standards. The game does a wonderful job making the player feel involved in the telling of the story. The main quest involves the player's character joining the Grey Wardens, an elite group of protectors tasked with defending the land of Ferelden from the Blight. Every 400 years or so an evil entity referred to as the Archdemon conjures an army of undead demonic soldiers to wreak havoc, and as a Grey Warden, the player is driven to raise an army of humans, dwarves, and elves to repel this Blight. Obviously that isn't as easy as just asking them, and the player can expect to perform many quests and tasks to secure the favor of the various races. Each duty the player is asked to perform is varied and interesting though, so, unlike some Western role-playing games, I never felt like I was just going through the motions for story progression and better loot.
The mechanics of combat in DA:O are also very fluid and responsive. Each battle feels brutal and intense as the player and his party of companions (four total, including the player, at any given time) hack and slash through skeletons, demons, wolves, and other staple fantasy enemies. There are many different weapons, abilities, and spells for the party to choose from to keep things interesting, so it never felt to me I was repeating the same combat again and again. Sometimes, the combat can be very difficult, and the composition of the player's party can be crucial. Obviously the player can only control one character at a time during combat, so the very useful tactics system is important. The tactics system allows the player to dictate the actions of his or her companions by setting certain behaviors to be performed in specific situations. For example, the healer can have a tactic that prompts her to heal a party member when he or she is at less than 50% health. This system is not nearly as complicated as it seems and makes combat much more satisfying than constantly switching between characters.
I suggest this game be purchased by anyone and everyone. Because it is a Bioware product, though, there is a fairly large helping of wonderfully gory violence that may put off some players. Also, the romantic options that Bioware has become famous (infamous?) for are present here, giving players the option to have relationships with several companions, both male and female and of all three races. If these things aren't deal breakers (and I really hope they aren't) I command you to buy this game.
Enchantment!
So says Sandal, a "soft-skulled" (his own father's words) dwarf character in Bioware's latest opus, Dragon Age: Origins, and it serves to describe the game pretty accurately. From the moment the player chooses his race (between human, dwarf, and elf) and class (warrior, rogue, or mage), the game whisks him or her away into a fully realized fantasy world populated with memorable characters and horrifying monsters.
The game will be played differently every time through. The volume of choices the game presents to the player is staggering, and there is rarely a clear division between right and wrong. The only guide the player usually has is his or her own moral standards. The game does a wonderful job making the player feel involved in the telling of the story. The main quest involves the player's character joining the Grey Wardens, an elite group of protectors tasked with defending the land of Ferelden from the Blight. Every 400 years or so an evil entity referred to as the Archdemon conjures an army of undead demonic soldiers to wreak havoc, and as a Grey Warden, the player is driven to raise an army of humans, dwarves, and elves to repel this Blight. Obviously that isn't as easy as just asking them, and the player can expect to perform many quests and tasks to secure the favor of the various races. Each duty the player is asked to perform is varied and interesting though, so, unlike some Western role-playing games, I never felt like I was just going through the motions for story progression and better loot.
The mechanics of combat in DA:O are also very fluid and responsive. Each battle feels brutal and intense as the player and his party of companions (four total, including the player, at any given time) hack and slash through skeletons, demons, wolves, and other staple fantasy enemies. There are many different weapons, abilities, and spells for the party to choose from to keep things interesting, so it never felt to me I was repeating the same combat again and again. Sometimes, the combat can be very difficult, and the composition of the player's party can be crucial. Obviously the player can only control one character at a time during combat, so the very useful tactics system is important. The tactics system allows the player to dictate the actions of his or her companions by setting certain behaviors to be performed in specific situations. For example, the healer can have a tactic that prompts her to heal a party member when he or she is at less than 50% health. This system is not nearly as complicated as it seems and makes combat much more satisfying than constantly switching between characters.
I suggest this game be purchased by anyone and everyone. Because it is a Bioware product, though, there is a fairly large helping of wonderfully gory violence that may put off some players. Also, the romantic options that Bioware has become famous (infamous?) for are present here, giving players the option to have relationships with several companions, both male and female and of all three races. If these things aren't deal breakers (and I really hope they aren't) I command you to buy this game.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
There's Too Much Video Game in My Sex and Violence
Comparing the video game industry with the film industry is complicated, and not unlike comparing apples and hand grenades, but I think much can be gained from looking at the levels of controversial elements, like sex or violence, contained in each. Obviously there is more of both offered in cinema, but I think the main reason video game sex and violence is scrutinized more is because it's interactive. In the Grand Theft Auto series, or GTA, it's possible to control the sexual actions of the protagonist. That level of interactivity is just not possible in film.
So what's the problem?
According to some people, the ability to participate in "sex mini-games" or play a game in which you kill lots of stuff (otherwise known as more games than anyone can count) is devestating to a child's emotional well-being, but others believe that “a moderate amount of violent game play is unlikely to hurt you.”
I think the controversy stems mainly from the fact that according to the modern social consciousness, video games are essentially toys used primarily by children under the age of 18. Obviously if children were the only demographic that indulged in video games, the sex and violence so prevalent in the medium would be disturbing. It'd be like an episode of Sesame Street featuring mass-murder or sexual deviance. But the truth is, people of all ages and genders enjoy video games.
There's another truth going on simultaneously, however. Money. The video game industry earned $11.7 billion in 2008, which is more than the film industry. The sex and violence in the GTA series generated $924 million in revenue for its developer, Rockstar Games. Obviously people bought the game, and since most children 18 and under don't really have enough of their own disposable income to spend on a console and a copy of the game, where does the money come from?
Mom and Dad, usually. People like this lovely fellow seem as though they fail to recognize the connection here. Let's say a developer creates a video game laden with sex and/or violence. They release it to booming sales. Why wouldn't they make their next game exactly the same? If parents really want the evil video game corporation from infiltrating the goodness of their homes with their digital filth, they should probably stop buying it. Now obviously not all parents regard video games as a technology age pariah. Some feel this way. But really, such extreme violence and sexual content really shouldn't be just handed to kids by their neglectful, or ignorant, or distracted parents. Also, the parents cannot blame the industry or the retailers. The various governments of the world have put laws in place to require the industry to develop safeguards for minors. Some governments are more understanding about the whole situation than others, of course. Also, many global retailers have taken measures to ensure they do not sell mature-rated games to minors.
The moral of all this is that the video game industry is in it for profit, bottom line. Sex and violence lead to bigger profits. Yes, children don't need to experience it at a young age necessarily, but the problem lies more in the home than it does in the market. If parents want the industry to stop, they should stop unwittingly buying violent games, and pay more attention to what their children do to occupy the vast expanses of nothingness that fill a young person's day.
Oh, and another thing about violent video games: they tend to be a hell of a lot more fun.
So what's the problem?
According to some people, the ability to participate in "sex mini-games" or play a game in which you kill lots of stuff (otherwise known as more games than anyone can count) is devestating to a child's emotional well-being, but others believe that “a moderate amount of violent game play is unlikely to hurt you.”
I think the controversy stems mainly from the fact that according to the modern social consciousness, video games are essentially toys used primarily by children under the age of 18. Obviously if children were the only demographic that indulged in video games, the sex and violence so prevalent in the medium would be disturbing. It'd be like an episode of Sesame Street featuring mass-murder or sexual deviance. But the truth is, people of all ages and genders enjoy video games.
There's another truth going on simultaneously, however. Money. The video game industry earned $11.7 billion in 2008, which is more than the film industry. The sex and violence in the GTA series generated $924 million in revenue for its developer, Rockstar Games. Obviously people bought the game, and since most children 18 and under don't really have enough of their own disposable income to spend on a console and a copy of the game, where does the money come from?
Mom and Dad, usually. People like this lovely fellow seem as though they fail to recognize the connection here. Let's say a developer creates a video game laden with sex and/or violence. They release it to booming sales. Why wouldn't they make their next game exactly the same? If parents really want the evil video game corporation from infiltrating the goodness of their homes with their digital filth, they should probably stop buying it. Now obviously not all parents regard video games as a technology age pariah. Some feel this way. But really, such extreme violence and sexual content really shouldn't be just handed to kids by their neglectful, or ignorant, or distracted parents. Also, the parents cannot blame the industry or the retailers. The various governments of the world have put laws in place to require the industry to develop safeguards for minors. Some governments are more understanding about the whole situation than others, of course. Also, many global retailers have taken measures to ensure they do not sell mature-rated games to minors.
The moral of all this is that the video game industry is in it for profit, bottom line. Sex and violence lead to bigger profits. Yes, children don't need to experience it at a young age necessarily, but the problem lies more in the home than it does in the market. If parents want the industry to stop, they should stop unwittingly buying violent games, and pay more attention to what their children do to occupy the vast expanses of nothingness that fill a young person's day.
Oh, and another thing about violent video games: they tend to be a hell of a lot more fun.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Genre Confusion
First of all let me state that genre is and always will be mildly confusing to me. For example, the difference between action, adventure, and action/adventure is nebulous at best in my mind. This article helped a bit, as did the textbook. But my inability to concisely define these genres without first explaining what they are not led me to this question: is there such things as games in only one genre? In these modern times, when games are pushing the envelope with every release, it's increasingly difficult to pigeonhole games into particular genres.
I don't really think that's a bad thing. Honestly, I think trying to label a game with a genre is not unlike attempting to catch water in a net. The only thing gained is mild frustration. Look at Halo for instance. This article's entire premise is that Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS, but it goes on to say that "...in effect, Halo pleases the whole spectrum of the action game audience." Is action used here as a genre description or a simple adjective, stating the game contains moments of action? It's hard to say really. According to the Holy Grail of truth and righteousness, an "action" game is defined as a game that "requires players to use quick reflexes and timing to overcome obstacles." If that description is so broad, hundreds of games must be considered "action." Pong is an action game. Mario is too. But I thought Mario is a platformer? Or is it a "collecting" game? Hell if I know.
What's the point of all this ranting? Besides giving my fingers exercise, the previous paragraphs were intended to show how futile genre pigeonholing is. With the release of games like Borderlands upcoming, it's clear genres are outdated. I have no suggestions on how to refer to games like this without genres though. I admit, they're handy at generalizing a game's content, but it'd be nice if there were a way to describe a game more accurately. Is Borderlands an FPS? Or is it a role-playing game? Or a hack-and-slash with guns (which I guess would make it a shooter all over again.) Or is it an RPGRPSHAS?
I don't really think that's a bad thing. Honestly, I think trying to label a game with a genre is not unlike attempting to catch water in a net. The only thing gained is mild frustration. Look at Halo for instance. This article's entire premise is that Halo is a first-person shooter, or FPS, but it goes on to say that "...in effect, Halo pleases the whole spectrum of the action game audience." Is action used here as a genre description or a simple adjective, stating the game contains moments of action? It's hard to say really. According to the Holy Grail of truth and righteousness, an "action" game is defined as a game that "requires players to use quick reflexes and timing to overcome obstacles." If that description is so broad, hundreds of games must be considered "action." Pong is an action game. Mario is too. But I thought Mario is a platformer? Or is it a "collecting" game? Hell if I know.
What's the point of all this ranting? Besides giving my fingers exercise, the previous paragraphs were intended to show how futile genre pigeonholing is. With the release of games like Borderlands upcoming, it's clear genres are outdated. I have no suggestions on how to refer to games like this without genres though. I admit, they're handy at generalizing a game's content, but it'd be nice if there were a way to describe a game more accurately. Is Borderlands an FPS? Or is it a role-playing game? Or a hack-and-slash with guns (which I guess would make it a shooter all over again.) Or is it an RPGRPSHAS?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
HALO 3: ODST
Release Date: 09-22-09
Xbox 360
ODST is a breath of fresh air into the Halo franchise, a series that suffered, in my opinion, with the release of Halo Wars. Contained in the package are three main attractions: the ODST campaign, the new multiplayer mode "Firefight," and the Halo 3 multiplayer experience, all about which I will go into detail momentarily. For $60, the game offers a substantial amount of gameplay. But keep in mind, it is the Halo gameplay that has become familiar to Xbox owners since Day 1, and this may bother some people.
First of all, I need to mention that the voice acting is spectacular. The writing, though, is subpar. Allow me to explain. For any fans of the cult classic television show "Firefly," this game is almost a must-buy based on voice-acting talents alone, which feature not one, not two, but THREE "Firefly" cast members' voices, playing what is essentially reprisals of their former roles. Nathan Fillion voices Buck, the leader of the ODST, or Orbital Drop Ship Troopers, unit. The heavy weapons specialist is done by Adam Baldwin, and the pilot is voiced by Alan Tudyk. Obviously, for anyone familiar with "Firefly," the similarities are clear. As for the writing, much more could have been done. The lines are flat and cheesy but delivered with gusto, though even the wonderful cast can't always make up for the sometimes stilted dialogue.
(ODST's "Firefight" mode)
(If you've played Halo online, you know exactly what's going on here.)
Ultimately I feel Halo 3: ODST was worth the (my friend's) money, and which the combination of the solid campaign, "Firefight," and the always...interesting...Halo 3 multiplayer, there is enough here to keep everyone but the most stalwart Halo-haters busy for a while, at least until Modern Warfare 2 is released in November.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
EA's NHL 10
What is this? Oh, the Stanley Cup. Okay, it's asking me to hit A.
I hit A. It's says to put in my name.
Done. Why am I skating around now? What's going on?
This is the tutorial, and the player suffers through it. I say suffers because ultimately it's irrelevant.
Okay, that was dumb. Can I start now?
The player enters the main menu.
I give up.
(Below, the bane of my very existence, or the menu)
EA's NHL 10 is graphically gorgeous. The player models are beautifully rendered, the crowd is much improved from last year's iteration. The ice gleams at the beginning of the game, and as play continues, it gets noticeably worn. These are the things a good hockey game has; these are the details the fans of the coolest game on Earth have come to expect from EA. But the glory of these things is diminished by the monolithic, Kafka-esque menu system. And with the addition of "Be a GM" mode (more on that later) the player will spend significant time navigating through skater lists and team stats. At one point, to sort skaters by specific stats or attributes, the player will press X. At another point he'll press in the right analog stick. It is this inconsistency that really hampers the fun-factor of being a GM.Speaking of which, if one can manage getting through the Rube Goldberg machine of video game menu systems, new addition "Be a GM" mode is worth one's time. The depth is limitless. The player assumes control of an NHL team (or could create one's own) and guides it through the season, from draft to free agency to the regular season to the playoffs and back again. The game rates your performance and logs your statistics as you attempt to elevate yourself to "legendary" status.
As soon as you pop the disc into your console you'll be bombarded by watered-down pop-rock and immediately feel the desire to import a custom playlist, which is an option. This is really the only downside to the sound quality though, as the arenas, crowds, and one-ice action is immaculate, except for one thing. Every once and awhile, a random grunt or wordless shout is put forth through the speakers with the force of a tornado, for no discernible reason. This is hilarious at first, but ultimately annoying.
As with last year's award-winning version, "Be a Pro" mode is still a favorite, though the bugs and occasional glitches are still present. Also, the online multiplayer has been expanded.
(Marc Savard and
Zdeno Chara demonstrate board play,
or just really like Sergei Samsonov)
There are two gameplay features new to this year's version and EA has been making damn sure you know about them. If you don't, they obviously failed. But they've been trying. First off is the "revolutionary" new board play. Now you can pin the puck carrier against the boards and control the puck with your skates. This is good in theory, but in practice, the AI can always get you pinned, no matter what, as if by magnetism. The other new feature is the first person fighting, another good idea in theory. Again, in practice, this feature is no where near what EA intended. In theory, you dodge punches with the left stick while trying to aim the perfect punch, but in reality you just wildly push the right stick up and down repeatedly, throwing haymakers, until one of you falls down.
Overall, EA's NHL 10 is a good game. Is it worth $60? That's debatable. If you're an obsessive hockey fanatic like me then it definitely is. If you're just a casual sports fan, then maybe. Of course, the casual sports fan really doesn't like hockey, so probably not. But regardless of all this, just keep this in mind: at least it's not NHL 2K10.
GRAPHICS: 2.3
SOUND: 2.1
CONTROLS: 1.8
FUN-NESS: 2.0
OVERALL: 8.2
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
I Hate Flash Games
It's true. Goddamned flash games ruin my eyes and motivation. I feel like if I don't tear myself away, I'll wear out my arrow keys, and the A S D and W keys, and occasionally Z or X, depending on the cirumstances. Of course, I'd do the same in an MMO, but at least at the end of an MMO I'll have a sense of accomplishment. An MMO session does not end by hurriedly closing the browser window when someone with authority meanders by.
These damn high scores are like bench marks for the perennial procrastinator. I think you can classify makers of flash games into two categories: They are either designing a game they think will be good and fun and whatever, or they are designing a game to do nothing more than addict people and waste their time.
Most are in the latter category.
These damn high scores are like bench marks for the perennial procrastinator. I think you can classify makers of flash games into two categories: They are either designing a game they think will be good and fun and whatever, or they are designing a game to do nothing more than addict people and waste their time.
Most are in the latter category.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Video Games As Art
"Art is the human disposition of sensible or intelligible matter for an aesthetic end." - James Joyce
"Art is hard." - Tim Kasher
Are video games art? What is art? Does it really matter? These are the questions I find myself asking...myself. Obviously video games are an industry, and as an industry it garners more earnings than music and cinema, two creative mediums that people do consider art. Does the fact that video games make a shit ton of money somehow prevent them from being considered art?
Think about it. Everyone knows what art is. It's the Monet and the Van Gogh and the Da Vinci. Those are ARTISTS. But what about the Warhol and the Pollock and the Lichtenstein? In contemporary views, these more avant-garde, outside the box artists produced art. Time has shown us that while there is a clear distinction between these groups of artists, both are, in fact, artists.
("Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' Defender, Gameboy Advance. Click to enbiggen.)
All those old dead people are all within the same medium, yes. VISUAL ART. The viewer sees the painting and reacts to it. As defined by my infallible source of indisputable information, "art" is defined as "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions." According to that definition, its pretty hard to disagree with video games as art. In fact, I'd go so far to say a video game can be several genres of art, all wrapped up in a nice $60 package. I'm not saying ALL games are art (one in particular comes to mind), but some can be.
This article mentions BioShock as possible art. I believe it is. First of all, look at this:
(Superman 64 = Not Art)
Now look at this:
(BioShock = Art)
Seems pretty obvious to me. But to delve further, please recall the above quote about the definition of art. Art is "deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses." BioShock does this, therefore, it is art.
Of course, if the sense Superman 64's developers were trying to deliberately invoke in the viewer was GUT-WRENCHING NAUSEA, then I suppose it is also art.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Reviews v. Critique
Video games are not new by modern standards. Our textbook mentions the "cathode ray tube amusement device" created in 1947. Even though I can't imagine finding that object remotely enjoyable, it qualifies, in a very basic sense, as a video game. So digital games, in some form or another, have been on this Earth for 62 years. How is it impossible to find a historical critique? Why is it only very recently that people have begun to consider video games a legitimate medium that deserves to be taken seriously?
Like all new things, video games as a medium had to establish itself in society. While it is rapidly fading, the stigma associated with the more dedicated fans of video games is that of anti-society, of isolation, and of maladjustment. Perhaps this is the reason there are very little video game criticisms available. And while some may consider a review a form of criticism, it is not. As this article states, "criticism is an informed discussion, by an intelligent and knowledgeable observer of a medium, of the merits and importance (or lack thereof) of a particular work. Criticism isn't intended to help the reader decide whether or not to plunk down money on something; some readers' purchase decisions may be influenced, but guiding their decisions is not the purpose of the critical work."
Clearly, reviews are a means by which people attempt to influence a market and therefore cannot be trusted to present a reader with unbiased views on a particular video game or the medium as a whole. While reviews may have begun as a more pure form of critique, the increasingly commercialized video game market has driven reviews into formulaic consumer influencers. Even this review of Fallout 3, though calling to attention the limited scope that modern reviews have in judging a game's merits in an objective sense, is still nothing more than a review, giving a score at the end that will influence a potential buyer into spending or saving his or her $60.
Like all new things, video games as a medium had to establish itself in society. While it is rapidly fading, the stigma associated with the more dedicated fans of video games is that of anti-society, of isolation, and of maladjustment. Perhaps this is the reason there are very little video game criticisms available. And while some may consider a review a form of criticism, it is not. As this article states, "criticism is an informed discussion, by an intelligent and knowledgeable observer of a medium, of the merits and importance (or lack thereof) of a particular work. Criticism isn't intended to help the reader decide whether or not to plunk down money on something; some readers' purchase decisions may be influenced, but guiding their decisions is not the purpose of the critical work."
Clearly, reviews are a means by which people attempt to influence a market and therefore cannot be trusted to present a reader with unbiased views on a particular video game or the medium as a whole. While reviews may have begun as a more pure form of critique, the increasingly commercialized video game market has driven reviews into formulaic consumer influencers. Even this review of Fallout 3, though calling to attention the limited scope that modern reviews have in judging a game's merits in an objective sense, is still nothing more than a review, giving a score at the end that will influence a potential buyer into spending or saving his or her $60.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Hipster Police
So I was reading this article and I have a thought:
THOUGHT: What makes a game "hip?" Do you even refer to something a hipster likes as "hip", or is that a dated term? I have no idea. The more active I am in the world of the internet (cue fog machine) the more I realize how disjointed I am from it. Obviously I play video games on a regular basis, but I find the most enjoyable ones are the ones everyone likes. It sounds like a no-brainer I think, but apparently that simple ideology excludes me from ever being a hipster. Now, games are different than music. It's possible to like a band no one else does and define yourself, as the article states, "by what you are not." One can balk in the face of popular culture and choose to only listen to the unlistenable, but to what gain? To be "cool"? That attitude bothers me. What's wrong with liking something because you like something, not because other people don't?
Here's how it applies to video games. The best ones are the ones that had the most creative, talented team of developers creating it with the largest amount of support in the form of money and time from a successful company. Occasionally it is possible to create something without a lot of people and a big budget. Some games spring to mind, such has Braid, but, let's be honest, that doesn't happen as often as a bigger game is successful.
THOUGHT: What makes a game "hip?" Do you even refer to something a hipster likes as "hip", or is that a dated term? I have no idea. The more active I am in the world of the internet (cue fog machine) the more I realize how disjointed I am from it. Obviously I play video games on a regular basis, but I find the most enjoyable ones are the ones everyone likes. It sounds like a no-brainer I think, but apparently that simple ideology excludes me from ever being a hipster. Now, games are different than music. It's possible to like a band no one else does and define yourself, as the article states, "by what you are not." One can balk in the face of popular culture and choose to only listen to the unlistenable, but to what gain? To be "cool"? That attitude bothers me. What's wrong with liking something because you like something, not because other people don't?
"That speaker system is boss!"
Here's how it applies to video games. The best ones are the ones that had the most creative, talented team of developers creating it with the largest amount of support in the form of money and time from a successful company. Occasionally it is possible to create something without a lot of people and a big budget. Some games spring to mind, such has Braid, but, let's be honest, that doesn't happen as often as a bigger game is successful.
Music In Video Games
So I was in one of those moods where I just wanna take everything I listen to and recreate scenes from Fahrenheit 451. I often play video games on mute and listen to music instead, but that's getting so difficult nowadays. Before it was just about gameplay; it didn't matter what the graphics looked like, as long as it was satisfying to get the spiny blue mammal from point A to point B while collecting enough rings to do a killer magic trick.
The reason I reference Sonic is this: I was actually playing the original today. It got me thinking; why the hell is it fun? What compels me to continue? There's no problem-solving involved, no choices, hardly any skill. Go here. Okay, did that. Great. Oh, next level. Go here. Avoid holes and bad guys and the giant spikes. Good. Now go here. Repeat. Game over. But I still played the ever-loving crap out of it. Why?
The music of Sonic is really nothing to be proud of. Mindless 16-bit melodies spread paper-thin over tinny drum beats tweaked to the breaking point for no reason other than to instill a feeling of slight urgency in the listener. Hence the mute. But games now are ridiculous. I'm a fan of sports games, because (follow me, here) I like sports. The bad thing, though, about liking sports is that a lot of other people like sports, and I tend not to like what a lot of other people like. Call me elitist* but it's just the way of the world. So in all modern sports games, there are countless tracks of licensed popular music. And honestly, save for a few, are 16-bit melodies spread blah blah blah see above. I don't know if it's the circular tendencies of popular trends, but if you take away the angry black guy or the whiny mygirlfriendjustdumpedthecrapoutofme white guy, what do you have? Sonic the Hedgehog.
Now, I'm not saying that music is bad, per se, just uninspired. I can think of several games with non-licensed original tracks that are just as tedious. Anything from Japan, for instance. And no, I'm not lying. Need proof? Dynasty Warriors 1-6. I rest my case. I honestly don't remember anything from those games but a wildly distorted Chinese history and a perpetuating guitar riff that will make an infant's head collapse with its self-indulgence. It would make Eddie Van Halen either smile or implode.
So's I got to thinking again; are there any games with good, original music? And when I say "good", I don't mean easily ignorable so when you think back on the gaming experience you can't think of anything bad to say about it. I mean it had a significant role in the overall atmosphere of the game. Music-based games like Rock Band / Guitar Hero do not count, obviously. And neither does Halo, in my opinion. That sound you are hearing right now when I mentioned it? Yeah, that's not music, that's three notes of ambient noise.
I'll pose it to readers: What games fit the above description?
* I'll answer.
The reason I reference Sonic is this: I was actually playing the original today. It got me thinking; why the hell is it fun? What compels me to continue? There's no problem-solving involved, no choices, hardly any skill. Go here. Okay, did that. Great. Oh, next level. Go here. Avoid holes and bad guys and the giant spikes. Good. Now go here. Repeat. Game over. But I still played the ever-loving crap out of it. Why?
The music of Sonic is really nothing to be proud of. Mindless 16-bit melodies spread paper-thin over tinny drum beats tweaked to the breaking point for no reason other than to instill a feeling of slight urgency in the listener. Hence the mute. But games now are ridiculous. I'm a fan of sports games, because (follow me, here) I like sports. The bad thing, though, about liking sports is that a lot of other people like sports, and I tend not to like what a lot of other people like. Call me elitist* but it's just the way of the world. So in all modern sports games, there are countless tracks of licensed popular music. And honestly, save for a few, are 16-bit melodies spread blah blah blah see above. I don't know if it's the circular tendencies of popular trends, but if you take away the angry black guy or the whiny mygirlfriendjustdumpedthecrapoutofme white guy, what do you have? Sonic the Hedgehog.
Now, I'm not saying that music is bad, per se, just uninspired. I can think of several games with non-licensed original tracks that are just as tedious. Anything from Japan, for instance. And no, I'm not lying. Need proof? Dynasty Warriors 1-6. I rest my case. I honestly don't remember anything from those games but a wildly distorted Chinese history and a perpetuating guitar riff that will make an infant's head collapse with its self-indulgence. It would make Eddie Van Halen either smile or implode.
So's I got to thinking again; are there any games with good, original music? And when I say "good", I don't mean easily ignorable so when you think back on the gaming experience you can't think of anything bad to say about it. I mean it had a significant role in the overall atmosphere of the game. Music-based games like Rock Band / Guitar Hero do not count, obviously. And neither does Halo, in my opinion. That sound you are hearing right now when I mentioned it? Yeah, that's not music, that's three notes of ambient noise.
I'll pose it to readers: What games fit the above description?
* I'll answer.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
MINI-BIO of ME
As per popular demand, here is a biography of the man behind the handle.
Vukcic is a character from a series of mystery novels centered around the moribund genius Nero Wolfe. It's pronounced Vook-Cheech or Voo-Sheek. Either one is acceptable apparently. I use it for everything, so if you see it, it's probably me.
My name is Nick Pugliese. That's pronounced Poo-Lee-A-Zee. Thanks, parents.
I'm a 23 year old American male. I'm 6 foot, 2 inches, and I weigh 231 lbs. I drive a navy blue S-10, but it's changing colors because I keep side-swiping random parts of structures.
I live in Lapeer. I like Lapeer more than Flint. Yeah, I said it.
I have a dog. He's a Siberian husky named Hank and he's a bastard. He's also semi-blind. But nobody's perfect, dogs doubly so. I also have a fiddler crab named Citizen Snips.
I'm watching the Tigers as I type this, as I'm apt to do. Baseball is my second favorite sport, but it's really just something to watch in the summer NHL off-season.
I really like Yoo-Hoo.
I own a PC I use for gaming, and I also have a 360 and a DS. PS3's are for chumps, so I don't have one. (Actually I just don't have any money. That's why I don't have one.)
My favorite bands include the Fiery Furnaces, Electric Six, Modest Mouse, Mastodon, Rush.
I've had an appendectomy.
I live in an apartment by myself, though my girlfriend comes over every day. We've just discovered the TV show "Lost" on Hulu and have been watching it almost every night. One interesting thing about watching it is if you tell anyone, it's ridiculous how eager people are to ruin things for us.
If anyone needs to know anything else about me other than this information, feel free to ask.
Vukcic is a character from a series of mystery novels centered around the moribund genius Nero Wolfe. It's pronounced Vook-Cheech or Voo-Sheek. Either one is acceptable apparently. I use it for everything, so if you see it, it's probably me.
My name is Nick Pugliese. That's pronounced Poo-Lee-A-Zee. Thanks, parents.
I'm a 23 year old American male. I'm 6 foot, 2 inches, and I weigh 231 lbs. I drive a navy blue S-10, but it's changing colors because I keep side-swiping random parts of structures.
I live in Lapeer. I like Lapeer more than Flint. Yeah, I said it.
I have a dog. He's a Siberian husky named Hank and he's a bastard. He's also semi-blind. But nobody's perfect, dogs doubly so. I also have a fiddler crab named Citizen Snips.
I'm watching the Tigers as I type this, as I'm apt to do. Baseball is my second favorite sport, but it's really just something to watch in the summer NHL off-season.
I really like Yoo-Hoo.
I own a PC I use for gaming, and I also have a 360 and a DS. PS3's are for chumps, so I don't have one. (Actually I just don't have any money. That's why I don't have one.)
My favorite bands include the Fiery Furnaces, Electric Six, Modest Mouse, Mastodon, Rush.
I've had an appendectomy.
I live in an apartment by myself, though my girlfriend comes over every day. We've just discovered the TV show "Lost" on Hulu and have been watching it almost every night. One interesting thing about watching it is if you tell anyone, it's ridiculous how eager people are to ruin things for us.
If anyone needs to know anything else about me other than this information, feel free to ask.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
5 Games That Influenced Me
I've been thinking about this a lot since...well, since I was told to think about this. I've come to the conclusion that the best way to go about this kind of thing is not to look at individual games but series of them. That means all sequels and prequels, good or bad. I can't look back on my life and just omit parts that were less than agreeable, can I? I'll answer for you. No, I can't. I've been playing video games for as long as I can remember. I'm the oldest child in my family so I had to fight with my parents constantly growing up about what is "normal" for a kid playing video games. I was maybe 6 or 7 when I got my Sega Genesis, and even then I knew better than them how to answer that question.
5 Game Series That Changed My Outlook on The Medium:
Mortal Kombat: Mortal Kombat 2 was the first game I was good at, and I know that because it's the first game in which I beat my father handily. The characters are so ingrained in my personality that I can't hear someone say the phrase "get over here" in any context whatsoever without thinking of Scorpion. While I disagree with the direction the games have been going lately, I still occasionally play the originals. One of my fondest gaming memories involves sitting in my friend's basement playing Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 for hours. He refused to use any character other than Shao Khan and was nigh impossible to take down. I finally beat him with Noob Saibot, but the fact that it took me 99 matches to win and how he would no shut up about it were a source of much frustration. This is the reason I'm fundamentally against making bosses playable characters under any circumstances.
Civilization: This series was my introduction to computer gaming, as well as insomnia. One more turn, one more turn, then the next thing I know the sun's coming up. And for a kid who had previously never stayed up past midnight, this was significant. I blame my parents for that. Who puts an IBM 3.1 with the original Civ in their kid's bedroom? Shame on them. It's because of that series of games that I am a history major today, and it was might first experience with a game that could also educate while still being ridiculously entertaining. The modern iterations of the series have advanced drastically in intricacy and presentation, but I still remember so clearly making my chariot square bump their spearman square until one crumbles. Also, I learned to always build walls, no matter what. Trust me.
Sonic the Hedgehog: "Sonic? Really? You know that Sonic is just Mario with rings, right?" Oh yeah? Can Mario use his own body in a pinball machine? I think not. The above quote is one I hear often when I utter the heretical statement, "I like Sonic more than Mario." It's true though. I'm not saying Mario isn't fun, but I grew up with a Genesis. The only Nintendo product I've ever owned in my entire life is a DS, and I've only had it for a few months. For me, Sonic is the epitome in platforming. Killing that bastard Dr. Robotnik was so satisfying as a 10 year old. And that's the thing; it was with Sonic that I learned of the sense of achievement that can come with video gaming. If you're playing Sorry! with your grandmother you aren't going to really be all that proud of yourself if you win, but you beat the hell out of Dr. Robotnik riding in his crazy mechanical suit thing, and damn if I didn't pat myself on the back.
Fallout: Before anyone asks, yes, I am one of those people that prefer the first two games in the series. I did love Bathesda's crack at it, but for me, I grew up with Black Isle's originals, and the quirkiness and dark humor were just more evident. Fallout as a series though represents the first time I felt the impact a great story can have on a video game. Would Fallout have been successful if it didn't have that story, or that humor, or that sense of utter desolation? Absolutely not. And that was achieved with good writing and good art direction working together, hand in hand, bringing the apocalypse to my computer monitor. Most of the games I had played before Fallout didn't really have much in the way of "story," save for one: SpaceQuest.
SpaceQuest: This game probably had the biggest impact on my childhood. Don't laugh, it's true. This is the series that killed my grades and introduced me to the wonders of a sedentary lifestyle. It's amazing. Being Roger Wilco, bumbling my way through the galaxy, was the greatest experience I've ever had with a video game. I've played all 6 iterations. It's the kind of game that makes me feel old, especially when I have this conversation with people: Them: "What the hell is SpaceQuest?" Me: "They just don't make 'em like this anymore." Or course, if I spoke in Hyperlink, I'd just say: "SpaceQuest." This series solidified for me what makes a top-notch gaming experience. SpaceQuest had humor. No matter how crappy the gameplay is in something, if it's absolutely hilarious, I'll still play it probably.
So that's me. Just like all the hipster kids use music to broadcast their personality to everyone, or movie nerds wear shirts that say "8 1/2", I have this list.
5 Game Series That Changed My Outlook on The Medium:
Mortal Kombat: Mortal Kombat 2 was the first game I was good at, and I know that because it's the first game in which I beat my father handily. The characters are so ingrained in my personality that I can't hear someone say the phrase "get over here" in any context whatsoever without thinking of Scorpion. While I disagree with the direction the games have been going lately, I still occasionally play the originals. One of my fondest gaming memories involves sitting in my friend's basement playing Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 for hours. He refused to use any character other than Shao Khan and was nigh impossible to take down. I finally beat him with Noob Saibot, but the fact that it took me 99 matches to win and how he would no shut up about it were a source of much frustration. This is the reason I'm fundamentally against making bosses playable characters under any circumstances.
Civilization: This series was my introduction to computer gaming, as well as insomnia. One more turn, one more turn, then the next thing I know the sun's coming up. And for a kid who had previously never stayed up past midnight, this was significant. I blame my parents for that. Who puts an IBM 3.1 with the original Civ in their kid's bedroom? Shame on them. It's because of that series of games that I am a history major today, and it was might first experience with a game that could also educate while still being ridiculously entertaining. The modern iterations of the series have advanced drastically in intricacy and presentation, but I still remember so clearly making my chariot square bump their spearman square until one crumbles. Also, I learned to always build walls, no matter what. Trust me.
Sonic the Hedgehog: "Sonic? Really? You know that Sonic is just Mario with rings, right?" Oh yeah? Can Mario use his own body in a pinball machine? I think not. The above quote is one I hear often when I utter the heretical statement, "I like Sonic more than Mario." It's true though. I'm not saying Mario isn't fun, but I grew up with a Genesis. The only Nintendo product I've ever owned in my entire life is a DS, and I've only had it for a few months. For me, Sonic is the epitome in platforming. Killing that bastard Dr. Robotnik was so satisfying as a 10 year old. And that's the thing; it was with Sonic that I learned of the sense of achievement that can come with video gaming. If you're playing Sorry! with your grandmother you aren't going to really be all that proud of yourself if you win, but you beat the hell out of Dr. Robotnik riding in his crazy mechanical suit thing, and damn if I didn't pat myself on the back.
Fallout: Before anyone asks, yes, I am one of those people that prefer the first two games in the series. I did love Bathesda's crack at it, but for me, I grew up with Black Isle's originals, and the quirkiness and dark humor were just more evident. Fallout as a series though represents the first time I felt the impact a great story can have on a video game. Would Fallout have been successful if it didn't have that story, or that humor, or that sense of utter desolation? Absolutely not. And that was achieved with good writing and good art direction working together, hand in hand, bringing the apocalypse to my computer monitor. Most of the games I had played before Fallout didn't really have much in the way of "story," save for one: SpaceQuest.
SpaceQuest: This game probably had the biggest impact on my childhood. Don't laugh, it's true. This is the series that killed my grades and introduced me to the wonders of a sedentary lifestyle. It's amazing. Being Roger Wilco, bumbling my way through the galaxy, was the greatest experience I've ever had with a video game. I've played all 6 iterations. It's the kind of game that makes me feel old, especially when I have this conversation with people: Them: "What the hell is SpaceQuest?" Me: "They just don't make 'em like this anymore." Or course, if I spoke in Hyperlink, I'd just say: "SpaceQuest." This series solidified for me what makes a top-notch gaming experience. SpaceQuest had humor. No matter how crappy the gameplay is in something, if it's absolutely hilarious, I'll still play it probably.
So that's me. Just like all the hipster kids use music to broadcast their personality to everyone, or movie nerds wear shirts that say "8 1/2", I have this list.
Holiday Wishlist
Out of curiosity: I know the holidays are right around the corner, and with the holidays comes the influx in video game releases. So what are everyone's wishlists? You know, if cash were no obstacle, as in if you had a truckful of money in bags marked with a big dollar sign. Also, though not a prerequisite, you could enjoy pipes and tophats and tying women to train tracks. If you'd like to talk about any of that feel free, though I don't really feel qualified to help you. What I do want to know is the wishlist, so stop distracting me and get to it.
I'll start it off:
EA's NHL 10 - Release Date, 09-15-09 I know we're all still getting to know each other and are still fairly anonymous. I for one don't know any of you. But something everyone will eventually come to know about me is this: I have two major recreational passions. The first is games of any kind (not just video) and the second is hockey. If knowing obscure statistics of current and former NHL players was a high paying job, then I'd have a high paying job, and I'd happily work overtime. With the inclusion of GM Mode in this year's version, which includes the return of fantasy draft, I can already feel the necessary truncation of social events beginning to make more time to sit in my living room.
Scribblenauts - Release Date, 09-15-09 This is the game I demanded a birthday DS from my girlfriend for. The idea of solving puzzles with a dinosaur armed with a flamethrower riding a tricycle wielding prepositional phrases is just brilliant in my book. I don't care that I have to play as...whatever that guy is. There's something about the protagonist's mittens and headgear that screams (or jots?) "should probably stay inside." Mainly, the reason I want this game is so when I get stuck on a level, it'll be the first time I have absolutely no one to blame but myself.
Borderlands - Release Date 10-20-09 I've been watching this game's progress for awhile. Like our instructor, I have a soft spot for all things post-apocalyptia. Among my friends I've been describing this game as Fallout meets Modern Warfare. I don't know how accurate that really is, but it's sufficient to get them to leave me alone. I've never really been a fan of cel-shading, but I'm going into this one with an open mind. There's something about using cel-shading as an aesthetic choice that chafes with me, and that's partly the reason I never bought Champions Online after beta-ing it. But the gameplay that Borderlands promises, along with the ridiculous amount of customization possibilities and the RPG elements, might be enough to allow me to tolerate cartoony-ness.
Dragon Age: Origins - Release Date 11-03-09 In the same way that some people blindly consume everything produced by Hollister or Nabisco, I throw money at anything that comes out of Bioware's offices. I love Bioware so much I wish I could be friends with it and invite it over to play Bioware games together. But it has to bring it's own, because I'm not taking turns. The thing about DA:O that I find most intriguing is the evolution of the player's decision-making. This game promises to go even further with having decisions affect overall game play. Of course, if the official media release detailing the game was simply: "Bioware made this, give us your money" I'd say "okay."
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Release Date 10-10-09 I still regularly play the original Modern Warfare, so this one's really a no-brainer. The way that the original was just head-and-shoulders above any other online FPS experience kept me playing long after all the preteen guttermouths migrated back to Halo 3. I don't have the budget to spring for the night-vision, however. I guess that will have to wait until I join the real-life military. But because of the original, I know way more than I should about automatic weaponry. The sequel offers improvements in graphics and menus, as well as slight changes in the online leveling system. I can't wait to continue my murderous rampage.
HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, 09-15-09
Tekken 6, 10-27-09
Left 4 Dead 2 11-17-09
Assassin's Creed 2 11-17-09
I'll start it off:
EA's NHL 10 - Release Date, 09-15-09 I know we're all still getting to know each other and are still fairly anonymous. I for one don't know any of you. But something everyone will eventually come to know about me is this: I have two major recreational passions. The first is games of any kind (not just video) and the second is hockey. If knowing obscure statistics of current and former NHL players was a high paying job, then I'd have a high paying job, and I'd happily work overtime. With the inclusion of GM Mode in this year's version, which includes the return of fantasy draft, I can already feel the necessary truncation of social events beginning to make more time to sit in my living room.
Scribblenauts - Release Date, 09-15-09 This is the game I demanded a birthday DS from my girlfriend for. The idea of solving puzzles with a dinosaur armed with a flamethrower riding a tricycle wielding prepositional phrases is just brilliant in my book. I don't care that I have to play as...whatever that guy is. There's something about the protagonist's mittens and headgear that screams (or jots?) "should probably stay inside." Mainly, the reason I want this game is so when I get stuck on a level, it'll be the first time I have absolutely no one to blame but myself.
Borderlands - Release Date 10-20-09 I've been watching this game's progress for awhile. Like our instructor, I have a soft spot for all things post-apocalyptia. Among my friends I've been describing this game as Fallout meets Modern Warfare. I don't know how accurate that really is, but it's sufficient to get them to leave me alone. I've never really been a fan of cel-shading, but I'm going into this one with an open mind. There's something about using cel-shading as an aesthetic choice that chafes with me, and that's partly the reason I never bought Champions Online after beta-ing it. But the gameplay that Borderlands promises, along with the ridiculous amount of customization possibilities and the RPG elements, might be enough to allow me to tolerate cartoony-ness.
Dragon Age: Origins - Release Date 11-03-09 In the same way that some people blindly consume everything produced by Hollister or Nabisco, I throw money at anything that comes out of Bioware's offices. I love Bioware so much I wish I could be friends with it and invite it over to play Bioware games together. But it has to bring it's own, because I'm not taking turns. The thing about DA:O that I find most intriguing is the evolution of the player's decision-making. This game promises to go even further with having decisions affect overall game play. Of course, if the official media release detailing the game was simply: "Bioware made this, give us your money" I'd say "okay."
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 - Release Date 10-10-09 I still regularly play the original Modern Warfare, so this one's really a no-brainer. The way that the original was just head-and-shoulders above any other online FPS experience kept me playing long after all the preteen guttermouths migrated back to Halo 3. I don't have the budget to spring for the night-vision, however. I guess that will have to wait until I join the real-life military. But because of the original, I know way more than I should about automatic weaponry. The sequel offers improvements in graphics and menus, as well as slight changes in the online leveling system. I can't wait to continue my murderous rampage.
HONORABLE MENTIONS:
Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, 09-15-09
Tekken 6, 10-27-09
Left 4 Dead 2 11-17-09
Assassin's Creed 2 11-17-09
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Videogames?
The English language is no longer defined by Webster. If you ask people whether they look up words at all, how many would actually use a dictionary and not dictionary.com? Why look something up if you have a fail-safe red squiggly line bringing all your mistakes to your attention? There is no discernible difference between videogame and video game, save for one. That red line only underscores one version of the term. So when people choose to refer to the medium as videogames, what are they really doing? I have a feeling it's essentially a colloquial choice. As I said, there's really no difference. It's not like some say video games, while others say interactive entertainment. The latter in that example is what mean old people say. It's like refering to a skateboard. Those tightpants kids (tightpants is apparently an acceptable word according to Firefox, by the way) refer to their chosen medium of transportation as a board or deck. Only their parents or their parents' parents would call it a horizontal bipedal wheeled trasportation tool. I think people consciously choose to use the term "videogame" instead of "video game" is to simply make the medium their own. Eliminating the space is their way of describing a hobby using their terms. I still prefer video games, though. I like spaces.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
